16 ms·

This, right here, is the consequence of the withdrawal from politics many geeks advocated very strongly in an earlier time. "Everything is corrupt, it doesn't m

• Futurebot 10y ago
  "Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone." - RMS
  • pnathan 10y ago
    I have consistently found rms to be the most prescient tech voice. A lone prophet, if you will. He always bears careful thought in his vision of where tech and politics will play out - even if you disagree with him.
    • kowdermeister 10y ago
      Who is RMS?
      • cuonic 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
      • kilotaras 10y ago
        Richard Matthew Stallman
        • kowdermeister 10y ago
          Thanks, the M was the missing link :)
  • rhizome 10y ago
    See also: "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/pericles387116.html https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/pericles387116.h...
  • sixdimensional 10y ago
    Ironically, not that I can compare to RMS, but my senior thesis in college (2003) was "the politics of information technology are disruptive to organizations". I had no idea then how much worse it would get.
• toss1941 10y ago
  I always interpreted that resignation as "both sides are terrible, so I'm going to keep voting for my side". I wonder how many people really felt strong enough about politics to claim both sides are equally bad and then decided not to vote on that basis alone.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • tbrownaw 10y ago
    I wonder how many people really felt strong enough about politics to claim both sides are equally bad and then decided not to vote on that basis alone. Since both sides are astonishingly bad, I usually end up voting third party in races where there is one.
    • ignu 10y ago
      and that's why bills like this pass.
      • tbrownaw 10y ago
        Right. The only way to stop Kang from ruining everything is to vote for Kodos instead.
        • Analemma_ 10y ago
          You can keep using clever witticisms like that if it makes you feel better, and meanwhile bills like this will keep passing along party lines.
          • misnome 10y ago
            So it's the fault of people who vote third party that you have a two-party state?
            • 10y ago
• jonathansizz 10y ago
  A core problem is that it's much easier to break things than to build or maintain things, so huge amounts of work can be eliminated very easily, whether through neglect or design.
  • defined 10y ago
    That's a sutra.
• ComradeTaco 10y ago
  The votes in both the house and the senate were almost entirely along party lines. Every republican in the senate that voted, voted for this act and every democrat in the senate that voted, voted against this act.
  • bipvanwinkle 10y ago
    Although this is mostly true, it's not entirely true (at least in the house).
    • atomi 10y ago
      https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094#position https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
      • ComradeTaco 10y ago
        No, he's correct, about 7% of republicans in the house didn't vote for the bill.
        • sundaeofshock 10y ago
          And 0% of Democrats in the house voted for the bill. This bill is 100% owned by the GOP.
      • kej 10y ago
        15 House Republicans voted against it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml
        • macawfish 10y ago
          They're the ones who brand new congress needs to be courting
• state_less 10y ago
  Republicans be all up in your ass...and vagina too.
  • sctb 10y ago
    Please don't post such inflammatory nonsense here; we're trying to have thoughtful and civil discussions. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• aanm1988 10y ago
  No, this is a consequence of the republicans being in power.
  • pnathan 10y ago
    The Democrats also have policies that are... poor, particularly around the internet. This is a cross-party problem.
    • nikkwong 10y ago
      Care to elaborate?
      • simplyluke 10y ago
        Well, I'd encourage you to look into the expansion of the NSA under the obama administration and how his administration responded to whistle blowers who leaked information related to that expansion.
    • abritinthebay 10y ago
      Given this vote was split along party lines this smells of whataboutism.
      • alphapapa 10y ago
        Whataboutism is irrelevant. What matters is whether his assertion is true: are both parties' policies toward the Internet a problem?
        • warlox 10y ago
          No, what matters is tradeoffs. Is one party's set of policies far more problematic than those of the other party?
          • alphapapa 10y ago
• drdeadringer 10y ago
  When was this earlier time?
  • pnathan 10y ago
    That was a huge thrust of the 90s Linux nerd thought. Call it a lazzeiz faire countercultural perspective. esr provides a certain window into that time, although he seems to me to get more and more right-wing libertarian over the years. The culture has shifted and moved, but the "avoid politics, it's evil" mentality still hangs around, a lot.
