4 ms·

How sad it is we must work to spread huge internet campaigns to try and protect our freedoms from those we have elected to office. (me: https://twitter.com/#!/

How sad it is we must work to spread huge internet campaigns to try and protect our freedoms from those we have elected to office. (me: https://twitter.com/#!/ericjgruber/status/147004394448224256 https://twitter.com/#!/ericjgruber/status/147004394448224256)

jinushaun 15y ago
The problem is that people vote politicians in based on abstract esoteric social issues, instead of their stance on real-world issues that actually matter.
- rumblestrut 15y ago
  And, I would argue that politicians need those social issues to stay the same to continue to engage their base.
- afterburner 15y ago
  "abstract esoteric social issues" And taxes.
- _delirium 15y ago
  Eh, while I do think there's a lot of cultural-identity politics that goes on (especially over religion), I think plenty of people from both the left and right focus on issues that are "real-world", even if it's disproportionately a lightning-rod subset of the issues. For example, people who hate taxes seem partly driven by ideology, but partly just by a desire to pay lower taxes. And people who oppose restrictions on abortion are often driven by a practical desire to have abortion clinics available in the real world as an option.
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  Actually, I think part of the problem is that people elect their politicians based on real-world issues and how they think a certain candidate will act/vote. This system allows the snakes that will say anything just for a vote to make it in politics, but fails to actually elect people who are capable of making the best decisions for their constituents and being a leader.
- protomyth 15y ago
  In a lot of ways the social issues matter, but they are obscured by the shear complication of the law making process and the lack of accountability the media brings to the process. We hear pundits and politician speeches, but we never hear about the lobbyist, sponsors, co-sponsors who contributed to a bill. The news doesn't do us the service that a sports channel does by keeping score.
- shasta 15y ago
  People voting based on stances on real world issues is actually the problem. If you vote on any issue other than fixing the broken system, you're contributing to the problem.
- narrator 15y ago
  People vote based on bikeshed issues. Absolutely everyone has an opinion on gay marriage even it affects about 50,000 gay people who want to get married nationwide. However, people are bored to death by and largely ignore financial and patent reform even though it directly affects the future of almost everyone in the country.
i_c_b 15y ago
Is it sad? If someone bought a car and then complained that it wasn't taking care of all their transportation needs, but they never learned how to drive and didn't expect that they would have to do the work of driving, we would (rightly) say that they misunderstand what the car does; it's a tool and a force amplifier, but it still requires a lot of effort and attention. Say what you will about the religious right and the tea party (and various mega-corporations), but they all understand that you have to drive the car that is our politicians. I feel like a whole lot of us aren't even showing up for our seat at the table - and there are a lot of us. (This is what I find so heartening about the threat of a Wikipedia black-out, too) While I read about SOPA, and the way that the MPAA lobbies, the thing that keeps popping into my head is, why exactly are those of us who love a free internet on the defensive on these issues? Why do we always end up being reactive? Why are we vaguely relieved when some people start making a bill that's only 1/10th as bad as SOPA / Protect IP? Why aren't we (or wikipedia, or tumblr, or google, or the whole fuzzy mess of everyone who so identities) driving for more proactive legislation that makes the internet even more free and even better protected? Why are we voluntarily relinquishing initiative here? Why aren't we actively engaging in our own lobbying to neuter fundamentally anti-Enlightenment viruses like the MPAA more generally, to cut them off at the knees? Thank god for the EFF, but there has to be some way to mobilize broader-based support for a lot of these values in a more sustained and pointed way.
- TheCapn 15y ago
  I think you answered your own question in the last paragraph. For companies like the RIAA and MPAA they have business interests that are closely tied into the laws that they're forced to recognize. Because of this they create positions within their company whose job is to ensure the laws are aligned with their needs. As individuals (even with like-minded goals) we don't have this luxury. We work our day jobs that may or may not relate to the internet directly and then come home to let loose or attend to other needs outside the job. In no part of this cycle is there a massive budget that allows us to pick the brain of those in power during the week. We don't have time to help draft Bills and gain support through our government and in a way, expect others to do that for us. Who are these people we want? Well other companies of course. We want Google and Yahoo to step up to bat, but we're met full circle with the problem in the first place. They'll lobby government to align the laws with their business direction. And as individuals its up to us to decide if their business direction aligns with our interests. What is left then? Let the corporations bicker and fight it out but once the bill gets tossed into parliament let our representatives know how we feel about it as the people. Sucky system but I don't see a better solution right now.
bentlegen 15y ago
What I think is far more sad is that there a host of important issues for which we have not mobilized huge internet campaigns.

