4 ms·

The special interests behind legislation like CISPA have professional lobbyists and millions of dollars to pay them. If you're a private citizen and want a law

by dubfan 14y ago

The special interests behind legislation like CISPA have professional lobbyists and millions of dollars to pay them. If you're a private citizen and want a law passed at the federal level, you need to have a cute and young white child who died due to something your law legislates against. Otherwise you don't stand a chance of being heard.

likpok 14y ago
So start soliciting donations and hire your own professional lobbyist. The amount of whining about how the political process is broken because it actually takes work to influence legislation is a little ridiculous.
- ori_b 14y ago
  Better: Start forming a coalition of private individuals and companies, and use that group to hire lobbyists. The game is broken, but you can't win if you refuse to play.
  - mindslight 14y ago
    You can certainly enjoy your life a lot more if you take your ball, go home, and play with your computer. Who knows, computers may even turn out to be popular in a decade's time.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      I've come to the conclusion that mainstreaming a technology results in the technology conforming to the mainstream, rather than the mainstream adopting the interests of the early adopters of the technology.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Which is precisely how it should be. Technology is for the use and convenience of the masses--it's not a vector for political minorities to spread their ideological viewpoints. My mom doesn't need to listen to Vint Cerf's politics to use the TCP/IP to trade pictures of my kid with my wife's mom.
        mindslight 14y ago
        Yes, clearly the capabilities of technology shouldn't inform people's philosophies. They should continue to receive their views via mass media social pressure instead.
        rayiner 14y ago
        The capability of technology should inform people's philosophies, not the personal beliefs of the creators.
        mindslight 14y ago
        However, the personal beliefs of the creators inform the design of the technology. And the resulting technology's capabilities can render this moment's squabbling moot.
rayiner 14y ago
That's a bullshit excuse. If you can't raise a few million dollars for your cause, it's probably because nobody gives a shit about your cause. You think we got clean air, clean water, etc, legislation passed because Sierra Club and Earth Justice are rolling in money? No, it's because they have a cause that people care about and passionate volunteers that dedicate their lives to fighting for it. It's not the system's fault that people don't understand nor care about stuff like CISPA.
- dubfan 14y ago
  They've also got politicians who would love to go to their constituents during campaign season and tell them "Look, I supported clean air!" Contrast this to opposing civil liberties restrictions, which can very easily and effectively be spun by political opponents as leaving America open to terror attacks. Even with the PATRIOT Act, something much more substantial than CISPA, political opposition has been limited to some relatively marginal politicians who are extremely popular in their jurisdictions and not likely to be ousted.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > They've also got politicians who would love to go to their constituents during campaign season and tell them "Look, I supported clean air!" Because there are people who actually care about clean air. > Contrast this to opposing civil liberties restrictions, which can very easily and effectively be spun by political opponents as leaving America open to terror attacks. Supporting environmental legislation is very easily spun by political opponents as costing America jobs. The amount of political opposition to environmental laws is otherworldly. There are a few companies here and there making money off things like Rapiscanners, but the companies whose profits are hurt by environmental regulations account for trillions in US revenue each year. Everything from Exxon Mobil to small chemical plants with $10 million in revenues. And while "think of 9/11" has a certain impact, it's not only fading but even at it's peak never compared to the visceral cultural opposition towards environmental laws. Industries impacted by environmental laws are literally ways of life in many parts of the country. People in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc, fight to allow coal companies to keep poisoning them as part of their cultural heritage. To put things into context: adding up U.S. box-office, DVD/Blu-Ray/etc, and music (digital and CD) revenues doesn't break $40 billion a year. Apple by itself made more than that last quarter. Exxon by itself makes 10x as much in a year, and there are 8 other petroleum companies in the Fortune 100. But environmentalists somehow manage to get some wins. While tech people whine incessantly about how "the system" is why they can't make any headway against the RIAA/MPAA.
bconway 14y ago
Yet somehow the Loud Commercials Lobby lost to the Reasonable Volume Commercials masses. Too bad that couldn't have been something important.

by dubfan 14y ago

likpok 14y ago

So start soliciting donations and hire your own professional lobbyist. The amount of whining about how the political process is broken because it actually takes work to influence legislation is a little ridiculous.

ori_b 14y ago
Better: Start forming a coalition of private individuals and companies, and use that group to hire lobbyists. The game is broken, but you can't win if you refuse to play.
- mindslight 14y ago
  You can certainly enjoy your life a lot more if you take your ball, go home, and play with your computer. Who knows, computers may even turn out to be popular in a decade's time.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    I've come to the conclusion that mainstreaming a technology results in the technology conforming to the mainstream, rather than the mainstream adopting the interests of the early adopters of the technology.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Which is precisely how it should be. Technology is for the use and convenience of the masses--it's not a vector for political minorities to spread their ideological viewpoints. My mom doesn't need to listen to Vint Cerf's politics to use the TCP/IP to trade pictures of my kid with my wife's mom.
      - mindslight 14y ago
        Yes, clearly the capabilities of technology shouldn't inform people's philosophies. They should continue to receive their views via mass media social pressure instead.
        rayiner 14y ago
        The capability of technology should inform people's philosophies, not the personal beliefs of the creators.
        mindslight 14y ago
        However, the personal beliefs of the creators inform the design of the technology. And the resulting technology's capabilities can render this moment's squabbling moot.

rayiner 14y ago

That's a bullshit excuse. If you can't raise a few million dollars for your cause, it's probably because nobody gives a shit about your cause. You think we got clean air, clean water, etc, legislation passed because Sierra Club and Earth Justice are rolling in money? No, it's because they have a cause that people care about and passionate volunteers that dedicate their lives to fighting for it. It's not the system's fault that people don't understand nor care about stuff like CISPA.

dubfan 14y ago
They've also got politicians who would love to go to their constituents during campaign season and tell them "Look, I supported clean air!" Contrast this to opposing civil liberties restrictions, which can very easily and effectively be spun by political opponents as leaving America open to terror attacks. Even with the PATRIOT Act, something much more substantial than CISPA, political opposition has been limited to some relatively marginal politicians who are extremely popular in their jurisdictions and not likely to be ousted.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > They've also got politicians who would love to go to their constituents during campaign season and tell them "Look, I supported clean air!" Because there are people who actually care about clean air. > Contrast this to opposing civil liberties restrictions, which can very easily and effectively be spun by political opponents as leaving America open to terror attacks. Supporting environmental legislation is very easily spun by political opponents as costing America jobs. The amount of political opposition to environmental laws is otherworldly. There are a few companies here and there making money off things like Rapiscanners, but the companies whose profits are hurt by environmental regulations account for trillions in US revenue each year. Everything from Exxon Mobil to small chemical plants with $10 million in revenues. And while "think of 9/11" has a certain impact, it's not only fading but even at it's peak never compared to the visceral cultural opposition towards environmental laws. Industries impacted by environmental laws are literally ways of life in many parts of the country. People in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc, fight to allow coal companies to keep poisoning them as part of their cultural heritage. To put things into context: adding up U.S. box-office, DVD/Blu-Ray/etc, and music (digital and CD) revenues doesn't break $40 billion a year. Apple by itself made more than that last quarter. Exxon by itself makes 10x as much in a year, and there are 8 other petroleum companies in the Fortune 100. But environmentalists somehow manage to get some wins. While tech people whine incessantly about how "the system" is why they can't make any headway against the RIAA/MPAA.

bconway 14y ago

Yet somehow the Loud Commercials Lobby lost to the Reasonable Volume Commercials masses. Too bad that couldn't have been something important.