• _alias 10y ago
  This whole discussion is disheartening. When I first heard about this is came to HN to get the facts and try to actually form an opinion, because honestly I can't figure out what the bill is supposed to change and how. Instead I find people pontificating along party lines like every comments section across the internet. Where's the analysis and insight? Where's the objectivity? I've come to expect more from this site and I know we can do better.
  • warlox 10y ago
    The bill allows ISPs to sell their customers' data, among other things. The article says enough about what the bill does. Your complaints about "people pontificating along party lines" do nothing but reveal your own biases when the vote is so starkly along party lines. In a case like this, the objective analysis is clearly that the Republicans are wrong and the Democrats are right.
  • eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    The party claiming to represent "personal liberty" and "responsibility" has now voted to have your browser history sold on data-markets. Ever looked at anything particular embarrassing? Welcome to blackmailsville. I really hope hackers obtain records of every Republican Congresscritter's creepiest porn viewing.
  • icantdrive55 10y ago
    Yea, I was expecting to find a solution. 1. I would like to see a bill introduced to the house that's similar to the European ePrivacy Act. 2. I would like a bill to go father in scope. I believe a customer should own all their personal information. A delete would permently delete your IP viewing history, and company servers would have to delete all information they have on you in their data bases completely--if you want. It will be completely your decision. No one could trace your IP address. Law enforcement will still have subpoena power, but the data will be gone. Of course, the credit agencies would be exempt, but will have more restrictions on what they can do with that information. Yes--every once in awhile, you might need to re-enter registration/financial information at a website, and certain companies would have to change their ways. Boo--Hoo. 3. Ip tracing, except in extreme cases, would be illegial. Yelp woudn't be happy, but so what. Google, and Bing would go insane, but the time has come. I wouldn't mind anonymous data mining. They would be required to share all annoymous information with with the public--not just "What's trending". IP tracing to individual address, and people would have severe restrictions. Just make it illegial? Maybe government would have the right to IP address history for research purposes, they would have to build their own data centers. (The data centers are alwready there?). Private industry, like Google, and FB have ruined their space at the table, at least in the United States. 4. Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. would spend more millions fighting this though. Oh--Google would be angry. 5. The time has come.
• noobermin 10y ago
  It's not only complacency, although it is a large part of it. Some of the main issues here is money in politics, gerrymandering, the gutting of the civil rights act. In fact, the most central issue here is probably money in politics.
  • ComradeTaco 10y ago
    I'd argue that it's not money in politics. The democrats and republicans get tons of money from tons of different interest groups and industries, yet the the only party that voted whatsoever for this bill were Republicans. The problem isn't the money, it's the ideology.
    • rhino369 10y ago
      Or that tech companies are a democrat lobby and telecoms are a republican lobby. Democrats wouldn't apply this rule to search engines or email. Why? Because tech companies would flip out. Democrats are free to vote ideology when it's a GOP ox that is going to get gored. And vice versa.
• latj 10y ago
  Here is an alternative account of what has happened. The government is trying to reduce protections of civil liberties, the environment, etc. Why? Because the party in control of the legislative and executive branches are removing those protections. Why? Because it is in their best interest and because they promised to do so in their election campaigns. Why? A. Because their corporate sponsors want less regulation. B. Because their supporters want less regulation. Why? Because less regulation means more profits (If you ignore the environmental and human costs). And, because many Americans equate regulation with infringement of their personal freedom. We need to stop assuming that bad things are happening because a few bad apples tricked roughly half the population to support them. They are making America great again. Look at any point in time before now in American history and you will find less civil liberty, more oppression of workers, and more destruction of the environment. It was promised. Its being delivered. And no one was fooled. It is straight up whathalf the population asked for.
