3 ms·

I know this is well meaning, but it will almost certainly backfire. Senior leaders (public and private) need to be able to have confidential discussions where

by Fede_V 6y ago

I know this is well meaning, but it will almost certainly backfire. Senior leaders (public and private) need to be able to have confidential discussions where they acknowledge trade offs and negotiate deals: if everything was open and broadcast, you'd get a combination of constant nonstop grandstanding and highly aggressive opposition research that would look for snippets that look bad out of context.

Something1234 6y ago
What if the feed was delayed by 6 to 18 months or so?
- edoceo 6y ago
  Then the bad actors have too much time to do the dirty. (See Senators stock trades)
realsunnyg 6y ago
So just more of what they do already, and a bit more transparently?
shkkmo 6y ago
There is clearly a trade-off here, but I don't see as clearly weighted in the same direction as you do. What value is there in allowing politicians to keep their own statements of blatant self interest out of the public record? I think that requiring politicians to make public their statements explaining their the decisions on behalf of their constituents would be and unalloyed public good.
- Fede_V 6y ago
  > I think that requiring politicians to make public their statements explaining their the decisions on behalf of their constituents would be and unalloyed public good Sure, this is fine, but that's very different from requiring all their interactions to be public. Put it this this: how often do you ever hear anything insightful or intelligent in a public congressional/senate hearing? It's always politicians trying to ask really stupid gotcha questions that will make them look good to the audience at home.
tomcooks 6y ago
Afaik in Italy all public meetings are public, and streamed live online from volunteers (small municipalities) or national TV and radio (lower/higher house)
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
i think there is more opportunity than you thing for things to work out well, because the tide of transparency would lift all boats, just the same. You attack someone, you better know you can be attacked. I think this would work wonders to introduce principles into people that are anything but principled. If you vote for someone that says he's for X, but then he actually secretly negotiating to drop X from the table, then what good was that campaign promise / vote ? Shouldn't it be necessary to know you were effectively defrauded ? There's almost no instance where more transparency is a net loss to society. Politics is far and away one of least transparent undertakings. It is desperate for more transparency, not less

by Fede_V 6y ago

Something1234 6y ago

What if the feed was delayed by 6 to 18 months or so?

edoceo 6y ago
Then the bad actors have too much time to do the dirty. (See Senators stock trades)

realsunnyg 6y ago

So just more of what they do already, and a bit more transparently?

shkkmo 6y ago

There is clearly a trade-off here, but I don't see as clearly weighted in the same direction as you do. What value is there in allowing politicians to keep their own statements of blatant self interest out of the public record? I think that requiring politicians to make public their statements explaining their the decisions on behalf of their constituents would be and unalloyed public good.

Fede_V 6y ago
> I think that requiring politicians to make public their statements explaining their the decisions on behalf of their constituents would be and unalloyed public good Sure, this is fine, but that's very different from requiring all their interactions to be public. Put it this this: how often do you ever hear anything insightful or intelligent in a public congressional/senate hearing? It's always politicians trying to ask really stupid gotcha questions that will make them look good to the audience at home.

tomcooks 6y ago

Afaik in Italy all public meetings are public, and streamed live online from volunteers (small municipalities) or national TV and radio (lower/higher house)

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

i think there is more opportunity than you thing for things to work out well, because the tide of transparency would lift all boats, just the same. You attack someone, you better know you can be attacked. I think this would work wonders to introduce principles into people that are anything but principled. If you vote for someone that says he's for X, but then he actually secretly negotiating to drop X from the table, then what good was that campaign promise / vote ? Shouldn't it be necessary to know you were effectively defrauded ? There's almost no instance where more transparency is a net loss to society. Politics is far and away one of least transparent undertakings. It is desperate for more transparency, not less