4 ms·

Agreed that Github needs to push back, but we should also be contacting our legislature so that they are aware of the abuse of law.

by daheza 6y ago

toomuchtodo 6y ago
True, but that's a longer "sales cycle" (election cycles are usually every 2-4 years) if you will. Tactical response vs strategic response.
- newsclues 6y ago
  A full war needs to be waged, at the tactical and strategic level, for (digital) freedom.
kodah 6y ago
This has been an issue, and has been lobbied for, for at least two decades. The law may do us favors one day but that day is far into the future.
- ballenf 6y ago
  Has there been even a single move away from ever more draconian copyright? Just the last budget bill had provisions for more criminal enforcement of copyright and with bipartisan support. If this is a slippery slope it's a steady and worryingly unstoppable one so far. Civil disobedience through distributed systems seems like the only answer right now. Your legislators can't hear you over the sound of millions of dollars from Hollywood getting deposited in their campaign accounts.
  - astrange 6y ago
    Corporations can't donate to campaigns, they can only collect voluntary donations from employees and only donate $5000 per campaign. And Microsoft does donate to all the ones you don't like, so on this theory they'd be doing GitHub's bidding.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  The future may arrive soon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHypmOp8AdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHypmOp8AdM
TheDong 6y ago
Whether we contact our representatives or not, the MPA / Disney / etc have deeper pockets than we do. We've reached the point where a candidate for the senate will only get the nomination and have a chance to be elected if they spend a significant amount of money on their campaign. There's no campaign limits, so if you don't spend much, you're liable to lose. As a result, the people who run successful campaigns almost always have already agreed to side with the MPA and other interests that have money. Us telling our legislature we're not happy about it won't help either because, well, what are we going to do? Vote for the person on the other party? Not likely. Vote for another guy? It's unlikely anyone else will even be on the ballot since both the democrats and republicans will avoid having multiple candidates to avoid splitting the vote within the party. I agree that the problem is really legal at its root, but I think we need better plans than "contact your representative".
- astrange 6y ago
  This year many high profile campaigns that spent the most money also lost, and the ones that won by spending the most were not "corporate" but were Bernie aligned.
  - TheDong 6y ago
    While you may be able to point to one or two anomalies, we need more than that. If the MPA has the ear of 70% of congress, that's still enough to have their way on legislation, regardless of a few fringe elements. As far as I can tell, there's not a large trend that this is changing currently. The candidate that spends the most still wins 70-80% of the time: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-sp... The cost of running a winning campaign has steadily increased as well: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/election-trends https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/election-tren... Those trends, to me, do not paint a compelling story that things are different now.
    - colonwqbang 6y ago
      Your conclusion that receiving funding => being popular => winning is not necessarily incorrect. But it is also possible that it is the other way around: being popular => receiving funding => winning I.e. candidates which are more popular tend to have an easier time receiving funding. Or, it could be some combination. This would also explain the outcomes you point to.

Agreed that Github needs to push back, but we should also be contacting our legislature so that they are aware of the abuse of law.

by daheza 6y ago

Agreed that Github needs to push back, but we should also be contacting our legislature so that they are aware of the abuse of law.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

True, but that's a longer "sales cycle" (election cycles are usually every 2-4 years) if you will. Tactical response vs strategic response.

newsclues 6y ago
A full war needs to be waged, at the tactical and strategic level, for (digital) freedom.

kodah 6y ago

This has been an issue, and has been lobbied for, for at least two decades. The law may do us favors one day but that day is far into the future.

ballenf 6y ago
Has there been even a single move away from ever more draconian copyright? Just the last budget bill had provisions for more criminal enforcement of copyright and with bipartisan support. If this is a slippery slope it's a steady and worryingly unstoppable one so far. Civil disobedience through distributed systems seems like the only answer right now. Your legislators can't hear you over the sound of millions of dollars from Hollywood getting deposited in their campaign accounts.
- astrange 6y ago
  Corporations can't donate to campaigns, they can only collect voluntary donations from employees and only donate $5000 per campaign. And Microsoft does donate to all the ones you don't like, so on this theory they'd be doing GitHub's bidding.
kmeisthax 6y ago
The future may arrive soon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHypmOp8AdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHypmOp8AdM

TheDong 6y ago

Whether we contact our representatives or not, the MPA / Disney / etc have deeper pockets than we do. We've reached the point where a candidate for the senate will only get the nomination and have a chance to be elected if they spend a significant amount of money on their campaign. There's no campaign limits, so if you don't spend much, you're liable to lose. As a result, the people who run successful campaigns almost always have already agreed to side with the MPA and other interests that have money. Us telling our legislature we're not happy about it won't help either because, well, what are we going to do? Vote for the person on the other party? Not likely. Vote for another guy? It's unlikely anyone else will even be on the ballot since both the democrats and republicans will avoid having multiple candidates to avoid splitting the vote within the party. I agree that the problem is really legal at its root, but I think we need better plans than "contact your representative".

astrange 6y ago
This year many high profile campaigns that spent the most money also lost, and the ones that won by spending the most were not "corporate" but were Bernie aligned.
- TheDong 6y ago
  While you may be able to point to one or two anomalies, we need more than that. If the MPA has the ear of 70% of congress, that's still enough to have their way on legislation, regardless of a few fringe elements. As far as I can tell, there's not a large trend that this is changing currently. The candidate that spends the most still wins 70-80% of the time: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-sp... The cost of running a winning campaign has steadily increased as well: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/election-trends https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/election-tren... Those trends, to me, do not paint a compelling story that things are different now.
  - colonwqbang 6y ago
    Your conclusion that receiving funding => being popular => winning is not necessarily incorrect. But it is also possible that it is the other way around: being popular => receiving funding => winning I.e. candidates which are more popular tend to have an easier time receiving funding. Or, it could be some combination. This would also explain the outcomes you point to.