3 ms·

Your other arguments notwithstanding: Vagueness is not a bug, it's a feature. If you make a specific political request, only those people and groups that share

by morsch 14y ago

Your other arguments notwithstanding: Vagueness is not a bug, it's a feature. If you make a specific political request, only those people and groups that share precisely those values will support you. Most people -- even those who have a lot in common with your views -- will simply ignore the request. On the other hand, if you make it somewhat vague, lots of people will feel represented by the statement. We might not agree whether taking down copyright infringement is censorship or not, but we can agree that censorship is bad. I'm sure this is a common technique in this kind of grassroots campaigning.

sageikosa 14y ago
<i>On the other hand, if you make it somewhat vague, lots of people will feel represented by the statement</i>. This is how horoscopes work. That and 75% positive, 25% critical or cautionary.
Gormo 14y ago
I don't think it's an effective strategy at all. You're building a coalition of 'support' based on vague, positive-sounding platitudes, and this precludes you from being able to take any specific strategic action without damaging your 'support'. See: modern politics, in which candidates are elected based on purely symbolic rhetoric, but actual policy-making is dominated by narrowly-defined factions that can act decisively toward specific goals.
- morsch 14y ago
  It's a balancing act, no doubt. But for something like a declaration of internet freedoms I think it's fair to err on the side of being broadly representative. And I don't think it's anywhere as bad as you make it sound, it's ambiguous, but Don't censor the Internet. is not a vague, positive-sounding platitude.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    Sure it is; it's just a slogan. "Don't censor the Internet" - Who are you talking to? What constitutes censorship? What actual means will prevent censorship, and how can we implement them? You're just saying that censorship is bad, which is almost a tautology, because the term itself carries negative connotations with essentially everyone: people who do advocate what you might describe as censorship aren't describing their own position as censorship, and the fault lines in your base of symbolic 'support' will appear once you actually get into details and attempt to answer the questions above.
    - morsch 14y ago
      The same thing can be said about the bill of rights and similar documents, and there, fault lines do appear once you get into the details. That doesn't mean it's pointless to have these documents.

by morsch 14y ago

sageikosa 14y ago

<i>On the other hand, if you make it somewhat vague, lots of people will feel represented by the statement</i>. This is how horoscopes work. That and 75% positive, 25% critical or cautionary.

Gormo 14y ago

I don't think it's an effective strategy at all. You're building a coalition of 'support' based on vague, positive-sounding platitudes, and this precludes you from being able to take any specific strategic action without damaging your 'support'. See: modern politics, in which candidates are elected based on purely symbolic rhetoric, but actual policy-making is dominated by narrowly-defined factions that can act decisively toward specific goals.

morsch 14y ago
It's a balancing act, no doubt. But for something like a declaration of internet freedoms I think it's fair to err on the side of being broadly representative. And I don't think it's anywhere as bad as you make it sound, it's ambiguous, but Don't censor the Internet. is not a vague, positive-sounding platitude.
- Gormo 14y ago
  Sure it is; it's just a slogan. "Don't censor the Internet" - Who are you talking to? What constitutes censorship? What actual means will prevent censorship, and how can we implement them? You're just saying that censorship is bad, which is almost a tautology, because the term itself carries negative connotations with essentially everyone: people who do advocate what you might describe as censorship aren't describing their own position as censorship, and the fault lines in your base of symbolic 'support' will appear once you actually get into details and attempt to answer the questions above.
  - morsch 14y ago
    The same thing can be said about the bill of rights and similar documents, and there, fault lines do appear once you get into the details. That doesn't mean it's pointless to have these documents.