9 ms·

Reddit hires first lobbyists

119 points by MoronInAHurry 9y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Call me cynical, and maybe some lobbying gets done on net neutrality but I can't help but feel that NN is just a cover for avoiding responsibility for election-related astroturfing.
eurticket 9y ago
— The disclosure filings show that Reddit hired the Franklin Square Group back in July to lobby on "Internet issues, including net neutrality and liability protections for online platforms." Who else has lobbied for the liability protections of online platforms? Kim DotCom?
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Google is the chief lobbying party in this space[0]. You can see their recent campaigning against the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA), because it makes it possible for state and local governments to sue or criminally charge online platforms for their content, whereas currently only the federal government can. [0] Google Transparency Project[1] claims that Google has funded 34 different groups opposing SESTA. http://www.googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-funds-dozens-groups-fighting-sex-trafficking-bill http://www.googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-fun... [1] Google Transparency Project ironically is not transparent about their donors, and has been occasionally questioned as to their motives and backing.
tj-teej 9y ago
"Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said that he worries the site is vulnerable to Russian political influence campaigns." The "site" is vulnerable? Isn't the problem that Americans are vulnerable to influence campaigns?
- balls187 9y ago
  Humans are vulnerable to influence. Hence marketing.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > Isn't the problem that Americans are vulnerable to influence campaigns? Hard to wage a campaign against intellectually lazy voters.
  - BeefySwain 9y ago
    I think that's pretty disingenuous. Humans are vulnerable to influence. In theory that is a feature more than a bug, but that's not super relevant to this point. There are a number of steps that our country could take towards having elections that require or at least strongly encourage more informed voting. I think a solid first step would be stripping all party affiliations from the ballots. If you want to vote for only one party blindly, that's fine, but you are going to need to memorize the name of the Democrat running for the school board then. Other/alternative steps include switching to STV or Ranked Choice voting, and anything that discourages a duopoly in political parties, such as mixed member proportional representation and perhaps even making the president an appointed position. Some of that is pretty out there though.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      That's not a rebuttal. That's finding ways around lazy voters. The problem is the electorate. No one likes Congress, but everyone who voted voted for someone in Congress.
      - bluGill 9y ago
        That is not a contradiction. Most people like their congressman, even while hating congress in general. There are 432 of them in the house, you vote for exactly one of them (assuming you are not committing fraud). In Red states the majority likes the republicans in congress and hate the democrats, in blue states the majority likes the democrats and hate the republicans.
ConAntonakos 9y ago
I feel like such a novice, but what exactly do lobbyists do? Do they bombard gov't officials with emails, show up in-person, convince people to follow their clients' agendas, etc.? How will they be employed by Reddit? Why is lobbying even a thing?
- bdamm 9y ago
  Right. Buy lunch, invite out to baseball games, write bill drafts, analyze progress of legislation, learn about lawmakers favorite hobbies, that kind of thing. Or at least that's how I imagine it working since that's basically personal influence 101.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  They tend to serve as subject matter experts when it comes time for legislation to be drafted. It's not practical to expect a 50/60-year old Senator to be able to architect nuanced regulations of social media platforms which didn't exist when he or she was in law school so they outsource the details to lobbyists or similar organizations like think tanks.
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    Well, the senator also has a large staff for drafting legislation.
    - creaghpatr 9y ago
      True, it's an ongoing negotiation between lobbyist groups and the Senator's own in-house experts.
- wyldfire 9y ago
  > Why is lobbying even a thing? There is a legitimate or at least semi-legitimate function of having businesses educate legislators on what impact their existing, proposed or "needed" legislation has on their business. e.g. what would happen to Disney, Universal, et al if Copyright term were reduced to 1 year-after-first-publication? "OMG end of days and we will fire all your constituents!" Sorry, to be a bit more serious: other groups like EFF, AARP, etc can also lobby legislators to tell them "our members would suffer greatly if you passed H.R. 9999 because it would restrict our access to Xyz and cause them harm. Could you amend your bill to include exclusions for these purposes?" The details of these things can be subtle and it's worth paying someone to hound the legislator to make sure all of the details are covered and they don't try to sweep your group's needs under the rug.
liquidise 9y ago
> Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said that he worries the site is vulnerable to Russian political influence campaigns. As a major proponent of uncensored speech on the internet, the implications of these accusations worry me. Politicians, practically by definition, have a conflict of interest in terms of moderating political speech. The idea that these same politicians could be drafting law-based "solutions" for such moderation leads me to draw hyperbolic comparisons to dystopian novels.
- gozur88 9y ago
  This is just the Red Scare Part II. What Warner is really concerned about is the loss of control US elites have had over the national narrative.
  - beepboopbeep 9y ago
    Good lord.
  - cm2012 9y ago
    I know this is a flaggy topic. But generally nations are very touchy about other nations trying to influence their democratic elections (even if the US has done it before).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Cynicism isn't actually insightful. Even what you allege is frightening -- I don't care if he's acting partly out of self interest, the prospect of a foreign state's propaganda arm being able to control the national narrative rather than domestic forces is extremely dangerous to citizens. That is, you and me. There's every indication that they're trying to do so and have results that demonstrate at least some efficacy. I just can't read these sorts of comments as anything but outright Dunning-Kruger about governance, the dangers of propaganda, etc.
- 9y ago
beepboopbeep 9y ago
I can't tell if these comments are a proper cross section of HN or they've simply crawled from the woodwork
- wtf_is_up 9y ago
  What did you mean by this?
jarym 9y ago
My first read of the headline was all wrong: Reddit fires first hobbyists.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Me too. Odd. I wonder if it had to do with the letters? The t and the h nearby?
dv_dt 9y ago
I sort of think it's a ridiculous prioritization of risks to talk about policing social media comments and ads when the voting machinery is ridiculously vulnerable to hacks.
rdtsc 9y ago
There was a vacuum created in the area of manufacturing consent after the election. Mass media had one job - they were supposed to elect a certain candidate. And they failed. Google, Twitter, Facebook immediately noticed and rushed to fill that void. Remember this article https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ban-websites-that-host-fake-news-from-using-its-ad-service.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ba... ? Right after election both Facebook and Google came out saying they will protect us from fake news. That's a good goal on the surface. We can certainly do without lizard people conspiracies. However the timing wasn't accidental. They basically announced they are the ones who will be willing to manufacturing consent and do a better job than CNN and NYT and friend. Effectively saying "Don't go to them, they failed you, spend your billions on us. We'll make sure your version of truth is the real truth. If we have to ban and some accounts, no big deal, we've got you covered https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/business/facebook-china-guo-wengui.html" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/business/facebook-china-g...

