6 ms·

We have very different views of progress I guess. When I think of people who changed the world, my mind doesn't automatically jump to Elon Musk or Andrew Carneg

We have very different views of progress I guess. When I think of people who changed the world, my mind doesn't automatically jump to Elon Musk or Andrew Carnegie. I think of hard-won victories like Canada instituting Universal Health Care (starting in the less-known province of Saskatchewan), or people marching for Civil Rights and Labor Rights, all the while experts told them those things were unattainable and unrealistic. I think many people in those movements understood the system, just not in the way that the system approved of being understood. Martin Luther King Jr. has a great line about this: > First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. I think the equivalent to that "white moderate" today is the person who thinks that anyone rocking the boat and making demands today, like Swartz, is "naive". They wisely and patiently wait for a benevolent billionaire to save the day instead. The fact that they, too, benefit from the status quo and find the current situation very tolerable is a mere coincidence. I hope, since you freely imply that the absent Swartz was naive, that you have no problem with me calling you naive as well. -- edit: I too enjoy discussing things, but as soon as the conversation branches out it gets a bit messy. I just want to say that it's a deliberate mistake to judge past movements from their white-washed idealized educational versions. It disconnects them from the messy reality of activism, and from their current-day representatives. Replies below are saying basically "The Civil Rights leaders acted decisively and with wisdom, compared with this haphazard unorganized random act today". At the time, this is how this was portrayed by detractors: https://storage.synaptic.att.com/rest/objects/4a08bf2ea31f2e1704f5012314b18004f5ff1c88d017?uid=7be5f8cb9eb14188b0e40ae93aca2099%2FkingcenterATpalantirDOTnet&expires=1590984000&signature=epQQlbck7oWu9lum4AiRa9Yepk8%3D https://storage.synaptic.att.com/rest/objects/4a08bf2ea31f2e... You are welcome to look through MLK Jr.'s correspondence too: http://www.thekingcenter.org/genre/correspondence http://www.thekingcenter.org/genre/correspondence People calling his movement all over the place, erratic, etc. It's fascinating. Many, many people telling him and his ilk they were unrealistic and jumping the gun with ineffective direct action. A complete erasure of the dynamics MLK had with Malcolm X (good cop, bad cop). The FBI also conspired to try to get him to commit suicide, by blackmailing him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette...). If the future Swartz was aiming for ever becomes reality, he will be remembered as a pioneer.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Nah, I agree with the prior movements. Both you cited were won within the political system with legislation following. You didnt see the healthcare people stealing medical supplies out of hospitals and giving them out to all in need. That would be closer to Swartz failed move. Would have also failed. Swartz was naive because he thought that act would get a specific, positive response. Most people who understood the world predicted a different, negative response. The latter happened because we're right. If you want heros in this category, start sending praise to and lobbying for the librarians and people who fought court cases over first sale doctrine. Plus the academics that kept free copies on their own sites or avoided publishing in paywalls. If renegade, that would be SciHub lady who freed up tons of scientific knowledge, put it online, and avoided jail time since she knew how establishment would react. These people achieved numerous wins for the cause. Swartz was naive, failed, and killed himself. I'd rather have another SciHub, librarian win, or lobbyist-funded law to free up publications rather than another B&E and limited leak.
snarf21 10y ago
This is a very interesting thread and I personally think that you are both right. The big problem is that any of these things that need fixed are really complicated. The most successful approaches have to have a multi-prong plan. You do partially need to be a realist. You aren't going to be able to convince all people to ride a bicycle because it is good for the environment. You also need to be pragmatic. Take a targeted approach to go after the low hanging fruit, get the biggest bang for your buck. However, there are times when you will have to break free from the status quo and that won't be easy. Sometimes people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new future, but this is so hard. People like MLK understood that it was possible and put in the work (and was willing to pay the many costs) to force change. Very few causes have the leader with a simple plan and the charisma to inspire others and the fortitude to see it through no matter the cost. Take a look at how quickly Occupy Wall Street faded into nothing. People will always fear change and getting them to become a more selfless actor is no trivial matter.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  An important thing to consider is people cant act on abstractions. They need specifics that are easy to understand and act on. MLK's was to pass legislation banning discrimination. To this day, I still havent seen a plan of action when someone pushes Occupy. In this case, they need pre-packaged solution ready to go to lawmakers second popular support shows up. Here's a subset of what r a alists might do in this topic: 1. All taxpayer-funded research goes into public domain. All existing copyrights for such research goes into public domain. 2. Since it matters to academics, the articles can be published in specific journals for visibility or prestige. However, they must provide online access to them for a flat, cheap rate applied monthly or annually. That's for unlimited articles. 3. Private research can be copywritte to generate revenue for authors. Might put a limit on what they can charge or for how long. All that codified into a law called Taxpayers Get Their Research Act. Has a website, premade letters, and so on. Low friction. One or more celebrities reference it in the media promoting it. Make sure personas for major demographics justifying it from their viewpoints. Swarms of people start emailing or writting letters that might lead to some or all of it passing. Optionally rich people throwing cash at lobbyists for the same bill. That is how realists go for open access. Personally, I do my part by digging up linkz to key, paywalled papers from Wayback machine or other odd sources. Then send it to people that might use it.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Nah, I agree with the prior movements. Both you cited were won within the political system with legislation following. You didnt see the healthcare people stealing medical supplies out of hospitals and giving them out to all in need. That would be closer to Swartz failed move. Would have also failed. Swartz was naive because he thought that act would get a specific, positive response. Most people who understood the world predicted a different, negative response. The latter happened because we're right. If you want heros in this category, start sending praise to and lobbying for the librarians and people who fought court cases over first sale doctrine. Plus the academics that kept free copies on their own sites or avoided publishing in paywalls. If renegade, that would be SciHub lady who freed up tons of scientific knowledge, put it online, and avoided jail time since she knew how establishment would react. These people achieved numerous wins for the cause. Swartz was naive, failed, and killed himself. I'd rather have another SciHub, librarian win, or lobbyist-funded law to free up publications rather than another B&E and limited leak.

