12 ms·

Peacefully petitioning the government for redress of grievences -- whether you agree with them or not -- should be respected. It's not clear what you intend to

Peacefully petitioning the government for redress of grievences -- whether you agree with them or not -- should be respected. It's not clear what you intend to do with these names, but I don't see anything good coming out of it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
alpha_squared 8y ago
While I recognize and admire the sentiment, I'm not sure I agree with the practice in law. Legislation should be as transparent as possible since it affects a populace and doesn't exist in a vacuum among involved parties. As to what intent there is with those names, it could be boycotting products/services from certain organizations -- which is a very valid and legal form of protest.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  Why do you need the names of people to boycott? Just get the names of the companies involved.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    You shouldn’t be able to hide when you’re assisting with the dismantling of democracy. If you’re fearful of your name being public, associated with this line of work, you should probably reevaluate your actions. If you support or participate in the further tightening of copyright (when considering how extreme copyright law already is), you are the enemy, and citizens are well within their rights to publicly document your actions.
    - jeffdavis 8y ago
      When you make bad ideas your enemy, you can promote real change and bring more people peaceably to your side. When you make people your enemy, you are likely to make things worse.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        This has not been my experience engaging in the political process in the US, both on individual campaigns and when working on specific issues (drug decriminalization and incarceration and gerrymandering, specifically). Whether people are married to their ideas through money or ideology, you are left with little recourse. History is written by the victor, not the noble.
        jeffdavis 8y ago
        Think beyond the single issue and realize that making enemies of people has cascading effects that ultimately polarize the nation and close you off to any possibility of modifying your opinions or learning new things.
        michaelmrose 8y ago
        At least with my nation, the US, while neither side is really for the people one side is so vastly against the interests of the majority in general and the interests of me and mine in particular that I expect there is no reasonable middle ground. When one group wants people like yourself to lose medical care and die where is the middle position? Ultimately I expect them to eventually react violently to losing power and have to be put down by force in order to preserve some notion of democracy. On perhaps your side of the pond it seems that one side wants to strangle the medium for culture and civilization in order to make a few bucks in hopes that a fraction will stick to their hands. These people are surely personally your enemy whether you recognize it or not.
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        So what are your thoughts on the “war on terror,” the “war on drugs,” and the “war on poverty?” When has attacking an abstract idea ever accomplished anything?
        jeffdavis 8y ago
        How about womens' suffrage? Who was the enemy in that movement? Did making lists of enemies help? Or was it more battle of ideas where people's minds were changed pver time?
  - jcbrand 8y ago
    Having names are useful to force them to have some skin in the game.
x0x0 8y ago
It's ludicrous to believe that publishing the names of people and companies requesting a change in law is somehow nefarious. People should be happy to have their names associated with laws they support, and if they aren't, that definitely speaks to the desirability of the law for the rest of us.
a1369209993 8y ago
They aren't peacefully petitioning; the're bribing lawmakers. Also, that's a right that people have, not corporations.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  Then get a list of the names of the corporations not the people. Maybe that can lead to a boycott, which is fine. It's kind of scary to start assembling lists of peoples' names that are your opponents.
  - baybal2 8y ago
    >assembling lists of peoples' names that are your opponents If you want to defeat your opponents, a great thing to do. Keep track of them. The best service you can give to an enemy, is to forget him. >My opponents are bad laws and bad ideas. Let's make lists of those. Don't you think that bad ideas are possessed by bad people? In my view of the world, the root of all good and bad are the people. People's deeds and ideas don't live separate lives from physical human beings having/doing them.
    - jeffdavis 8y ago
      My opponents are bad laws and bad ideas. Let's make lists of those. Individual people may have both good ideas and bad ideas, and those may change over time. Lists of opponents' names are a really bad solution because they ignore the distinction between people and ideas.
      - ryandrake 8y ago
        Ideas can’t be shamed or ostracized. Ideas don’t respond to incentives. Ideas can’t engage in debate. Trying to fight ideas is futile without also opposing the people with boots on the ground implementing the ideas.
  - kabulykos 8y ago
    What's scary about it? The risk individual (natural) persons might be rude to each other based on political opinions? Dude — already happening.
baybal2 8y ago
>It's not clear what you intend to do with these names, but I don't see anything good coming out of it. Just demonstrating that you know a lot of even remotely private information about somebody is a very effective intimidation method.
scrollaway 8y ago
I fully agree any protest should be peaceful, but transparency is important. Let's imagine a world where as you suggest, corporation names are revealed but not individuals. Well, where does that leave us? Maybe I'll just go as myself instead of my company. I won't represent my company, I just happen to be its CEO, its chief lobbyist, or whatever. So no, we'd need full transparency. This kind of thing is common among various branches of democratic governments. Presidents' schedules are usually mostly public, fundings of various sorts are public, etc. Opaqueness leads to darkness.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

alpha_squared 8y ago

While I recognize and admire the sentiment, I'm not sure I agree with the practice in law. Legislation should be as transparent as possible since it affects a populace and doesn't exist in a vacuum among involved parties. As to what intent there is with those names, it could be boycotting products/services from certain organizations -- which is a very valid and legal form of protest.

