5 ms·

>So what I get from this is that the system works. This is definitely really worth repeating and something everyone should always keep in mind. It's very dange

by xoa 8y ago

>So what I get from this is that the system works. This is definitely really worth repeating and something everyone should always keep in mind. It's very dangerous for educated people and experts in particular to allow apathy or over cynicism to obscure the fact that it is truly possible to lobby successfully for positive changes too. >I usually postpone my doomsday scenarios until they are fact. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? You mean you postpone your contingency plan activation, or do you mean warning people around it? But if you think it really is a doomsday scenario and you don't warn people until after it's done how do you keep it from happening in the first place? >Eventually I hope EU completely bans organised lobbying, nothing good ever comes from pandering to special interests. How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are? I know that most of the population, even if they're massively effected by the destructive effects of IP maximalism, are not actually cognizant of it at all. That makes those of us opposed to it "special interests" too doesn't it? We're trying to lobby for technocratic policy changes that will benefit us personally even if it will also benefit others too. It would likely benefit many of us commercially too, which isn't an inherently bad thing. How do you create an objective set of rules around that?

tyfon 8y ago
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? You mean you postpone your contingency plan activation, or do you mean warning people around it? But if you think it really is a doomsday scenario and you don't warn people until after it's done how do you keep it from happening in the first place? What I mean is that I don't go screaming "the internet is doomed" for months before the actual vote like I've seen many forums posts and articles claim. However I have no issue in warning people that "if the proposal is accepted as is it would do great harm". >How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are? I know that most of the population, even if they're massively effected by the destructive effects of IP maximalism, are not actually cognizant of it at all. That makes those of us opposed to it "special interests" too doesn't it? We're trying to lobby for technocratic policy changes that will benefit us personally even if it will also benefit others too. It would likely benefit many of us commercially too, which isn't an inherently bad thing. How do you create an objective set of rules around that? They can still organise, spread information and argue their point. I might have been a bit broad in my strokes. There should be no organised "secret" lobbying, that is I wish all that the politicians do and talk about in their official capacities should be recorded and open. This includes internal party meetings, lobbyist meetings etc. It is very hard to create this objectively but the end-game for me is to get back-door politics out in the open. I once read a book by L.E. Modesitt Jr names "Haze" which has a system that I actually find very appealing. It's a bit much to recap it here but if one likes to explore different systems this is a good one imho.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >What I mean is that I don't go screaming "the internet is doomed" for months before the actual vote like I've seen many forums posts and articles claim. The only reason this didn't pass is because people screamed at the tops of their lungs.
  - tyfon 8y ago
    Yes but the internet was not doomed as we now see. I could have been but it was not at the point in time (presents form vs conditional form). I have no issues with warning people what can happen.
    - vezycash 8y ago
      The internet escaped the impending doom because it didn't pass. It didn't pass because people acted. And People acted because of the numerous alarms about the impending doom.
      - tyfon 8y ago
        Yes, that's not what I am arguing and I think it might be a distinction that is different from my mother tongue and English. I've seen people arguing that "the internet is doomed" as if there is nothing one can do about it and the event that doomed it has already happened. I've even seen headlines of that form on HN. It is the same is if someone had written "the coral reef is doomed", then I would think that someone had dropped a nuclear bomb on it and that the event already happened. As I said, I'm not against warning people what _can_ happen but I don't go around saying it already has happened. If it has happened then there is no action one can take (i.e., the dooms day scenario has already happened). That's what I wanted to convey in my first post really. In any case it's very much a topic derailment in this case and I apologise for that.
        scarejunba 8y ago
        Dude, people understand that "this copyright law has doomed the internet" means "if you stop this or undo it, it won't be a reason for the internet's doom". Fortunately, human interpretation is fluid enough that they understand this. Just like if I say "damn it! I left the stove on! My house will burn down" the driver will say "oh shit! Let's go back" not "Since you have guaranteed that the house is going to burn down at this point I am not going to act. By a strict interpretation of your words, there is nothing that can be done. Let us continue onward to the cinema" Seriously, man. Come on. This isn't a language thing.
joejerryronnie 8y ago
>How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are? This reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to break down the political influence of special interest groups as California’s governor. Everybody was wholeheartedly behind this effort, until they realized the special interests “ruining California politics” were the police, fire, and teacher’s unions.
ddebernardy 8y ago
> How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are? This seems like comparing apples to oranges. It's one thing for the EFF or ACLU to be very public about pushing this or that piece of legislation that they wrote for all practical intents and is in the public interest. It's another for XYZ lobbyists to be very private about pushing this or that piece of legislation that they wrote for all practical intents and caters to very private interests, with incidentally interested large donators reaching out to MPs about the legislation in question. (Personally speaking, I'd love it if politicians were required, under penalty of fines and prison, to disclose lobbying efforts they were exposed to.)
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  Lobbying just means trying to influence someone’s opinion. Corporate lobbiests are lobbying corrupt officials. Lobbying isn’t the problem; corruption is
  - ddebernardy 8y ago
    That definition of lobbying might have worked a few centuries ago. But nowadays it means trying to influence someone's opinion and throwing pre-written policies (and oftentimes money) at them. Also, the definition of corruption you seem to have is not accurate IMO. Corruption is what Spiro Agnew did: trade explicit influence in exchange for some dosh in an envelope. That's not what politicians usually do today in western democracies -- which is to say, pay very close attention to what their major donors are worried about. There's a case to be made about how the two are equivalent in the end, but the fact of the matter is that in the first case the funds arrive in an envelope for the politician to pocket (minus some bagman commission) whereas in the second case the donations are (supposed to be) disclosed and (theoretically) benefit the politician's campaign.
    - tux1968 8y ago
      It's not just campaign contributions though. When people step out of government they're often stepping into very cushy and lucrative jobs provided by people they helped while in government. You don't get to make that transition if your primary motive is looking out for the average citizen. It never even has to be agreed to explicitly, it's just understood by all parties how the system works. Very hard to prove corruption in that case, as it's institutional rather than individual.
pjc50 8y ago
> organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are https://edri.org/ https://edri.org/ , https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ , and the various Pirate Parties. Green parties tend to be well-informed about this, although they do vary a lot from "bright green" to extremely nuts. I'm not sure banning lobbying is possible, but banning bribery disguised as "contributions" might be. Although the UK system for this has recently collapsed.
- dmix 8y ago
  How did the UK work out when it did run? My libertarian side wants to push back on these controls but after seeing Sheldon Adelson basically write the recent legislation on online gambling that directly benefits his own interests in the industry I’m becoming far more skeptical of its value. It’s sold as allowing more freedom for private citizens and industry but in reality the greatest winners will be the giant companies, who can naturally buy the most influence (and get their old private school buddies in Congress) to squeeze out their competition and build barriers to entry. Which is fundamentally anti-private business. And which reflects a long trend in American politics where the “free market” label is used to sell things very much anti-free market, which then causes more people to blame free markets as the problem (when all along it was the business elite winning over the political elite for gain, not anything like a market).
  - pjc50 8y ago
    To be honest, only marginally better, but there was a bit more sanity in the discourse before FB ads from anonymous sources, and a bit more restraint before someone figured out that they could exploit the NI-only rules allowing anonymity for donations to put half a million quid through for Brexit. (NI politics has been deeply dysfunctional since the 60s; it managed a decade and a half of normal politics before collapsing in a fraud scandal. Its devolved government has been shut down for two years. A bomb has just gone off in Derry, perhaps a sign of more to come. Brexit and the small government majority has allowed this dysfunctionality to leak into meanland government) Weak investigations have been made into all the breaches of rules during the Brexit campaign, but nobody has been prosecuted yet.

