3 ms·

I don't think it's a case of non-businesses not being listened to, more so the there are not enough representatives outside of the business stakeholders at the

I don't think it's a case of non-businesses not being listened to, more so the there are not enough representatives outside of the business stakeholders at the table putting themselves forward for representation. There is no malice in this, although it's very easy to perceive it as so. It's purely a side product of democracy - our representatives cannot possibly (or feasibly be expected to) represent the professional or personal interests of each and every working person within their constituency without those interests being put forward ahead of time and chased - hence why the questions go out to those that are 'known to know' for advice. It's human nature - if you know someone who has experience in a domain you're unaware of, you go to them for advice. If the representative doesn't know you have this expertise, they're not going to come to you for advice. We all take for granted that our representatives in government look out for us, however when these initiatives are raised by them, and input is requested, the questions asked are very rarely put to laymen or individuals or groups with a cursory or passing interest. They're usually put to those working in the related industry or those who have a stake in the arena, as this is where the expertise is perceived to live, and will generate the quickest consensus on the issue. It's all down to exposure - if you are invested in an issue, find a way to get involved (reach out to you representative etc.) and have a voice in the discussions, rather than waiting idly by and demonstrating against the result.

maxxxxx 9y ago
I think with this administration it's more extreme than before. It seems only millionaires, business people or lobbyists are allowed to the table. Scientists and other experts are being treated in a hostile way.
- zero_one_one 9y ago
  If demonstrable expertise is being offered and ignored, then that's a completely different story...
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    If we're defining expertise in such a way that it can only be gained through work experience at the corporations you'll later be in charge of regulating then that's a problem with what we consider expertise to be.
    - zero_one_one 9y ago
      I think that education can only result from prior experiences, rather than projections. If the experience influencing education has come from those who have been 'through the ringer' at the companies pushing the technology forward, education will always be one step behind corporate influence. Catch-22 unfortunately. The paradigm I think has shifted (for better or worse) from taking the letter from academia to taking it from those who have advanced these technologies within public perception (with or without fuelling from media influence)
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        I would rather have my public agencies run by someone who maybe has no direct experience with the domain but has shown skill in public decision-making and an ability to learn new fields than run only by people who have worked in that domain. Which is to say if it's a catch-22 it's one that's completely self-imposed (or is being used as a scapegoat for regulatory capture.)
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I think that's happening right now
  - croon 9y ago
    The article opens with one city-official with relevant credentials who was discarded, but also says: > Sixty-four city and state officials were nominated for the panel, but the agency initially chose only two: Sam Liccardo, mayor of San Jose, California, and Kelleigh Cole from the Utah Governor’s Office, according to documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a Freedom of Information Act request. Pai later appointed another city official, Andy Huckaba, a member of the Lenexa, Kansas, city council. 3 (initially 2) out of 30 panel positions are people that aren't currently working for the telecom industry.
pharrington 9y ago
Interesting hypothesis. >But the FCC didn’t choose Carter — or almost any of the other city or state government officials who applied. Sixty-four city and state officials were nominated for the panel, but the agency initially chose only two: Sam Liccardo, mayor of San Jose, California, and Kelleigh Cole from the Utah Governor’s Office, according to documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a Freedom of Information Act request. Pai later appointed another city official, Andy Huckaba, a member of the Lenexa, Kansas, city council.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Chardok 9y ago
"if you are invested in an issue, find a way to get involved (reach out to you representative etc.) and have a voice in the discussions, rather than waiting idly by and demonstrating against the result." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig The data seems to show that simply isn't true. It isn't malice, but only representing the interests of those who finance your campaign and ensure you have a job for the next election, which is entirely not the point of our federal government.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > The data seems to show that simply isn't true Link to these data? In my experience, the number of times a phone call of mine explaining an obscure policy flipped someone's view, whether a regulator, legislator or, in one case, mayor, is quite numerous. I'm not a prolific donor. I just called. I am almost always the only person who is not either (a) in the industry being considered or (b) retired who bothered to reach out. Same thing for town halls, canvassing, et cetera. We do have a problem where popular views aren't effectively translating into policy. But I haven't seen that graph adjusted for civic involvement.
sliverstorm 9y ago
That might apply to the FCC, but in the EPA the scientific advisers at the table putting themselves forward for representation have mostly all been shown the door.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Like it or not, the new EPA guy is extremely efficient in transforming the agency quickly and probably with lasting effects.
  - kartan 9y ago
    > Like it or not, the new EPA guy is extremely efficient in transforming the agency quickly and probably with lasting effects. It is like a doctor killing all his patients: And now, no one is sick anymore.
forapurpose 9y ago
> there are not enough representatives outside of the business stakeholders at the table putting themselves forward for representation I read a political science study of how lobbying really works. My memory of it is hazy so these details may be off, but they concluded that on the order of 80% of lobbyists, lobbying, and money are for/by big business. The claim of 'special interests', which for some reason includes environmentalists but not big business, having so much influence is wrong; they are badly outgunned by their opponents. (The book is nowhere near me or I'd share its name.)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
kartan 9y ago
> [...] the questions asked are very rarely put to laymen or individuals or groups with a cursory or passing interest. And that is completely wrong. You can call for polls, you can look for experts on education institutions, you can look for unions, you can bring some one from the EFF. There is a lot of options if you will. > There is no malice in this, although it's very easy to perceive it as so. Their decisions have been proven harmful to the citizens at the same time that benefits economically the elites, that's the very definition of malice in government. That's one of the reasons people emigrated from Europe to America, to fly from a corrupt system of nobility and serfdom. > It's all down to exposure - if you are invested in an issue, find a way to get involved (reach out to you representative etc.) and have a voice in the discussions, rather than waiting idly by and demonstrating against the result. I thought that it was about fairness and to represent all citizens, but if it boils down to "exposure" then money can buy that. When did it become 1 dollar 1 vote? And why should we accept it willingly? Your argument is "this is how it is, so it is good". Status quo is not immutable and has not morality by itself.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I think with this administration it's more extreme than before. It seems only millionaires, business people or lobbyists are allowed to the table. Scientists and other experts are being treated in a hostile way.