119 points by MoronInAHurry 9y ago

Call me cynical, and maybe some lobbying gets done on net neutrality but I can't help but feel that NN is just a cover for avoiding responsibility for election-related astroturfing.

eurticket 9y ago

— The disclosure filings show that Reddit hired the Franklin Square Group back in July to lobby on "Internet issues, including net neutrality and liability protections for online platforms." Who else has lobbied for the liability protections of online platforms? Kim DotCom?

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Google is the chief lobbying party in this space[0]. You can see their recent campaigning against the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA), because it makes it possible for state and local governments to sue or criminally charge online platforms for their content, whereas currently only the federal government can. [0] Google Transparency Project[1] claims that Google has funded 34 different groups opposing SESTA. http://www.googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-funds-dozens-groups-fighting-sex-trafficking-bill http://www.googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-fun... [1] Google Transparency Project ironically is not transparent about their donors, and has been occasionally questioned as to their motives and backing.

tj-teej 9y ago

"Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said that he worries the site is vulnerable to Russian political influence campaigns." The "site" is vulnerable? Isn't the problem that Americans are vulnerable to influence campaigns?

balls187 9y ago
Humans are vulnerable to influence. Hence marketing.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
> Isn't the problem that Americans are vulnerable to influence campaigns? Hard to wage a campaign against intellectually lazy voters.
- BeefySwain 9y ago
  I think that's pretty disingenuous. Humans are vulnerable to influence. In theory that is a feature more than a bug, but that's not super relevant to this point. There are a number of steps that our country could take towards having elections that require or at least strongly encourage more informed voting. I think a solid first step would be stripping all party affiliations from the ballots. If you want to vote for only one party blindly, that's fine, but you are going to need to memorize the name of the Democrat running for the school board then. Other/alternative steps include switching to STV or Ranked Choice voting, and anything that discourages a duopoly in political parties, such as mixed member proportional representation and perhaps even making the president an appointed position. Some of that is pretty out there though.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    That's not a rebuttal. That's finding ways around lazy voters. The problem is the electorate. No one likes Congress, but everyone who voted voted for someone in Congress.
    - bluGill 9y ago
      That is not a contradiction. Most people like their congressman, even while hating congress in general. There are 432 of them in the house, you vote for exactly one of them (assuming you are not committing fraud). In Red states the majority likes the republicans in congress and hate the democrats, in blue states the majority likes the democrats and hate the republicans.