by xoa 8y ago

tyfon 8y ago

> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? You mean you postpone your contingency plan activation, or do you mean warning people around it? But if you think it really is a doomsday scenario and you don't warn people until after it's done how do you keep it from happening in the first place? What I mean is that I don't go screaming "the internet is doomed" for months before the actual vote like I've seen many forums posts and articles claim. However I have no issue in warning people that "if the proposal is accepted as is it would do great harm". >How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are? I know that most of the population, even if they're massively effected by the destructive effects of IP maximalism, are not actually cognizant of it at all. That makes those of us opposed to it "special interests" too doesn't it? We're trying to lobby for technocratic policy changes that will benefit us personally even if it will also benefit others too. It would likely benefit many of us commercially too, which isn't an inherently bad thing. How do you create an objective set of rules around that? They can still organise, spread information and argue their point. I might have been a bit broad in my strokes. There should be no organised "secret" lobbying, that is I wish all that the politicians do and talk about in their official capacities should be recorded and open. This includes internal party meetings, lobbyist meetings etc. It is very hard to create this objectively but the end-game for me is to get back-door politics out in the open. I once read a book by L.E. Modesitt Jr names "Haze" which has a system that I actually find very appealing. It's a bit much to recap it here but if one likes to explore different systems this is a good one imho.