zero_one_one 9y ago
If demonstrable expertise is being offered and ignored, then that's a completely different story...
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  If we're defining expertise in such a way that it can only be gained through work experience at the corporations you'll later be in charge of regulating then that's a problem with what we consider expertise to be.
  - zero_one_one 9y ago
    I think that education can only result from prior experiences, rather than projections. If the experience influencing education has come from those who have been 'through the ringer' at the companies pushing the technology forward, education will always be one step behind corporate influence. Catch-22 unfortunately. The paradigm I think has shifted (for better or worse) from taking the letter from academia to taking it from those who have advanced these technologies within public perception (with or without fuelling from media influence)
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      I would rather have my public agencies run by someone who maybe has no direct experience with the domain but has shown skill in public decision-making and an ability to learn new fields than run only by people who have worked in that domain. Which is to say if it's a catch-22 it's one that's completely self-imposed (or is being used as a scapegoat for regulatory capture.)
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I think that's happening right now
- croon 9y ago
  The article opens with one city-official with relevant credentials who was discarded, but also says: > Sixty-four city and state officials were nominated for the panel, but the agency initially chose only two: Sam Liccardo, mayor of San Jose, California, and Kelleigh Cole from the Utah Governor’s Office, according to documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a Freedom of Information Act request. Pai later appointed another city official, Andy Huckaba, a member of the Lenexa, Kansas, city council. 3 (initially 2) out of 30 panel positions are people that aren't currently working for the telecom industry.

pharrington 9y ago

Interesting hypothesis. >But the FCC didn’t choose Carter — or almost any of the other city or state government officials who applied. Sixty-four city and state officials were nominated for the panel, but the agency initially chose only two: Sam Liccardo, mayor of San Jose, California, and Kelleigh Cole from the Utah Governor’s Office, according to documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a Freedom of Information Act request. Pai later appointed another city official, Andy Huckaba, a member of the Lenexa, Kansas, city council.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Chardok 9y ago

"if you are invested in an issue, find a way to get involved (reach out to you representative etc.) and have a voice in the discussions, rather than waiting idly by and demonstrating against the result." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig The data seems to show that simply isn't true. It isn't malice, but only representing the interests of those who finance your campaign and ensure you have a job for the next election, which is entirely not the point of our federal government.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The data seems to show that simply isn't true Link to these data? In my experience, the number of times a phone call of mine explaining an obscure policy flipped someone's view, whether a regulator, legislator or, in one case, mayor, is quite numerous. I'm not a prolific donor. I just called. I am almost always the only person who is not either (a) in the industry being considered or (b) retired who bothered to reach out. Same thing for town halls, canvassing, et cetera. We do have a problem where popular views aren't effectively translating into policy. But I haven't seen that graph adjusted for civic involvement.

sliverstorm 9y ago

That might apply to the FCC, but in the EPA the scientific advisers at the table putting themselves forward for representation have mostly all been shown the door.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Like it or not, the new EPA guy is extremely efficient in transforming the agency quickly and probably with lasting effects.
- kartan 9y ago
  > Like it or not, the new EPA guy is extremely efficient in transforming the agency quickly and probably with lasting effects. It is like a doctor killing all his patients: And now, no one is sick anymore.

forapurpose 9y ago

> there are not enough representatives outside of the business stakeholders at the table putting themselves forward for representation I read a political science study of how lobbying really works. My memory of it is hazy so these details may be off, but they concluded that on the order of 80% of lobbyists, lobbying, and money are for/by big business. The claim of 'special interests', which for some reason includes environmentalists but not big business, having so much influence is wrong; they are badly outgunned by their opponents. (The book is nowhere near me or I'd share its name.)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

kartan 9y ago

> [...] the questions asked are very rarely put to laymen or individuals or groups with a cursory or passing interest. And that is completely wrong. You can call for polls, you can look for experts on education institutions, you can look for unions, you can bring some one from the EFF. There is a lot of options if you will. > There is no malice in this, although it's very easy to perceive it as so. Their decisions have been proven harmful to the citizens at the same time that benefits economically the elites, that's the very definition of malice in government. That's one of the reasons people emigrated from Europe to America, to fly from a corrupt system of nobility and serfdom. > It's all down to exposure - if you are invested in an issue, find a way to get involved (reach out to you representative etc.) and have a voice in the discussions, rather than waiting idly by and demonstrating against the result. I thought that it was about fairness and to represent all citizens, but if it boils down to "exposure" then money can buy that. When did it become 1 dollar 1 vote? And why should we accept it willingly? Your argument is "this is how it is, so it is good". Status quo is not immutable and has not morality by itself.