5 ms·

> An important thing to consider is people cant act on abstractions > "they need pre-packaged solution ready to go to lawmakers second popular support shows up

> An important thing to consider is people cant act on abstractions > "they need pre-packaged solution ready to go to lawmakers second popular support shows up" Again, I don't know how to describe this other than ahistorical. I would say people actually love acting on abstractions, like the pursuit of liberty or happiness, trusting they can figure out details as they go along. It's certainly the advice given to most startup founders ("hash things out a little so they make sense, figure the rest out as you go along, for you can't predict everything"). I just wrapped up Hamilton's biography not long ago, and the process was certainly nothing like people buying into a solid policy proposal. Aaron Swartz doesn't need to be a one-man-revolution. He can do some radical inspiring acts, and then let Lawrence Lessig hash out some technical implementation details. This is how things actually work. You don't just inspire "popular" support, like the people are some thing to be manipulated for votes. The technocrats and administrators are just as vulnerable and in need of inspiration and new possibilities. Dividing the world neatly into idealists and realists is like that quote "conservative at 20? heartless. liberal at 40? clueless." Sounds like an even assessment to both parts, but it's actually conservative propaganda saying that one is the tough true conclusion. Same with a history of world progress that pretends that the only people ever worth following presented unchallenged, obvious avenues for change that everyone sensible agreed upon at once. Things that seem sensible now, like women voting, were not only met by vitriol by misogynists, but also with "lack of realism" by moderates.

snarf21 10y ago
I think he did need to be a one-man-revolution, at least somewhat. From the article: “Because he moved from thing to thing fairly rapidly, that actually ended up imposing a cost, so that people were wary about starting a really big project with him because they worried he wouldn’t stick around,” said Ben Wikler. “That was a reasonable concern to have.” Human nature is fickle. If he didn't focus, then why would any followers. When everything is most important, nothing is. This is true in business, activism and most things in life. Things need time to bake, be refined, find what resonates, find easier paths, etc. This is why I still believe you need to be part realist, part pramatist and part rebel and likely at different ratios through the project's life.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "If he didn't focus, then why would any followers. When everything is most important, nothing is. This is true in business, activism and most things in life" Same problem I had according to many. Still have to less of a degree. The trick to pulling it off successfully requires quite a bit of money that's recurring. It was Edison's: stay on all kinds of projects long enough to make significant advance in each with lab or production workers that would take it the rest of the way. The generalists need specialists committed to the long term that build on their ideas. Now, we're talking about I.P. law specifically. That's not going to change without large amounts of money going into lobbying (same way it was created) or huge swaths of people focusing their energy on their representatives with intention to vote for the opponent if no action occurs. These options were available to him and people he knew. He didn't try them. Instead, he did some speeches and a one-off act that could never cause a large movement in the U.S. that would counter I.P. law. Most people simply wouldn't sympathize with combo of topic and his [criminal] actions enough for it to make those waves.
  - snarf21 10y ago
    I agree with you. Plus his biggest challenge was/is how to make people care. Everyone has an iPhone and Netflix and a flat screen, so they think "how again is this situation so bad for me?", because to them it is pretty freaking awesome. How do you convince non tech people that Google is bad for them? That Facebook (that they spend 2 hours a day on) is really bad for them from a monopoly/privacy/etc. perspective? Most people could give a crap about security and privacy and competition as long as they get to do the things they want. (I do think we need major IP reform but I think we need other things more....)
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Good points. I've made an attempt at Facebook that you might find useful. Really tricky because one must assume a lay audience and appeal to those in high school. I welcome feedback on these especially in form of examples for my Gossip model that map to actual Facebook events. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/ephemeral_apps.html#c5259463 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/ephemeral_app...
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Re ahistorical. So, lets do it opposite if you know history better than me. You're implying major reform happened with bright, risk-taking people who focused on stuff nobody cared about without activity to bring in supporters outside tgat person's sphere and activity that consisted of sole person doing an act most people would find questionable. Because I think that (Aaron's) aporoach is ahistorical for creating social change.

snarf21 10y ago

I think he did need to be a one-man-revolution, at least somewhat. From the article: “Because he moved from thing to thing fairly rapidly, that actually ended up imposing a cost, so that people were wary about starting a really big project with him because they worried he wouldn’t stick around,” said Ben Wikler. “That was a reasonable concern to have.” Human nature is fickle. If he didn't focus, then why would any followers. When everything is most important, nothing is. This is true in business, activism and most things in life. Things need time to bake, be refined, find what resonates, find easier paths, etc. This is why I still believe you need to be part realist, part pramatist and part rebel and likely at different ratios through the project's life.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"If he didn't focus, then why would any followers. When everything is most important, nothing is. This is true in business, activism and most things in life" Same problem I had according to many. Still have to less of a degree. The trick to pulling it off successfully requires quite a bit of money that's recurring. It was Edison's: stay on all kinds of projects long enough to make significant advance in each with lab or production workers that would take it the rest of the way. The generalists need specialists committed to the long term that build on their ideas. Now, we're talking about I.P. law specifically. That's not going to change without large amounts of money going into lobbying (same way it was created) or huge swaths of people focusing their energy on their representatives with intention to vote for the opponent if no action occurs. These options were available to him and people he knew. He didn't try them. Instead, he did some speeches and a one-off act that could never cause a large movement in the U.S. that would counter I.P. law. Most people simply wouldn't sympathize with combo of topic and his [criminal] actions enough for it to make those waves.
- snarf21 10y ago
  I agree with you. Plus his biggest challenge was/is how to make people care. Everyone has an iPhone and Netflix and a flat screen, so they think "how again is this situation so bad for me?", because to them it is pretty freaking awesome. How do you convince non tech people that Google is bad for them? That Facebook (that they spend 2 hours a day on) is really bad for them from a monopoly/privacy/etc. perspective? Most people could give a crap about security and privacy and competition as long as they get to do the things they want. (I do think we need major IP reform but I think we need other things more....)
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Good points. I've made an attempt at Facebook that you might find useful. Really tricky because one must assume a lay audience and appeal to those in high school. I welcome feedback on these especially in form of examples for my Gossip model that map to actual Facebook events. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/ephemeral_apps.html#c5259463 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/ephemeral_app...

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Re ahistorical. So, lets do it opposite if you know history better than me. You're implying major reform happened with bright, risk-taking people who focused on stuff nobody cared about without activity to bring in supporters outside tgat person's sphere and activity that consisted of sole person doing an act most people would find questionable. Because I think that (Aaron's) aporoach is ahistorical for creating social change.