5 ms·

I'd rather not call it "uninformed". We pay good amounts of money to parliamentarians, including their personal assistants. It's more like a "bug" in democracy

by sebst 8y ago

I'd rather not call it "uninformed". We pay good amounts of money to parliamentarians, including their personal assistants. It's more like a "bug" in democracy as such. As long as a topic doesn't have widespread attention, it's the lobbyists who make the laws, not the citizens. I am pretty sure there are other bad laws in other very specific areas, we as techies don't have a clue about. As I've written in another comment here, this is obviously an unavoidable "bug", but the more centralized a legislation process is, the more it is prone to exactly this "bug".

amelius 8y ago
> this is obviously an unavoidable "bug" Why unavoidable? For example, if a sufficient number of qualified people complain about any law, isn't it possible to hold MEPs accountable by openly questioning them about their reasoning? I'm sure there are journalists who can make good use of any suspicious argumentation.
- sebst 8y ago
  That's shifting the problem a bit, but does not solve it. Which journalist would investigate a topic which is considered unimportant by most of the readers (and in this specific case the decision is also welcomed by most of the journalists employers). And who would read MEPs reasonings about something "uninteresting"? So, yes, there is plenty of room to improve democratic processes today, especially with the communication tools we have. However, I guess that laws which make things worse for the general public but are in too complex niche areas for people to actually realize the issues, will ever remain a problem. Try ask your non-tech social contacts if they consider it fair, that big internet companies like Google don't have to pay for other peoples' work. And this is the narrative of the supporters.
  - amelius 8y ago
    > And who would read MEPs reasonings about something "uninteresting"? Perhaps not the general public, but the problem for MEPs would be that evidence against their integrity may accumulate from different cases.
aldoushuxley001 8y ago
I believe the word you were looking for is: "Corruption".
hef19898 8y ago
Unfortunately this bug, which is in my opinion most of the time caused by the people and not the system democracy itself, can be exploited by both lobbyists and populists.
interfixus 8y ago
Danish MEP Jens Rohde has called opponents of the law "internet communists who do not want creators to be paid for their work". What's that again you'd rather not call "uninformed"?
- geezerjay 8y ago
  Considering that communists are historically against private property and their usage as a means of production, eventhough the statement is very loaded and inflamatory it still is somewhat appropriate when addressing critics who are against the use of intellectual (private) property as a mean of production.
  - interfixus 8y ago
    Communists are ideologically against privare property. Historically, not so much. Be that as it may, I don't get your point. Communists opposing private property, therefore I, as opponent of the "law", must be a communist? Please, I expect better from the HN crowd, although not from the insufferable mr. Rohde, MEP.
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      > Be that as it may, I don't get your point. Communists opposing private property, therefore I, as opponent of the "law", must be a communist? I'm not defending the idea. I'm pointing out that the accusation is not baseless. If you oppose the right to use private property as a means of production, and consequently oppose a law that enforces your right to profit from your private property, then you're clearly advocating a basic communist dogma.
      - interfixus 8y ago
        I'm not aware of opposing such a right. I'm not aware of being a communist, and that's putting it mildly. I'm very much aware of being opposed to the deluge of terrifiyng, imbecilic megastatecontrol over ever increasing areas of my life from the sinecured, corrupt, and largely incompetent members of the EU so-called parliament.

by sebst 8y ago

amelius 8y ago

> this is obviously an unavoidable "bug" Why unavoidable? For example, if a sufficient number of qualified people complain about any law, isn't it possible to hold MEPs accountable by openly questioning them about their reasoning? I'm sure there are journalists who can make good use of any suspicious argumentation.

sebst 8y ago
That's shifting the problem a bit, but does not solve it. Which journalist would investigate a topic which is considered unimportant by most of the readers (and in this specific case the decision is also welcomed by most of the journalists employers). And who would read MEPs reasonings about something "uninteresting"? So, yes, there is plenty of room to improve democratic processes today, especially with the communication tools we have. However, I guess that laws which make things worse for the general public but are in too complex niche areas for people to actually realize the issues, will ever remain a problem. Try ask your non-tech social contacts if they consider it fair, that big internet companies like Google don't have to pay for other peoples' work. And this is the narrative of the supporters.
- amelius 8y ago
  > And who would read MEPs reasonings about something "uninteresting"? Perhaps not the general public, but the problem for MEPs would be that evidence against their integrity may accumulate from different cases.

aldoushuxley001 8y ago

I believe the word you were looking for is: "Corruption".

hef19898 8y ago

Unfortunately this bug, which is in my opinion most of the time caused by the people and not the system democracy itself, can be exploited by both lobbyists and populists.

interfixus 8y ago

Danish MEP Jens Rohde has called opponents of the law "internet communists who do not want creators to be paid for their work". What's that again you'd rather not call "uninformed"?

geezerjay 8y ago
Considering that communists are historically against private property and their usage as a means of production, eventhough the statement is very loaded and inflamatory it still is somewhat appropriate when addressing critics who are against the use of intellectual (private) property as a mean of production.
- interfixus 8y ago
  Communists are ideologically against privare property. Historically, not so much. Be that as it may, I don't get your point. Communists opposing private property, therefore I, as opponent of the "law", must be a communist? Please, I expect better from the HN crowd, although not from the insufferable mr. Rohde, MEP.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > Be that as it may, I don't get your point. Communists opposing private property, therefore I, as opponent of the "law", must be a communist? I'm not defending the idea. I'm pointing out that the accusation is not baseless. If you oppose the right to use private property as a means of production, and consequently oppose a law that enforces your right to profit from your private property, then you're clearly advocating a basic communist dogma.
    - interfixus 8y ago
      I'm not aware of opposing such a right. I'm not aware of being a communist, and that's putting it mildly. I'm very much aware of being opposed to the deluge of terrifiyng, imbecilic megastatecontrol over ever increasing areas of my life from the sinecured, corrupt, and largely incompetent members of the EU so-called parliament.