9 ms·

What scares me most is the fact that everyone knows this tactic. Write an absurd policy, debate it, offer an alternative and jam it down citizens throats. We k

What scares me most is the fact that everyone knows this tactic. Write an absurd policy, debate it, offer an alternative and jam it down citizens throats. We know this, yet there is not much that can be done about it. Aside from the obvious, running for Senate and using your vote, what can be done to stop it? Someone with the right amount of money and enough motivation can pass just about anything, given enough time. I think, instead of protesting SOPA (or the next bill), people need to devise a method or position themselves so that they're in the right places to protect the average Citizen from such policies. These bills will just keep coming. Screaming from the side line is no longer effective.

Retric 15y ago
The way to stop it is to create and fund long term organizations devoted to stopping it. We have Greenpeace and PITA we need Net Freedom.
- bulletsvshumans 15y ago
  EFF?
  - stevecooperorg 15y ago
    First hit on google.
- sespindola 15y ago
  We already have the EFF[1]. Maybe we should consider donating to it. [1]: https://www.eff.org/helpout https://www.eff.org/helpout
  - Retric 15y ago
    Thanks for that, I just gave them 100$ because you mentioned it. PS: They require an email address on their donation page, but you can get away with junk data.
  - linuxlizard 15y ago
    I donate $20/month. And they're a US 501(c)(3) organization so my donation comes off my taxes. Win win.
    - stiletto 15y ago
      I've been meaning to ask someone this: do you mean that your return (if you receive a return) would be an additional $20, or that you are taxed as though you made $20 less? Sorry if this is elementary or too off-topic.
      - neilparikh 15y ago
        I'm pretty sure that $20 is not taxed. So, you're taxed as through you made $20 less.
        camiller 15y ago
        Correct, it is an "above the line" deduction from your gross income, not a "below the line" tax credit. The net effect is that if you are in the 25% marginal tax bracket it reduced your tax liability by $5.
        derekp7 15y ago
        But only if you have enough other deductions that you itemize your tax return. Basically everyone gets a standard deduction (i.e., 5,800 if you are single). You can either take that, or you can deduct a list of qualified expenses (for most people, this is mortgage income, property tax, and state tax). If that puts you over the standard deduction, then you deduct this amount instead. Then you can start adding on things like charitable contributions. Otherwise, if you don't have enough deductions, and you take the standard one, then you can't add anything else to it. (Some exceptions apply, consult your tax professional for advice, the above is personal commentary only and not intended to be legal tax advice).
- mattwdelong 15y ago
  Well, I kind of think this is playing right into the problem at hand. I mean, I believe what got us into this problem in the first place is an organization with motivations. Playing the same game is not what needs to be done, something else needs to be done. What that is? I don't know. But THIS game is not working, there are too many citizens getting hurt/left behind as a result. Think different. Hackers may not be the brightest in the world, but they sure are some of the most creative.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
gersh 15y ago
Do we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing uncensored internet access?
- philwelch 15y ago
  We already had one, I thought.
dhimes 15y ago
Write an absurd policy, debate it, offer an alternative and jam it down citizens throats I don't think that was their tactic. I believe they intended to get the bills passed pretty much the way they wrote them (with, of course, the canonical juggling that goes on in these things). "Screaming from the sideline" was, in fact, effective. I'm just not comfortable using it as a long-term strategy. We do need strong organizations in support of net freedom and neutrality. I would very much favor an organization whose only focus was on the 'net, and didn't also try to be anti-software-copyright/anti-software-patent or take on some other personality as well. It's easy to dilute your support when you try to take on too many causes that most folks don't really understand. Thost that may be inclined to give to one cause may shy away from a group that supports several.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  I don't think that was their tactic. Sure, they (Hollywood) would be happy if SOPA passed unaltered, but that's always the tactic: propose a door-in-the-face bill, shift the Overton window a bit, pass a foot-in-the-door law. It happens over and over. Example: Do you think they could have passed a 40 year copyright extension in the 1970s? Instead, they passed two ~20 year extensions, one in 1976, one in 1998. Example 2: SOPA and PIPA would have been unimaginable in 1998. Instead, they got the DMCA, which was merely unacceptable. Now, they push SOPA and PIPA hard, expecting to pass some watered-down version, and driving web site owners to extol the DMCA they vociferously opposed in 1998.
  - dhimes 15y ago
    I suspect in many cases it's a "Plan B" rather than a first-shot strategy. It is, of course, hard to know for sure, but as a counter-example, look how they de-fanged the FDA for regulating nutritional supplements (this goes back to the '90s). The first thing the industry did was to get every sympathetic (or buyable) politician and talking head to start talking about how Americans were hurt by the stupid FDA, using the usual hyperbole and emotion-stirring anecdotes, so that people had the FDA, out of the blue, on the tip of their tongues and "knowing" it was bad. Newt Gingrich was a point-man for this effort. (Once it was passed people started dying from ephedra-based nutritional supplements.) Then when the legislation was produced a support-base had already been formed. They expected a very public fight and prepared for it. In this case they were very quiet. The first thing I heard at all in the normal media was on the radio driving to work this morning. The news guy on the Boston station mentioned Wikipedia's blackout tomorrow and mentioned SOPA as the reason. The who bit was about 3 sentences. As I said, I'm not privy to insider strategy, but it was definitely a different tack.
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
If the president were to have the line-item veto, where he could approve of certain parts of a bill and veto others, we could hold him personally responsible whenever bills get loaded up like this. As it is, they can pass what they want and nobody is responsible. That's clearly not the way the system was designed to work. The entire purpose of representative democracies is that while representatives can freely vote against their constituents, the constituents also can throw them out of office based on the representative's decisions. I've seen this same problem play out in a variety of contexts, and it looks to me like the line-item veto is the only thing that will prevent this corruption of the system we're seeing. While this idea has been a pet cause of conservatives for some time, it looks like supporters of liberty have just as much or more skin in the game as fiscal hawks. Play out the following scenario in your head: it's late in the year, no budget has been passed by Congress (again), and suddenly some third-rail social program is running out of money. Congress passes a law to help the orphans and grandmothers, everybody climbs on-board with huge majority votes, and way in the back section is another version of SOPA. If you're the president, what do you do? Note this is a much different political scenario than just threatening a veto -- this is asking if you're willing to risk pissing off huge special interests groups just to make a much smaller number of nerds happy. It's political math, and it works quite simply. You sign the bill, make a public speech about how bad the new SOPA is, and life goes on. If you're smart you send out mailers asking people to donate so you can get rid of the thing you just signed! One party will pick the "side" of SOPA, the other party will pick the other "side". In fact it doesn't matter whether you really support or oppose the bill, whoever paid for it got it passed, huge numbers of politicians got to oppose it, and the public can't point the finger at anybody. There's nobody to throw out of office. There's no feedback loop. The system is broken. In my mind the only thing that is going to fix that is the line-item veto. A lot of state governors have it. I think it's about time POTUS got it also.
- rgrieselhuber 15y ago
  In effect, doesn't the President already have line item veto? If there are items he doesn't agree with, he should signal that he will veto until they are removed.
  - 15y ago

