• megopie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Gee golly, why would the GOP not want poor people in rural areas to not have internet? Isn’t that their largest constituency? Almost like those people having access to information other than through “local” news channels owned by Sinclair, Fox News, and their local church scares them or something.

      • megopie@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Thing is, people don’t pay attention to it, that’s how it works. If they really dig in to it, they notice the contradictions. It just plays in the background and they pick up the bits that speak to them in some way, they internalize those bits and ignore the rest, then they might repeat those bits, adding to the background noise.

        You just learn to ignore basically all of it and don’t challenge it because everyone been fed rhetoric to support the bits that speak to them, and you don’t have any other place to draw a coherent counter narrative from.

        Now with the internet, there’s spaces that give other narratives and rhetoric, ones that don’t feel weird, alienating, pompous, and aren’t constantly speaking down to you.

        • bermuda@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I used to live in a fairly Republican area of the country and you’re 100% correct. It’s not something people watch, it’s just that fox is always in the background. bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, the country club, it’s the default TV channel wherever you go. If you ask to change the channel people look at you like you’ve gone insane.

          • megopie@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s starting to fail as a system of manufacturing consensus. largely because of the internet, people who get access to the internet run head first in to stuff that contradicts fundamental assumptions that have been drilled in to them. Go to these areas and you’ll see a lot more dissent than you used to.

            It’s really hurt a lot of people’s willingness to trust any “authoritative source”. It’s these sources fault for creating these absurd echo chambers and not questioning what would happen when they inevitably failed.

  • shoe@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    “While you have repeatedly claimed that the ACP is necessary for connecting participating households to the Internet, it appears the vast majority of tax dollars have gone to households that already had broadband prior to the subsidy,” the Republicans’ December 2023 letter to Rosenworcel said.

    That may be partly explained by the fact that many ACP recipients were getting a different discount under a predecessor program that ended once the ACP was implemented. The $30 monthly ACP benefit replaced the previous $50 monthly subsidy from the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program that started enrolling users in May 2021.

    • ono@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Or by people formerly paying for their internet service with money that should have been going toward food or heat.

      Losing the $30 monthly discount could force families to choose between broadband and other necessities,

      Exactly.

      It’s also important to note that some ISPs created a low-cost service plan specifically for ACP that will likely disappear if ACP goes away, leaving poor people stuck with a much higher bill that they have to pay themselves.