4 ms·

Pay attention to that list, each pardon has a list of people who supported each pardon. Nobody from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU is on that

Pay attention to that list, each pardon has a list of people who supported each pardon. Nobody from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU is on that list. We are wasting our time and energy caring about either of those organizations. Let them stick to filing Amicus Briefs in courts, but they clearly have no pull or influence or backchannel despite our tech scene thinking they do.

mef 6y ago
you're saying because Trump's pardons weren't influenced by the EFF or ACLU, nobody should support those organizations?
- vmception 6y ago
  I'm saying that the internet and tech culture needs an organization that is more inspired and proactive. For example, Peter Theil risked ostracizing himself from the broader tech community to gain massive leverage and influence, and it worked and continues to work. We should be supporting more flexible and crafty organizations to turn our memes into reality.
thinkingemote 6y ago
How many were on Obamas list?
- vmception 6y ago
  I don't know, maybe there is a similar log with details on the whitehouse website. If you can find it a simply CTRL+F can help.
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    I thought your point was that the EFF and other great institutions would normally and successfully sponsor people to be pardoned and so this year was a notable exception? I'd be curious if there was a list of all unsuccessful applicants too. I think that would be very interesting to see and bring some transparency. We'd be able to see just how many businesses, shady and legit, how many political orgs and cultural institutions, millionaires lobby and for whom.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- blacksmith_tb 6y ago
  Looks like he pardoned 66 people at the end of his second term[1], no names leapt out at me. 1: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons
hawkice 6y ago
I think I'll be the one to stake out "influence within the Trump administration was highly unusual and doesn't reflect influence in more standard Republican or Democratic presidencies". I guess I wasn't aware this was controversial, but I feel I can support it with evidence.
- vmception 6y ago
  When I go to a country to get a result, I don't say "hey wait a minute, you're quite a bit more extreme than prior leaders and a lot of your citizens don't want to associate with you at all!" I just go to the mixers and try to get as much influence as possible and I'm glad to hang out in those circles. Like I said, EFF and ACLU are a waste of our energy because they failed to do that. The White House has published a list of the kinds of people and organizations that get results. Its an instruction manual.
  - ctvo 6y ago
    Yes, for this administration it's a manual. Did you read the list? Mobsters, corrupted politicians, etc.. The ACLU and EFF should also find a way to give Trump money / favors under the table to get pardons too in the name of the ends justify the means?
    - vmception 6y ago
      A proactive organization that we spend energy on and think supports ideas we care about should have been able to adapt, correct. The world thinks our ideas are just memes with quizzical effect on the real world, and they're right.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rtkwe 6y ago
What part of the EFF and ACLU should have gotten involved? He plead guilty to a trade secret theft charge which doesn't really seem like the ACLU's bag and only tangentially related to the EFF's.
deeeeplearning 6y ago
What a strange criticism. That these orgs are useless because they couldn't get Pardons from a President more or less totally opposed to their goals? It's completely unreasonable to expect otherwise.
- vmception 6y ago
  Like I said, let them keep filing amicus briefs, not useless, stop adding hyperbole I said what I said.
  - deeeeplearning 6y ago
    >We are wasting our time and energy caring about either of those organizations. Direct quote by the way
    - vmception 6y ago
      > Let them stick to filing Amicus Briefs in courts I get the impression people don’t know what an Amicus Brief is, about half of the replies are pretty off topic
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  And why would those organisations lobby for this its not like that trade secrets case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
klmadfejno 6y ago
I don't think I can think of any non-profit more deserving of donations than the ACLU in my opinion.
- listenallyall 6y ago
  pre-2010 ACLU? sure. The current ACLU, where free speech isn't absolute, but must be weighed against upsetting the apple cart on other issues? nope. https://www.axios.com/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech-civil-rights-1108e489-d79f-4d51-ac22-877b14546b76.html https://www.axios.com/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech-civil-rig...
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Respectfully, fuck off. This article cites the origin of the memo as the ACLU defending white nationalists' rights to protest in 2017. This is a hard issue. They're not saying free speech isn't absolute, they're saying they have finite resources and a number of civil rights they're trying to protect- and they're clearly outlining, explicitly, the right of hate groups to say their bullshit even when it runs directly opposed the ACLU's values. I think the actual leaked memo is a phenomenal read and very well balanced. : https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf?mod=article_inline https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621AC... Excellent quotes from that memo: > “although the democratic standardsin which the ACLU believes and for which it fights run directly counter to thephilosophy of the Klan and other ultra-right groups, the vitality of the democratic institutions the ACLU defends lies in their equal application to all.” >We also recognize that not defending fundamental liberties can come at considerable cost. If the ACLU avoids the defense of controversial speakers, and defends only those with whom it agrees,both the freedom of speech and the ACLU itself may suffer.The organization may lose credibility with allies, supporters, and other communities, requiring the expenditure of resources to mitigate those harms. Thus, there are often costs both from defending a given speaker and not defending that speaker.Because we are committed to the principle that free speech protects everyone, the speaker’s viewpoint should not be the decisive factor in our decision to defend speech rights. Considerations in prioritizing cases: > Whether the speaker seeks to engage in or promote violence > Whether the speakers seek to carryweapons > The impact of the proposed speechand the impact of its suppression > The extent to which we are able tomake clear that even as we defend aspeaker’s right to say what they want, we reserve our right to condemn the views themselves
vlod 6y ago
>but they clearly have no pull or influence or backchannel despite our tech scene thinking they do. These aren't some crappy organizations that do 'deals' to get their objectives. There's really (afaik) two ways to keep government in check. Voting and paying lawyers to sue the government when they do 'bad' things (read: against the law/constitution). Disclaimer: I am a member of both EFF and ACLU.
triceratops 6y ago
I'm quite happy they didn't lobby such a corrupt president for favors. I think I'll increase my donations.