Retric 15y ago

The way to stop it is to create and fund long term organizations devoted to stopping it. We have Greenpeace and PITA we need Net Freedom.

bulletsvshumans 15y ago
EFF?
- stevecooperorg 15y ago
  First hit on google.
sespindola 15y ago
We already have the EFF[1]. Maybe we should consider donating to it. [1]: https://www.eff.org/helpout https://www.eff.org/helpout
- Retric 15y ago
  Thanks for that, I just gave them 100$ because you mentioned it. PS: They require an email address on their donation page, but you can get away with junk data.
- linuxlizard 15y ago
  I donate $20/month. And they're a US 501(c)(3) organization so my donation comes off my taxes. Win win.
  - stiletto 15y ago
    I've been meaning to ask someone this: do you mean that your return (if you receive a return) would be an additional $20, or that you are taxed as though you made $20 less? Sorry if this is elementary or too off-topic.
    - neilparikh 15y ago
      I'm pretty sure that $20 is not taxed. So, you're taxed as through you made $20 less.
      - camiller 15y ago
        Correct, it is an "above the line" deduction from your gross income, not a "below the line" tax credit. The net effect is that if you are in the 25% marginal tax bracket it reduced your tax liability by $5.
        derekp7 15y ago
        But only if you have enough other deductions that you itemize your tax return. Basically everyone gets a standard deduction (i.e., 5,800 if you are single). You can either take that, or you can deduct a list of qualified expenses (for most people, this is mortgage income, property tax, and state tax). If that puts you over the standard deduction, then you deduct this amount instead. Then you can start adding on things like charitable contributions. Otherwise, if you don't have enough deductions, and you take the standard one, then you can't add anything else to it. (Some exceptions apply, consult your tax professional for advice, the above is personal commentary only and not intended to be legal tax advice).
mattwdelong 15y ago
Well, I kind of think this is playing right into the problem at hand. I mean, I believe what got us into this problem in the first place is an organization with motivations. Playing the same game is not what needs to be done, something else needs to be done. What that is? I don't know. But THIS game is not working, there are too many citizens getting hurt/left behind as a result. Think different. Hackers may not be the brightest in the world, but they sure are some of the most creative.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

gersh 15y ago

Do we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing uncensored internet access?