snarf21 10y ago

This is a very interesting thread and I personally think that you are both right. The big problem is that any of these things that need fixed are really complicated. The most successful approaches have to have a multi-prong plan. You do partially need to be a realist. You aren't going to be able to convince all people to ride a bicycle because it is good for the environment. You also need to be pragmatic. Take a targeted approach to go after the low hanging fruit, get the biggest bang for your buck. However, there are times when you will have to break free from the status quo and that won't be easy. Sometimes people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new future, but this is so hard. People like MLK understood that it was possible and put in the work (and was willing to pay the many costs) to force change. Very few causes have the leader with a simple plan and the charisma to inspire others and the fortitude to see it through no matter the cost. Take a look at how quickly Occupy Wall Street faded into nothing. People will always fear change and getting them to become a more selfless actor is no trivial matter.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
An important thing to consider is people cant act on abstractions. They need specifics that are easy to understand and act on. MLK's was to pass legislation banning discrimination. To this day, I still havent seen a plan of action when someone pushes Occupy. In this case, they need pre-packaged solution ready to go to lawmakers second popular support shows up. Here's a subset of what r a alists might do in this topic: 1. All taxpayer-funded research goes into public domain. All existing copyrights for such research goes into public domain. 2. Since it matters to academics, the articles can be published in specific journals for visibility or prestige. However, they must provide online access to them for a flat, cheap rate applied monthly or annually. That's for unlimited articles. 3. Private research can be copywritte to generate revenue for authors. Might put a limit on what they can charge or for how long. All that codified into a law called Taxpayers Get Their Research Act. Has a website, premade letters, and so on. Low friction. One or more celebrities reference it in the media promoting it. Make sure personas for major demographics justifying it from their viewpoints. Swarms of people start emailing or writting letters that might lead to some or all of it passing. Optionally rich people throwing cash at lobbyists for the same bill. That is how realists go for open access. Personally, I do my part by digging up linkz to key, paywalled papers from Wayback machine or other odd sources. Then send it to people that might use it.