Mirioron 8y ago
>What I mean is that I don't go screaming "the internet is doomed" for months before the actual vote like I've seen many forums posts and articles claim. The only reason this didn't pass is because people screamed at the tops of their lungs.
- tyfon 8y ago
  Yes but the internet was not doomed as we now see. I could have been but it was not at the point in time (presents form vs conditional form). I have no issues with warning people what can happen.
  - vezycash 8y ago
    The internet escaped the impending doom because it didn't pass. It didn't pass because people acted. And People acted because of the numerous alarms about the impending doom.
    - tyfon 8y ago
      Yes, that's not what I am arguing and I think it might be a distinction that is different from my mother tongue and English. I've seen people arguing that "the internet is doomed" as if there is nothing one can do about it and the event that doomed it has already happened. I've even seen headlines of that form on HN. It is the same is if someone had written "the coral reef is doomed", then I would think that someone had dropped a nuclear bomb on it and that the event already happened. As I said, I'm not against warning people what _can_ happen but I don't go around saying it already has happened. If it has happened then there is no action one can take (i.e., the dooms day scenario has already happened). That's what I wanted to convey in my first post really. In any case it's very much a topic derailment in this case and I apologise for that.
      - scarejunba 8y ago
        Dude, people understand that "this copyright law has doomed the internet" means "if you stop this or undo it, it won't be a reason for the internet's doom". Fortunately, human interpretation is fluid enough that they understand this. Just like if I say "damn it! I left the stove on! My house will burn down" the driver will say "oh shit! Let's go back" not "Since you have guaranteed that the house is going to burn down at this point I am not going to act. By a strict interpretation of your words, there is nothing that can be done. Let us continue onward to the cinema" Seriously, man. Come on. This isn't a language thing.

joejerryronnie 8y ago

>How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are? This reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to break down the political influence of special interest groups as California’s governor. Everybody was wholeheartedly behind this effort, until they realized the special interests “ruining California politics” were the police, fire, and teacher’s unions.

ddebernardy 8y ago

> How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are? This seems like comparing apples to oranges. It's one thing for the EFF or ACLU to be very public about pushing this or that piece of legislation that they wrote for all practical intents and is in the public interest. It's another for XYZ lobbyists to be very private about pushing this or that piece of legislation that they wrote for all practical intents and caters to very private interests, with incidentally interested large donators reaching out to MPs about the legislation in question. (Personally speaking, I'd love it if politicians were required, under penalty of fines and prison, to disclose lobbying efforts they were exposed to.)

colejohnson66 8y ago
Lobbying just means trying to influence someone’s opinion. Corporate lobbiests are lobbying corrupt officials. Lobbying isn’t the problem; corruption is
- ddebernardy 8y ago
  That definition of lobbying might have worked a few centuries ago. But nowadays it means trying to influence someone's opinion and throwing pre-written policies (and oftentimes money) at them. Also, the definition of corruption you seem to have is not accurate IMO. Corruption is what Spiro Agnew did: trade explicit influence in exchange for some dosh in an envelope. That's not what politicians usually do today in western democracies -- which is to say, pay very close attention to what their major donors are worried about. There's a case to be made about how the two are equivalent in the end, but the fact of the matter is that in the first case the funds arrive in an envelope for the politician to pocket (minus some bagman commission) whereas in the second case the donations are (supposed to be) disclosed and (theoretically) benefit the politician's campaign.
  - tux1968 8y ago
    It's not just campaign contributions though. When people step out of government they're often stepping into very cushy and lucrative jobs provided by people they helped while in government. You don't get to make that transition if your primary motive is looking out for the average citizen. It never even has to be agreed to explicitly, it's just understood by all parties how the system works. Very hard to prove corruption in that case, as it's institutional rather than individual.

pjc50 8y ago

> organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are https://edri.org/ https://edri.org/ , https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ , and the various Pirate Parties. Green parties tend to be well-informed about this, although they do vary a lot from "bright green" to extremely nuts. I'm not sure banning lobbying is possible, but banning bribery disguised as "contributions" might be. Although the UK system for this has recently collapsed.

dmix 8y ago
How did the UK work out when it did run? My libertarian side wants to push back on these controls but after seeing Sheldon Adelson basically write the recent legislation on online gambling that directly benefits his own interests in the industry I’m becoming far more skeptical of its value. It’s sold as allowing more freedom for private citizens and industry but in reality the greatest winners will be the giant companies, who can naturally buy the most influence (and get their old private school buddies in Congress) to squeeze out their competition and build barriers to entry. Which is fundamentally anti-private business. And which reflects a long trend in American politics where the “free market” label is used to sell things very much anti-free market, which then causes more people to blame free markets as the problem (when all along it was the business elite winning over the political elite for gain, not anything like a market).
- pjc50 8y ago
  To be honest, only marginally better, but there was a bit more sanity in the discourse before FB ads from anonymous sources, and a bit more restraint before someone figured out that they could exploit the NI-only rules allowing anonymity for donations to put half a million quid through for Brexit. (NI politics has been deeply dysfunctional since the 60s; it managed a decade and a half of normal politics before collapsing in a fraud scandal. Its devolved government has been shut down for two years. A bomb has just gone off in Derry, perhaps a sign of more to come. Brexit and the small government majority has allowed this dysfunctionality to leak into meanland government) Weak investigations have been made into all the breaches of rules during the Brexit campaign, but nobody has been prosecuted yet.