philwelch 15y ago
We already had one, I thought.

dhimes 15y ago

Write an absurd policy, debate it, offer an alternative and jam it down citizens throats I don't think that was their tactic. I believe they intended to get the bills passed pretty much the way they wrote them (with, of course, the canonical juggling that goes on in these things). "Screaming from the sideline" was, in fact, effective. I'm just not comfortable using it as a long-term strategy. We do need strong organizations in support of net freedom and neutrality. I would very much favor an organization whose only focus was on the 'net, and didn't also try to be anti-software-copyright/anti-software-patent or take on some other personality as well. It's easy to dilute your support when you try to take on too many causes that most folks don't really understand. Thost that may be inclined to give to one cause may shy away from a group that supports several.

nitrogen 15y ago
I don't think that was their tactic. Sure, they (Hollywood) would be happy if SOPA passed unaltered, but that's always the tactic: propose a door-in-the-face bill, shift the Overton window a bit, pass a foot-in-the-door law. It happens over and over. Example: Do you think they could have passed a 40 year copyright extension in the 1970s? Instead, they passed two ~20 year extensions, one in 1976, one in 1998. Example 2: SOPA and PIPA would have been unimaginable in 1998. Instead, they got the DMCA, which was merely unacceptable. Now, they push SOPA and PIPA hard, expecting to pass some watered-down version, and driving web site owners to extol the DMCA they vociferously opposed in 1998.
- dhimes 15y ago
  I suspect in many cases it's a "Plan B" rather than a first-shot strategy. It is, of course, hard to know for sure, but as a counter-example, look how they de-fanged the FDA for regulating nutritional supplements (this goes back to the '90s). The first thing the industry did was to get every sympathetic (or buyable) politician and talking head to start talking about how Americans were hurt by the stupid FDA, using the usual hyperbole and emotion-stirring anecdotes, so that people had the FDA, out of the blue, on the tip of their tongues and "knowing" it was bad. Newt Gingrich was a point-man for this effort. (Once it was passed people started dying from ephedra-based nutritional supplements.) Then when the legislation was produced a support-base had already been formed. They expected a very public fight and prepared for it. In this case they were very quiet. The first thing I heard at all in the normal media was on the radio driving to work this morning. The news guy on the Boston station mentioned Wikipedia's blackout tomorrow and mentioned SOPA as the reason. The who bit was about 3 sentences. As I said, I'm not privy to insider strategy, but it was definitely a different tack.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

If the president were to have the line-item veto, where he could approve of certain parts of a bill and veto others, we could hold him personally responsible whenever bills get loaded up like this. As it is, they can pass what they want and nobody is responsible. That's clearly not the way the system was designed to work. The entire purpose of representative democracies is that while representatives can freely vote against their constituents, the constituents also can throw them out of office based on the representative's decisions. I've seen this same problem play out in a variety of contexts, and it looks to me like the line-item veto is the only thing that will prevent this corruption of the system we're seeing. While this idea has been a pet cause of conservatives for some time, it looks like supporters of liberty have just as much or more skin in the game as fiscal hawks. Play out the following scenario in your head: it's late in the year, no budget has been passed by Congress (again), and suddenly some third-rail social program is running out of money. Congress passes a law to help the orphans and grandmothers, everybody climbs on-board with huge majority votes, and way in the back section is another version of SOPA. If you're the president, what do you do? Note this is a much different political scenario than just threatening a veto -- this is asking if you're willing to risk pissing off huge special interests groups just to make a much smaller number of nerds happy. It's political math, and it works quite simply. You sign the bill, make a public speech about how bad the new SOPA is, and life goes on. If you're smart you send out mailers asking people to donate so you can get rid of the thing you just signed! One party will pick the "side" of SOPA, the other party will pick the other "side". In fact it doesn't matter whether you really support or oppose the bill, whoever paid for it got it passed, huge numbers of politicians got to oppose it, and the public can't point the finger at anybody. There's nobody to throw out of office. There's no feedback loop. The system is broken. In my mind the only thing that is going to fix that is the line-item veto. A lot of state governors have it. I think it's about time POTUS got it also.

rgrieselhuber 15y ago
In effect, doesn't the President already have line item veto? If there are items he doesn't agree with, he should signal that he will veto until they are removed.
- 15y ago