jinushaun 15y ago

The problem is that people vote politicians in based on abstract esoteric social issues, instead of their stance on real-world issues that actually matter.

rumblestrut 15y ago
And, I would argue that politicians need those social issues to stay the same to continue to engage their base.
afterburner 15y ago
"abstract esoteric social issues" And taxes.
_delirium 15y ago
Eh, while I do think there's a lot of cultural-identity politics that goes on (especially over religion), I think plenty of people from both the left and right focus on issues that are "real-world", even if it's disproportionately a lightning-rod subset of the issues. For example, people who hate taxes seem partly driven by ideology, but partly just by a desire to pay lower taxes. And people who oppose restrictions on abortion are often driven by a practical desire to have abortion clinics available in the real world as an option.
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
Actually, I think part of the problem is that people elect their politicians based on real-world issues and how they think a certain candidate will act/vote. This system allows the snakes that will say anything just for a vote to make it in politics, but fails to actually elect people who are capable of making the best decisions for their constituents and being a leader.
protomyth 15y ago
In a lot of ways the social issues matter, but they are obscured by the shear complication of the law making process and the lack of accountability the media brings to the process. We hear pundits and politician speeches, but we never hear about the lobbyist, sponsors, co-sponsors who contributed to a bill. The news doesn't do us the service that a sports channel does by keeping score.
shasta 15y ago
People voting based on stances on real world issues is actually the problem. If you vote on any issue other than fixing the broken system, you're contributing to the problem.
narrator 15y ago
People vote based on bikeshed issues. Absolutely everyone has an opinion on gay marriage even it affects about 50,000 gay people who want to get married nationwide. However, people are bored to death by and largely ignore financial and patent reform even though it directly affects the future of almost everyone in the country.

i_c_b 15y ago

Is it sad? If someone bought a car and then complained that it wasn't taking care of all their transportation needs, but they never learned how to drive and didn't expect that they would have to do the work of driving, we would (rightly) say that they misunderstand what the car does; it's a tool and a force amplifier, but it still requires a lot of effort and attention. Say what you will about the religious right and the tea party (and various mega-corporations), but they all understand that you have to drive the car that is our politicians. I feel like a whole lot of us aren't even showing up for our seat at the table - and there are a lot of us. (This is what I find so heartening about the threat of a Wikipedia black-out, too) While I read about SOPA, and the way that the MPAA lobbies, the thing that keeps popping into my head is, why exactly are those of us who love a free internet on the defensive on these issues? Why do we always end up being reactive? Why are we vaguely relieved when some people start making a bill that's only 1/10th as bad as SOPA / Protect IP? Why aren't we (or wikipedia, or tumblr, or google, or the whole fuzzy mess of everyone who so identities) driving for more proactive legislation that makes the internet even more free and even better protected? Why are we voluntarily relinquishing initiative here? Why aren't we actively engaging in our own lobbying to neuter fundamentally anti-Enlightenment viruses like the MPAA more generally, to cut them off at the knees? Thank god for the EFF, but there has to be some way to mobilize broader-based support for a lot of these values in a more sustained and pointed way.

TheCapn 15y ago
I think you answered your own question in the last paragraph. For companies like the RIAA and MPAA they have business interests that are closely tied into the laws that they're forced to recognize. Because of this they create positions within their company whose job is to ensure the laws are aligned with their needs. As individuals (even with like-minded goals) we don't have this luxury. We work our day jobs that may or may not relate to the internet directly and then come home to let loose or attend to other needs outside the job. In no part of this cycle is there a massive budget that allows us to pick the brain of those in power during the week. We don't have time to help draft Bills and gain support through our government and in a way, expect others to do that for us. Who are these people we want? Well other companies of course. We want Google and Yahoo to step up to bat, but we're met full circle with the problem in the first place. They'll lobby government to align the laws with their business direction. And as individuals its up to us to decide if their business direction aligns with our interests. What is left then? Let the corporations bicker and fight it out but once the bill gets tossed into parliament let our representatives know how we feel about it as the people. Sucky system but I don't see a better solution right now.

bentlegen 15y ago

What I think is far more sad is that there a host of important issues for which we have not mobilized huge internet campaigns.