ConAntonakos 9y ago

I feel like such a novice, but what exactly do lobbyists do? Do they bombard gov't officials with emails, show up in-person, convince people to follow their clients' agendas, etc.? How will they be employed by Reddit? Why is lobbying even a thing?

bdamm 9y ago
Right. Buy lunch, invite out to baseball games, write bill drafts, analyze progress of legislation, learn about lawmakers favorite hobbies, that kind of thing. Or at least that's how I imagine it working since that's basically personal influence 101.
creaghpatr 9y ago
They tend to serve as subject matter experts when it comes time for legislation to be drafted. It's not practical to expect a 50/60-year old Senator to be able to architect nuanced regulations of social media platforms which didn't exist when he or she was in law school so they outsource the details to lobbyists or similar organizations like think tanks.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  Well, the senator also has a large staff for drafting legislation.
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    True, it's an ongoing negotiation between lobbyist groups and the Senator's own in-house experts.
wyldfire 9y ago
> Why is lobbying even a thing? There is a legitimate or at least semi-legitimate function of having businesses educate legislators on what impact their existing, proposed or "needed" legislation has on their business. e.g. what would happen to Disney, Universal, et al if Copyright term were reduced to 1 year-after-first-publication? "OMG end of days and we will fire all your constituents!" Sorry, to be a bit more serious: other groups like EFF, AARP, etc can also lobby legislators to tell them "our members would suffer greatly if you passed H.R. 9999 because it would restrict our access to Xyz and cause them harm. Could you amend your bill to include exclusions for these purposes?" The details of these things can be subtle and it's worth paying someone to hound the legislator to make sure all of the details are covered and they don't try to sweep your group's needs under the rug.

liquidise 9y ago

> Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said that he worries the site is vulnerable to Russian political influence campaigns. As a major proponent of uncensored speech on the internet, the implications of these accusations worry me. Politicians, practically by definition, have a conflict of interest in terms of moderating political speech. The idea that these same politicians could be drafting law-based "solutions" for such moderation leads me to draw hyperbolic comparisons to dystopian novels.

gozur88 9y ago
This is just the Red Scare Part II. What Warner is really concerned about is the loss of control US elites have had over the national narrative.
- beepboopbeep 9y ago
  Good lord.
- cm2012 9y ago
  I know this is a flaggy topic. But generally nations are very touchy about other nations trying to influence their democratic elections (even if the US has done it before).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Cynicism isn't actually insightful. Even what you allege is frightening -- I don't care if he's acting partly out of self interest, the prospect of a foreign state's propaganda arm being able to control the national narrative rather than domestic forces is extremely dangerous to citizens. That is, you and me. There's every indication that they're trying to do so and have results that demonstrate at least some efficacy. I just can't read these sorts of comments as anything but outright Dunning-Kruger about governance, the dangers of propaganda, etc.
9y ago

beepboopbeep 9y ago

I can't tell if these comments are a proper cross section of HN or they've simply crawled from the woodwork

wtf_is_up 9y ago
What did you mean by this?

jarym 9y ago

My first read of the headline was all wrong: Reddit fires first hobbyists.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Me too. Odd. I wonder if it had to do with the letters? The t and the h nearby?

dv_dt 9y ago

I sort of think it's a ridiculous prioritization of risks to talk about policing social media comments and ads when the voting machinery is ridiculously vulnerable to hacks.

rdtsc 9y ago

There was a vacuum created in the area of manufacturing consent after the election. Mass media had one job - they were supposed to elect a certain candidate. And they failed. Google, Twitter, Facebook immediately noticed and rushed to fill that void. Remember this article https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ban-websites-that-host-fake-news-from-using-its-ad-service.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ba... ? Right after election both Facebook and Google came out saying they will protect us from fake news. That's a good goal on the surface. We can certainly do without lizard people conspiracies. However the timing wasn't accidental. They basically announced they are the ones who will be willing to manufacturing consent and do a better job than CNN and NYT and friend. Effectively saying "Don't go to them, they failed you, spend your billions on us. We'll make sure your version of truth is the real truth. If we have to ban and some accounts, no big deal, we've got you covered https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/business/facebook-china-guo-wengui.html" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/business/facebook-china-g...