6 ms·
If you haven't already, please take the time to email your federal representatives. The EFF's tool [1] only takes a few clicks to use. [1] https://act.eff.org
by djaque 7y ago
If you haven't already, please take the time to email your federal representatives. The EFF's tool [1] only takes a few clicks to use.
[1] https://act.eff.org/action/protect-our-speech-and-security-online-reject-the-graham-blumenthal-bill https://act.eff.org/action/protect-our-speech-and-security-o...
- thaumasiotes 7y ago> The EFF's tool [1] only takes a few clicks to use. Your input is discounted at least in direct proportion to how little you sacrificed in order to provide it. If you really want to make an impression, telephone your representative.
- thanksforfish 7y agoDon't let that discourage you if you've only got time to tap a few buttons. Better to send a weak signal than none. In either case, contact instructions are here: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials/ https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials/
- pc86 7y agoI take issue with the premise that there is anyone who doesn't have time to send a better signal? It takes all of about 4 minutes to call the Capitol offices of your two representatives in Congress. They'll get your name address and you can make it as quick as "I just wanted to let Rep./Sen. so-and-so know that I am for/against HB/SB 1234." and it's done. You will absolutely spend more time looking up their phone numbers than you will on the phone. You can do this while walking out of the office to the parking lot or metro station.
- hanniabu 7y agoIf you really want to make an impression, create a SuperPAC and donate millions to their campaigns.
- pas 7y agoNo, don't! After you've spent the money they'll do whatever they want. Instead, threaten to donate to their opponent if they don't bow to your will, then after roll call you can wire the money to them.
- StillBored 7y agoHehe, the only difference between what you and parent said, is that he is wiring it to their _next_ election campaign. Do it preferably in smaller sums so you can strong arm them multiple times before the next election.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago> Do it preferably in smaller sums so you can strong arm them multiple times before the next election. Really, you want to have a steady stream of payments flowing from you to them. That way, they're accustomed to it, and you always have the implicit threat of suspending the payments. This basically mirrors the structure of an ordinary ongoing personal relationship. One-time donations, which would reflect an ordinary commercial relationship, don't work well, since the thing that makes them work outside of politics -- conditioning payment on receipt of the good purchased -- is illegal in politics.
- reaperducer 7y agoYour input is discounted at least in direct proportion to how little you sacrificed in order to provide it. One of my college roommates works for a congresscritter. He says, at least for his guy, written letters still have the most impact, followed by telephone calls. He didn't mention faxes. E-mail and social media are waaaay down on the list because they take the least effort and can be gamed so easily.
- akeck 7y agoI'll probably send certified letters in this case.
- sailfast 7y agoMany of my reps have stopped providing phone numbers on their websites. Kinda cowardly, but it allows them to validate emails with addresses that come via their website from actual constituents.
- pubstik 7y agoYet they all hve phone numbers that can be found with a cursory search. Do the dilligence.
- thanksforfish 7y agoThere's an interesting age bias there. My parents write letters, my generation much less so. I don't know if I currently have stamps. Our votes count the same though.
- owenshen24 7y agoI attempted to call them today. All of their offices were closed due to COVID-19. I was unable to leave a message.
- shadowoflight 7y ago> Your input is discounted at least in direct proportion to how little you sacrificed in order to provide it. If this were true, corporations would be completely ignored when they provided a measly few million dollars in campaign contributions...
- mohaine 7y agoI've heard this so many times but I'm not sure it is true. I helped with processing the results of a large government RFC for a large government aid bill (Farm Bill 201?) and the exact opposite was true. There were too many responses to individually read each one so the responses just got bucketed and counted. You could be fine with a one off response but it would be less likely to be bucketed correctly and would still only be counted once per bucket at most. To cover your bases I would always do the easy one click option and then write the handwritten letter as well.
- lliiffee 7y agoI was a little apprehensive, but decided to try this. I called my representative as well as both senators. In all cases (3:30pm on a thursday) I just got a voicemail. I left a short message in each case. Nothing could be easier.
- yingw787 7y agoI just filled it out! I didn't realize from the previous HN post Signal was threatening to leave the U.S. market altogether! I don't recall if they have ever done that before. So I'm taking this seriously.
- SkyMarshal 7y agoFor reps that require it, which topic should we select for this - Science/Technology or Communications/Telecommunications/FCC?
- pc86 7y agoIt would depend on the representative - if they're on committees related to one or the other, I'd select that one. If it's 50/50 I'd probably choose Telecom/FCC as that seems more technically accurate.
- ipsin 7y agoI was going to contact my senators. One of them is Dianne Feinstein, and... ugh, why is she always on the worst side when it comes to privacy? She's actually a sponsor of this thing. I've written her enough that I can already write my own reply from her office. Shorter Feinstein: "Thank you for your concerns, but you're wrong."
- coldpie 7y ago> why is she always on the worst side when it comes to privacy Because she is a terrible Senator. Please, please, please stop voting for her already.
- catalogia 7y agoShe's 86 now and the next time she'll be up for reelection is in 2024. There's a good chance she won't be around long enough to ever lose reelection.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago> There's a good chance she won't be around long enough to ever lose reelection. No need to be so negative. Isn't it nicer to say, "There's a good chance that she won't win reelection*."?
- catalogia 7y agoI think that phrasing is more ambiguous, not nicer (nor meaner.) "Won't win reelection" is phrasing that's compatible with a 'loses the election' scenario, which I consider implausible (If she's still alive in 2024, she'll undoubtedly win.) Adding ambiguity to my comment doesn't make it nicer; it only increases the chance that I might be misunderstood.
- smegger001 7y agoon the other hand the late Senator Strom Thormond didn't leave office until he retired at age 100.
- samanator 7y agoThanks for the link! I never knew it was that easy. Submitted!
- tasty_freeze 7y agoI tried to use it, but it is very confusing. I added a personalized message at the start of it, hit submit, and it comes back saying "Please check that all required fields are completed and try again." The only thing I hadn't checked was the "Yes I want to join EFF's mailing list". I gritted my teeth, checked it, hit submit, and got the same message. FF 74.0.1, 64b, windows 10