mef 6y ago

you're saying because Trump's pardons weren't influenced by the EFF or ACLU, nobody should support those organizations?

vmception 6y ago
I'm saying that the internet and tech culture needs an organization that is more inspired and proactive. For example, Peter Theil risked ostracizing himself from the broader tech community to gain massive leverage and influence, and it worked and continues to work. We should be supporting more flexible and crafty organizations to turn our memes into reality.

thinkingemote 6y ago

How many were on Obamas list?

vmception 6y ago
I don't know, maybe there is a similar log with details on the whitehouse website. If you can find it a simply CTRL+F can help.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  I thought your point was that the EFF and other great institutions would normally and successfully sponsor people to be pardoned and so this year was a notable exception? I'd be curious if there was a list of all unsuccessful applicants too. I think that would be very interesting to see and bring some transparency. We'd be able to see just how many businesses, shady and legit, how many political orgs and cultural institutions, millionaires lobby and for whom.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
blacksmith_tb 6y ago
Looks like he pardoned 66 people at the end of his second term[1], no names leapt out at me. 1: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons

hawkice 6y ago

I think I'll be the one to stake out "influence within the Trump administration was highly unusual and doesn't reflect influence in more standard Republican or Democratic presidencies". I guess I wasn't aware this was controversial, but I feel I can support it with evidence.

vmception 6y ago
When I go to a country to get a result, I don't say "hey wait a minute, you're quite a bit more extreme than prior leaders and a lot of your citizens don't want to associate with you at all!" I just go to the mixers and try to get as much influence as possible and I'm glad to hang out in those circles. Like I said, EFF and ACLU are a waste of our energy because they failed to do that. The White House has published a list of the kinds of people and organizations that get results. Its an instruction manual.
- ctvo 6y ago
  Yes, for this administration it's a manual. Did you read the list? Mobsters, corrupted politicians, etc.. The ACLU and EFF should also find a way to give Trump money / favors under the table to get pardons too in the name of the ends justify the means?
  - vmception 6y ago
    A proactive organization that we spend energy on and think supports ideas we care about should have been able to adapt, correct. The world thinks our ideas are just memes with quizzical effect on the real world, and they're right.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rtkwe 6y ago

What part of the EFF and ACLU should have gotten involved? He plead guilty to a trade secret theft charge which doesn't really seem like the ACLU's bag and only tangentially related to the EFF's.

deeeeplearning 6y ago

What a strange criticism. That these orgs are useless because they couldn't get Pardons from a President more or less totally opposed to their goals? It's completely unreasonable to expect otherwise.

vmception 6y ago
Like I said, let them keep filing amicus briefs, not useless, stop adding hyperbole I said what I said.
- deeeeplearning 6y ago
  >We are wasting our time and energy caring about either of those organizations. Direct quote by the way
  - vmception 6y ago
    > Let them stick to filing Amicus Briefs in courts I get the impression people don’t know what an Amicus Brief is, about half of the replies are pretty off topic
Mauricebranagh 6y ago
And why would those organisations lobby for this its not like that trade secrets case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

klmadfejno 6y ago

I don't think I can think of any non-profit more deserving of donations than the ACLU in my opinion.

listenallyall 6y ago
pre-2010 ACLU? sure. The current ACLU, where free speech isn't absolute, but must be weighed against upsetting the apple cart on other issues? nope. https://www.axios.com/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech-civil-rights-1108e489-d79f-4d51-ac22-877b14546b76.html https://www.axios.com/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech-civil-rig...
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Respectfully, fuck off. This article cites the origin of the memo as the ACLU defending white nationalists' rights to protest in 2017. This is a hard issue. They're not saying free speech isn't absolute, they're saying they have finite resources and a number of civil rights they're trying to protect- and they're clearly outlining, explicitly, the right of hate groups to say their bullshit even when it runs directly opposed the ACLU's values. I think the actual leaked memo is a phenomenal read and very well balanced. : https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf?mod=article_inline https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621AC... Excellent quotes from that memo: > “although the democratic standardsin which the ACLU believes and for which it fights run directly counter to thephilosophy of the Klan and other ultra-right groups, the vitality of the democratic institutions the ACLU defends lies in their equal application to all.” >We also recognize that not defending fundamental liberties can come at considerable cost. If the ACLU avoids the defense of controversial speakers, and defends only those with whom it agrees,both the freedom of speech and the ACLU itself may suffer.The organization may lose credibility with allies, supporters, and other communities, requiring the expenditure of resources to mitigate those harms. Thus, there are often costs both from defending a given speaker and not defending that speaker.Because we are committed to the principle that free speech protects everyone, the speaker’s viewpoint should not be the decisive factor in our decision to defend speech rights. Considerations in prioritizing cases: > Whether the speaker seeks to engage in or promote violence > Whether the speakers seek to carryweapons > The impact of the proposed speechand the impact of its suppression > The extent to which we are able tomake clear that even as we defend aspeaker’s right to say what they want, we reserve our right to condemn the views themselves

vlod 6y ago

>but they clearly have no pull or influence or backchannel despite our tech scene thinking they do. These aren't some crappy organizations that do 'deals' to get their objectives. There's really (afaik) two ways to keep government in check. Voting and paying lawyers to sue the government when they do 'bad' things (read: against the law/constitution). Disclaimer: I am a member of both EFF and ACLU.

triceratops 6y ago

I'm quite happy they didn't lobby such a corrupt president for favors. I think I'll increase my donations.