3 ms·

I never understood when corporations buying influence with politicians (for admittedly their own self interest) is good or bad. Is it just based on the cause? I

by bko 9y ago

I never understood when corporations buying influence with politicians (for admittedly their own self interest) is good or bad. Is it just based on the cause? If a corporation speaks out and lobbies for policies that I agree with its fine? But if its something I don't agree with, its corporatism and corruption? I get that net neutrality is popular among many in the tech crowd, but perhaps large corporations aren't shining nights and we shouldn't be applauding increased lobbying because their interests align with ours.

xg15 9y ago
That implies that whether policies are good or bad is just a matter of opinion. Net neutrality - like combatting global warming - is to my knowledge widely regarded as having far more benefits for society than the opposite policy. So yes, it's the cause. That being said, of course relying on corporations doing the lobbying is bad. A better way would be to rely on groups like the EFF or (gasp!) MPs themselves caring for the topic. However, we already have the EFF caring for the topic. Apparently this is not enough, otherwise no "industry alliance" wound have been needed.
- bko 9y ago
  I just thought that many that are concerned with corporate speech do so more on a moral ground than just disagreement on the message. I just don't see a situation in which corporate speech should be both encouraged and discouraged depending on the issue and the side of the issue the industry is on. Too easy to be manipulated
empath75 9y ago
I'm okay with a limited amount of corporate spending that directly relates to advocating for policies that favor themselves. I just think that it should be strictly regulated and limited.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
Corporate influence supports corporate ends, as opposed to individual or societal influence and ends. Corporate ends are profits for that corporation, which tend to lead very different policy than societal or individual ends, especially regarding topics like climate change and net neutrality.

by bko 9y ago

xg15 9y ago

That implies that whether policies are good or bad is just a matter of opinion. Net neutrality - like combatting global warming - is to my knowledge widely regarded as having far more benefits for society than the opposite policy. So yes, it's the cause. That being said, of course relying on corporations doing the lobbying is bad. A better way would be to rely on groups like the EFF or (gasp!) MPs themselves caring for the topic. However, we already have the EFF caring for the topic. Apparently this is not enough, otherwise no "industry alliance" wound have been needed.

bko 9y ago
I just thought that many that are concerned with corporate speech do so more on a moral ground than just disagreement on the message. I just don't see a situation in which corporate speech should be both encouraged and discouraged depending on the issue and the side of the issue the industry is on. Too easy to be manipulated

empath75 9y ago

I'm okay with a limited amount of corporate spending that directly relates to advocating for policies that favor themselves. I just think that it should be strictly regulated and limited.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

Corporate influence supports corporate ends, as opposed to individual or societal influence and ends. Corporate ends are profits for that corporation, which tend to lead very different policy than societal or individual ends, especially regarding topics like climate change and net neutrality.