2 ms·

My opinion in short (nofi): Anyone with decent skills, a love for getting things done and some need for privacy needs to stay as far away from politics as possi

by wjnc 8y ago

My opinion in short (nofi): Anyone with decent skills, a love for getting things done and some need for privacy needs to stay as far away from politics as possible. I've tried it when young and naive. The 'thinking for others' part is addictive, plus it's quite the thrill that people actually vote for you. But it comes with quite the cost. No privacy, death threats, the constant bending over backwards stretching your true beliefs for the party line. So many politicians are abusers of substances, prone to corruption and generally mentally unstable that I don't buy the line 'we need different politicians' anymore. We need different politics. I have no clue how to get there though and advocate a quite life for anyone. Not necessarily 9-5, but something with clear boundaries and where one is not the focal point for any lunatic. I'd make the same point of not becoming CEO though.

avmich 8y ago
Technologists, unlike politicians, have a luxury of creating a system and offering it to others, without asking for trust (in form of election or other) or promising doing some specific work (to support the system, to use it etc.) If the system is good, others will use it; otherwise they won't. As I understand it, Schneier's idea is to ask technologists to work on systems solving - even partially - problems which we see today in the society. Even partial solution can help those whose job is to, in general, govern, i.e. politicians - as well as hired bureaucrats.
FakeComments 8y ago
> We need different politics. I agree — and a place technologists can make an impact with a little more obscurity is in the infrastructure for politics. The problems with politics aren’t merely a technical solution, but it does seem like the advent of mass media and computers has changed some things about politics — which means that a change in the technical mechanisms can change the process and outcomes. If you think about the math, each represenative stands for about 750,000 people on average. About half to three quarters of their constituents will be working aged, so 375,000. About 1 in 100 will be motivated enough to put a few hours into helping now and then, so 3,750. You figure “now and then” really means “once a year”, but you need help once a month — 375. Maybe 1 in 10 really has something useful to say, so 38. But the point is when you’re talking about major legislation, it seems like you should be able to recruit a few dozen to a few hundred people to put eyes on the text. By hosting a public repository across districts, you can probably reliably get a few hundred to a thousand volunteers to mark up legislation (or help with ML based scanners). I’ve long thought a website which joined law markup/comments, vote tracking, and candidate writing would be largely effective — it drops the amount of effort required for a citizen to express effective oversight, and collates information back to you during elections.
ddebernardy 8y ago
FWIW I came to a somewhat similar conclusion in my mid 20s. Many many years later, and I've come to realize how wrong I was then. The way to change the politics is to jump in and participate. If you don't, someone else will. Probably not in a way you like. And possibly by someone who is catering to the lunatics you're fearing.

by wjnc 8y ago

avmich 8y ago

Technologists, unlike politicians, have a luxury of creating a system and offering it to others, without asking for trust (in form of election or other) or promising doing some specific work (to support the system, to use it etc.) If the system is good, others will use it; otherwise they won't. As I understand it, Schneier's idea is to ask technologists to work on systems solving - even partially - problems which we see today in the society. Even partial solution can help those whose job is to, in general, govern, i.e. politicians - as well as hired bureaucrats.

FakeComments 8y ago

> We need different politics. I agree — and a place technologists can make an impact with a little more obscurity is in the infrastructure for politics. The problems with politics aren’t merely a technical solution, but it does seem like the advent of mass media and computers has changed some things about politics — which means that a change in the technical mechanisms can change the process and outcomes. If you think about the math, each represenative stands for about 750,000 people on average. About half to three quarters of their constituents will be working aged, so 375,000. About 1 in 100 will be motivated enough to put a few hours into helping now and then, so 3,750. You figure “now and then” really means “once a year”, but you need help once a month — 375. Maybe 1 in 10 really has something useful to say, so 38. But the point is when you’re talking about major legislation, it seems like you should be able to recruit a few dozen to a few hundred people to put eyes on the text. By hosting a public repository across districts, you can probably reliably get a few hundred to a thousand volunteers to mark up legislation (or help with ML based scanners). I’ve long thought a website which joined law markup/comments, vote tracking, and candidate writing would be largely effective — it drops the amount of effort required for a citizen to express effective oversight, and collates information back to you during elections.

ddebernardy 8y ago

FWIW I came to a somewhat similar conclusion in my mid 20s. Many many years later, and I've come to realize how wrong I was then. The way to change the politics is to jump in and participate. If you don't, someone else will. Probably not in a way you like. And possibly by someone who is catering to the lunatics you're fearing.