4 ms·
How about we require our legislators to become educated enough on a topic to understand the broad view of how it works before the regulate any given thing. In
by mjevans 7y ago
How about we require our legislators to become educated enough on a topic to understand the broad view of how it works before the regulate any given thing.
In the case of regulating websites, they might need to understand (at a high level) what an IP address is, generally what DHCP and DNS do, how a web-page is like a mix of recipe and content for dynamically constructing a publication. How a database might provide some of that content and the difference between static and dynamic content.
I think if there are any particular boogeymen they're after, those examples should be deconstructed and contrasted against similar publications that they find OK.
Maybe the Library of Congress should have a Congressional Education sub-office dedicated to providing such instruction, and if not state colleges should definitely file briefings for congress.
- Nasrudith 7y agoThat brings to mind subdividing Congressional seats into domains to allow for specialization. The devil as usual is in the details. Issues include: * Defining expertises to not become outdated or too general to give any specialization advantage. * Handling border cases and deciding when every domain may vote on it. * While allowing specializations would the subdivisions actually be more expert in practice? We have already seen how "sabotour boards" assemble as those who are most interested in it are those who oppose it. I have already taken it as a given that qualification gatekeeping would take Goodheart's Law to new levels as refusing to recognize reality gives more concrete power. Still it is an interesting concept.
- paulmd 7y agoYou've just suggested a poll test/literacy test for politicians. That definitely has obvious problems based on who gets to choose the "right" answers. The question that will be on the revenue committee exam: "do tax cuts pay for themselves"? (I mean, I know the answer, but which one is going to be "correct"?) It's much simpler to realize that the majority of the people above a certain age can no longer stay current with technological developments. Yes, some of them can, but the vast majority are starting to lose it and certainly aren't absorbing anywhere near as much as they used to. Just like the minimum age limits also throw away a certain number of potentially qualified younger candidates who do have enough life experience to make good decisions, it's OK that upper age limits would exclude a certain number of older candidates who could still keep up with things.