6 ms·

The EFF really needs to spend their bullets more carefully. And instead of these panicked press releases in response to the normal machinations of government, p

by tacos 11y ago

The EFF really needs to spend their bullets more carefully. And instead of these panicked press releases in response to the normal machinations of government, perhaps find a way to get their opinions heard and words inked while the bills are being drafted. Their only tool has been a hammer for decades now. And it's wearing thin. You can't kill every bill just because something is poorly worded -- even if you scare smarty/lefty internet people into believing the whole point is the worst possible construction. Frankly, we don't have that much power. Time to build up the rest of the toolbox.

readymade 11y ago
If the President is vowing to veto it, you can probably rest assured it's more than just "normal machinations of the government", as long as that implies "nothing to be concerned about".
- tacos 11y ago
  Pro tip: when someone makes a comment that's structured in the argument/persuasion form, you can look to the final sentence for something to riff on if you feel obliged to comment. Is there enough Senate support to override a veto? If not, then who gives a damn. This is already done. If yes, then why is Engadget asking me to contact my Representative instead of my Senator? This is clickbait-gone-amok with the usual I-didn't-pay-attention-in-high-school-civics class. The intent of the bill is clear. Frankly a Judge can rule either way if it were litigated anyway. Why don't we do the work toward cleaning this stuff up instead of just taking the most extreme negative position and killing things? Setting up a pressure cooker via gridlock is not going to produce a satisfactory outcome.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - lukeschlather 11y ago
    Contacting your representative might change their view. However, it will definitely make sure you are aware of their view, and remember it when they're up for reelection. The latter is valuable even when you can't affect the outcome.
    - tacos 11y ago
      Great idea! If the EFF were half as organized as the NRA, then they'd have a scorecard of my representative's voting record with regard to electronic freedom. I bet that post a week before election day would get more than 60 comments on HN. Again I'll refer you to my original comment: "time to build up the rest of the toolbox."
0xffff2 11y ago
>You can't kill every bill just because something is poorly worded Why not? Why should we ever be OK with passing poorly thought out legislation?
- tacos 11y ago
  Because laws are not rigid computer programs that solve logic riddles. They are broad strokes designed for the long term, to be interpreted by Judges. ANY contract can be read at least three ways. One of the comments here discusses advocacy vs scaremongering and computer science people seem particularly prone to having their buttons pushed by sloppy legalese. I wish the real world were clearer, but it just isn't. There's no excuse for poorly-thought out legislation -- but that's why we elect representatives. You can't rally the minions every time there's sloppy bricklaying. It does not scale. And as a citizen, you need to know when to spend your limited supply of outrage.
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    Then the industry are wasting an enormous amount of time and money making sure that the laws are written exactly this way. What idiots, right? Judges will ultimately make sure that the laws are interpreted in a way to favor net neutrality if we would just keep quiet about it.
    - Laaw 11y ago
      What grandparent post is failing to understand is that we're part of the process. Our outrage was anticipated, and the system expects us to cry out when a bad law gets proposed.
      - tacos 11y ago
        Grandparent (me) feels that if the EFF is trying to fight massive corporations and lobbyists with blog posts -- and the end result is three posts an hour on HN -- then perhaps the EFF needs to reflect upon its strategy. Also killing every bill that you don't like isn't a long-term strategy. They come back. They come back hidden. They come back stronger. They come back sleazier. Killing bills that are not perfect (obstructionism) merely pumps up the pressure cooker. This is not the path to reasonable legislation. Sometimes the path forward is to enact a bad bill then sue to set case law. I don't see a lot of these nuances discussed during the quarterly "this kills the internet" fire drills. Perhaps you still find them exciting? I do not.

by tacos 11y ago

readymade 11y ago

If the President is vowing to veto it, you can probably rest assured it's more than just "normal machinations of the government", as long as that implies "nothing to be concerned about".

tacos 11y ago
Pro tip: when someone makes a comment that's structured in the argument/persuasion form, you can look to the final sentence for something to riff on if you feel obliged to comment. Is there enough Senate support to override a veto? If not, then who gives a damn. This is already done. If yes, then why is Engadget asking me to contact my Representative instead of my Senator? This is clickbait-gone-amok with the usual I-didn't-pay-attention-in-high-school-civics class. The intent of the bill is clear. Frankly a Judge can rule either way if it were litigated anyway. Why don't we do the work toward cleaning this stuff up instead of just taking the most extreme negative position and killing things? Setting up a pressure cooker via gridlock is not going to produce a satisfactory outcome.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- lukeschlather 11y ago
  Contacting your representative might change their view. However, it will definitely make sure you are aware of their view, and remember it when they're up for reelection. The latter is valuable even when you can't affect the outcome.
  - tacos 11y ago
    Great idea! If the EFF were half as organized as the NRA, then they'd have a scorecard of my representative's voting record with regard to electronic freedom. I bet that post a week before election day would get more than 60 comments on HN. Again I'll refer you to my original comment: "time to build up the rest of the toolbox."

0xffff2 11y ago

>You can't kill every bill just because something is poorly worded Why not? Why should we ever be OK with passing poorly thought out legislation?

tacos 11y ago
Because laws are not rigid computer programs that solve logic riddles. They are broad strokes designed for the long term, to be interpreted by Judges. ANY contract can be read at least three ways. One of the comments here discusses advocacy vs scaremongering and computer science people seem particularly prone to having their buttons pushed by sloppy legalese. I wish the real world were clearer, but it just isn't. There's no excuse for poorly-thought out legislation -- but that's why we elect representatives. You can't rally the minions every time there's sloppy bricklaying. It does not scale. And as a citizen, you need to know when to spend your limited supply of outrage.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  Then the industry are wasting an enormous amount of time and money making sure that the laws are written exactly this way. What idiots, right? Judges will ultimately make sure that the laws are interpreted in a way to favor net neutrality if we would just keep quiet about it.
  - Laaw 11y ago
    What grandparent post is failing to understand is that we're part of the process. Our outrage was anticipated, and the system expects us to cry out when a bad law gets proposed.
    - tacos 11y ago
      Grandparent (me) feels that if the EFF is trying to fight massive corporations and lobbyists with blog posts -- and the end result is three posts an hour on HN -- then perhaps the EFF needs to reflect upon its strategy. Also killing every bill that you don't like isn't a long-term strategy. They come back. They come back hidden. They come back stronger. They come back sleazier. Killing bills that are not perfect (obstructionism) merely pumps up the pressure cooker. This is not the path to reasonable legislation. Sometimes the path forward is to enact a bad bill then sue to set case law. I don't see a lot of these nuances discussed during the quarterly "this kills the internet" fire drills. Perhaps you still find them exciting? I do not.