  • kartan 10y ago
    > Because less regulation means more profits (If you ignore the environmental and human costs). This is completely false. Less regulations helps the status-quo as companies stop to need to be innovative. And it helps old-fashioned contaminating industries. > Look at any point in time before now in American history and you will find less civil liberty, more oppression of workers, and more destruction of the environment. It was promised. Its being delivered. Yes. That's it. And that's why so much powerful people want bad schools and worse education. If people knew how the world works, they will be less prone to populism.
  • pnathan 10y ago
    I'm sorry for not responding to your post earlier. > We need to stop assuming that bad things are happening because a few bad apples tricked roughly half the population to support them. They are making America great again. Look at any point in time before now in American history and you will find less civil liberty, more oppression of workers, and more destruction of the environment. It was promised. Its being delivered. And no one was fooled. It is straight up what half the population asked for. You're correct by and large. I won't get into the remarks on the (effective) propaganda efforts Fox & crew have done. Much deception has happened there. But, this specific bill is troublesome in part because the lawmakers often are very ignorant of what's going on, much like many of the senior judges in the US. This is one part generational divide, one part tech avoiding law, and one part lobbying. Some of that is avoidable by engagement, and if adult geeks had realized this in the 80s & 90s instead of disengaging from politics, the world would be different.
• gojiberry 10y ago
  The Republicans are clearly more corrupt.
• kakapupu 10y ago
  > This, right here, is the consequence of the withdrawal from politics many geeks advocated very strongly in an earlier time Well, do you want to risk your life fighting in a revolution? Politics certainly doesn't matter in the sense that it's all bullshit anyway. No matter how hard you call "your" representatives, they won't give a flying fuck about you because they're all psychopaths. > What we have in protections and freedoms .. Was apparently nothing in terms of "protections" at all, considering here we are again. Look, the real problem is that political power exists at all. If people didn't believe that they need to be ruled over, we wouldn't have all the problems caused by government, and you wouldn't need to preach at people about not having already overthrown the government when they "still had time". How about just stopping this insane cycle of tyranny --> relative freedom --> tyranny --> relative freedom .. this-time-it's-different-if-i-just-vote-harder? Rather than asking the government to grant you better "protections" from itself, how about just removing the need for protections altogether?
  • ericd 10y ago
    If you want to compete with other large groups of humans for limited resources, you need to band into a large group yourself, or be overtaken. That's always been the case, and seems likely it will always continue to be the case. Also, there are certain nice things that we have that are only possible by working together. The national highways, for example. But at its core, the most basic necessity is the common defense.
    • kakapupu 10y ago
      Nice how "working together" is an euphemism for having a bunch of rulers enslave everyone else "for the common good" :)
• DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  I supported the FCC's move to assist with consumer privacy, although it was a tough call. I oppose what the Republican Congress is doing. Having said all of that, the FCC has no freaking business defining privacy. The system was terribly out of whack to have them do this in the first place. My support of their move and my opposition to what Congress is currently doing is simply because I'm trying to pick the lesser of two evils. It's not because there was simple good position/side and bad position/side. Wish that it were so simple. Both political parties have screwed over privacy and anonymity online -- in terrible and huge ways. And the system is terribly corrupt. And....we should take action to make our political views clear. My problem is that "let's take action" turns quickly into "Group X is in the pocket of political party Y" And that's how we got here in the first place.
  • pnathan 10y ago
    Hi Daniel, I would agree that the remit of Congress is to govern the people, by the people, and privacy falls under that umbrella. The executive branch should not be operating as an independent law-making body, as it has been. I would gently suggest that when geeks look at politics, it's much like looking at a huge codebase written for decades - our reaction is that it's corrupt and needs a rewrite. I have learned through very careful study and hard experience that often there are good reasons for codebases to be "crufty", and similar with politics. Doesn't mean reform can't be done, but it means we have to work within the codebase, and with the current web of loyalties to some extent.
