4 ms·

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 p

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?
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        A worthwhile counterexample at the time, but imagine how it would play out today. If the suffrage advocates didn't turn it into a personal fight, the other side would. The opponents would win some battles, then they would lose some bigger ones... and then they'd do what's necessary to take over institutions ranging from market-leading TV news channels to the Supreme Court, and fix the "problem" once and for all. These days, anyone who tries to take the high road in politics finds that it ends at the top of a cliff. Unfortunately I have a feeling we're about to see this scenario unfold with respect to gay marriage and LGBTQ issues in general. Theocrats do not like to lose, any more than copyright maximalists do.
- jcbrand 8y ago
  Having names are useful to force them to have some skin in the game.

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?
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        A worthwhile counterexample at the time, but imagine how it would play out today. If the suffrage advocates didn't turn it into a personal fight, the other side would. The opponents would win some battles, then they would lose some bigger ones... and then they'd do what's necessary to take over institutions ranging from market-leading TV news channels to the Supreme Court, and fix the "problem" once and for all. These days, anyone who tries to take the high road in politics finds that it ends at the top of a cliff. Unfortunately I have a feeling we're about to see this scenario unfold with respect to gay marriage and LGBTQ issues in general. Theocrats do not like to lose, any more than copyright maximalists do.
jcbrand 8y ago
Having names are useful to force them to have some skin in the game.