jeffdavis 8y ago
Why do you need the names of people to boycott? Just get the names of the companies involved.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  You shouldn’t be able to hide when you’re assisting with the dismantling of democracy. If you’re fearful of your name being public, associated with this line of work, you should probably reevaluate your actions. If you support or participate in the further tightening of copyright (when considering how extreme copyright law already is), you are the enemy, and citizens are well within their rights to publicly document your actions.
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    When you make bad ideas your enemy, you can promote real change and bring more people peaceably to your side. When you make people your enemy, you are likely to make things worse.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      This has not been my experience engaging in the political process in the US, both on individual campaigns and when working on specific issues (drug decriminalization and incarceration and gerrymandering, specifically). Whether people are married to their ideas through money or ideology, you are left with little recourse. History is written by the victor, not the noble.
      - jeffdavis 8y ago
        Think beyond the single issue and realize that making enemies of people has cascading effects that ultimately polarize the nation and close you off to any possibility of modifying your opinions or learning new things.
        michaelmrose 8y ago
        At least with my nation, the US, while neither side is really for the people one side is so vastly against the interests of the majority in general and the interests of me and mine in particular that I expect there is no reasonable middle ground. When one group wants people like yourself to lose medical care and die where is the middle position? Ultimately I expect them to eventually react violently to losing power and have to be put down by force in order to preserve some notion of democracy. On perhaps your side of the pond it seems that one side wants to strangle the medium for culture and civilization in order to make a few bucks in hopes that a fraction will stick to their hands. These people are surely personally your enemy whether you recognize it or not.
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      So what are your thoughts on the “war on terror,” the “war on drugs,” and the “war on poverty?” When has attacking an abstract idea ever accomplished anything?
      - jeffdavis 8y ago
        How about womens' suffrage? Who was the enemy in that movement? Did making lists of enemies help? Or was it more battle of ideas where people's minds were changed pver time?
- jcbrand 8y ago
  Having names are useful to force them to have some skin in the game.

x0x0 8y ago

It's ludicrous to believe that publishing the names of people and companies requesting a change in law is somehow nefarious. People should be happy to have their names associated with laws they support, and if they aren't, that definitely speaks to the desirability of the law for the rest of us.

a1369209993 8y ago

They aren't peacefully petitioning; the're bribing lawmakers. Also, that's a right that people have, not corporations.

jeffdavis 8y ago
Then get a list of the names of the corporations not the people. Maybe that can lead to a boycott, which is fine. It's kind of scary to start assembling lists of peoples' names that are your opponents.
- baybal2 8y ago
  >assembling lists of peoples' names that are your opponents If you want to defeat your opponents, a great thing to do. Keep track of them. The best service you can give to an enemy, is to forget him. >My opponents are bad laws and bad ideas. Let's make lists of those. Don't you think that bad ideas are possessed by bad people? In my view of the world, the root of all good and bad are the people. People's deeds and ideas don't live separate lives from physical human beings having/doing them.
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    My opponents are bad laws and bad ideas. Let's make lists of those. Individual people may have both good ideas and bad ideas, and those may change over time. Lists of opponents' names are a really bad solution because they ignore the distinction between people and ideas.
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      Ideas can’t be shamed or ostracized. Ideas don’t respond to incentives. Ideas can’t engage in debate. Trying to fight ideas is futile without also opposing the people with boots on the ground implementing the ideas.
- kabulykos 8y ago
  What's scary about it? The risk individual (natural) persons might be rude to each other based on political opinions? Dude — already happening.

baybal2 8y ago

>It's not clear what you intend to do with these names, but I don't see anything good coming out of it. Just demonstrating that you know a lot of even remotely private information about somebody is a very effective intimidation method.

scrollaway 8y ago

I fully agree any protest should be peaceful, but transparency is important. Let's imagine a world where as you suggest, corporation names are revealed but not individuals. Well, where does that leave us? Maybe I'll just go as myself instead of my company. I won't represent my company, I just happen to be its CEO, its chief lobbyist, or whatever. So no, we'd need full transparency. This kind of thing is common among various branches of democratic governments. Presidents' schedules are usually mostly public, fundings of various sorts are public, etc. Opaqueness leads to darkness.