    • DanielBMarkham 10y ago
      Thank you for your kind reply. As both a geek and a student of history and philosophy, it's nice to hear civility :) I specialize in helping large organizations of people change and become better, so I've been quite fortunate to have hands-on experience with these kinds of things. For a good political person who can work contacts, there's always value. I would humbly posit that the system as a whole has overall attributes. I really don't like waving my hands around and saying "we're all going to die", but sometimes the Titanic actually is sinking. I'm sure those guys in the band had a hoot playing those last few songs, though. So I understand and respect your opinion. Hopefully I'm able to see the tactical as well as strategic situation. Maybe not, but that's what great conversations are for. :) Thanks again.
• benevol 10y ago
  Withdrawal from politics certainly is an important factor that has made America a currently sinking ship. But the problem is more systemic. It's at the center of the culture of this society: it's the fact that MONEY (== DOMINATION) has been made the most central and culturally venerated value. To change that, a lot of suffering will have to occur, because those who benefit from MONEY (== DOMINATION) will use exactly that to defend this (sick) cultural value by - you guessed it - dominating everybody who's against it. And for that, other sick things like mass surveillance technology, a militarized police force, perfectly controlled media, and pressure on your economic wellbeing and your physical and mental health will be used.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • nemacol 10y ago
    I would argue that the withdrawal is the core problem and the money is the symptom of that problem. Same with gerrymandering, election systems, distribution of power, and other key talking points. Active and rational political conversations would, in my mind, have mitigated a lot of the problems with money in politics. Gerrymandering would not be (as large as) a problem if the masses had not been asleep at the wheel. It is an uphill fight from this point forward.
    • wu-ikkyu 10y ago
      >I would argue that the withdrawal is the core problem and the money is the symptom of that problem. Upon what do you base this hypothesis? Because history shows otherwise. The oligarchy/aristocracy has always had disproportionate influence in the US. It has always been an uphill fight for the average citizen. >I believe the British government forms the best model the world ever produced, and such has been its progress in the minds of the many, that this truth gradually gains ground. This government has for its object public strength and individual security. It is said with us to be unattainable. All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. -Alexander Hamilton, Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention, v. 1, p. 299.1787-06-19
• finid 10y ago
  To paraphrase A. Einstein?, When intelligent people refuse to participate in politics, they'll be governed by the less intelligent members of society. That's apparent in the US where elections results are influenced more by those with barely a high school education than by their more educated fellow citizens. The most important qualification one needs to have, it seems, to be elected to the Texas Education Agency, is to be a "true conservation". That board practically decides what your children study in school. And over here on HN, the policy is to not get into political discussions.
  • evoloution 10y ago
    Off-topic: Always better to quote the earliest reference. Plato said practically the same think around 347BC. Maybe there was someone before him too when we had no written texts. History repeats itself.
    • incongruity 10y ago
      Taking the bait: Why is it better? If one is attempting to persuade, I would suggest using the attribution that most strongly connects with the audience's sense of expertise and/or power. So, given that, I'd wager that Einstein is better reference than Plato for many in the modern world. I get what you're saying, the idea is much older than Einstein but do you want to be right or do you want to be truthful and persuade?
      • dredmorbius 10y ago
        Credit for originality. At least nod the prior. "As Einstein's improvement on Plato's dictum says, ...". By comparison, I was reading a paper on an alternative fuels process and found that its citations were all to 1990s and subsequent work. This actively obscured the fact that the underlying concepts and idea dated from the 1960s, and excluded considerable significant prior research. It would be ... like a study of evolutionary biology failing to credit Charles Darwin, and giving the impression, say, that the entire field grew out of recombinant DNA efforts of the 1970s.
    • 10y ago
• libertymcateer 10y ago
  Please, don't undercount the number of "libertarian" crypto-geeks who think that regulation is the devil.
• samirillian 10y ago
  I agree. Do you have any particular recommendations for how we might engage on this particular problem?
  • pnathan 10y ago
    I would suggest (1) working with the Democrats to focus on removing gerrymandering to using a more algorithmic approach that is party-independent. This helps ensure that seats aren't (in effect) locked to a single party. And, (2) working with political/advocacy organizations locally that help brief officials on tech reality.