14 ms·

Why Zuckerberg’s Lobby Is Collapsing Outside Of DC

91 points by dmoney67 13y ago

michaelochurch 13y ago
As I get older and see what most of "technology leadership" is turning out to be, I'm unhappy with it. I feel like a lot of technological new money behaves like women in gangs. How so? Well, many sociologists have found that women who join gangs are more prone to violence and cruelty than the men; they go overboard in "proving themselves" and miss the fact that gangs are mostly about business, not cruelty and machismo (which are necessary, at measured but sometimes severe levels, to protect an illegal business; but otherwise undesirable) for their own right. Why? Of course, it's not that women, across the board, are more that way. It has more to do with the small set of people who join criminal gangs, and the fact that the even smaller set of women who join end up getting into a try-too-hard pattern. We see a lot of so-called "technological leadership" falling into historically-common new-money patterns of right-wing politics and bad workplace cultures (fast firing, closed allocation) because, instead of replacing the old elite, they become a caricature of what they were supposed to be pushing out. On the whole, the resurgent right-wing business elite of the Welch era (1977-95) was worse than the politically centrist old-board northeastern elite it replaced. And it seems that the "technology elite", when they go into business proper (i.e. personnel matters, not merely new product development) and politics is even uglier than that one. They aren't right-wing because it's not "cool" to be conservative, but they're politically apathetic and can be played by more skillful operators in both parties. So now I'm going to reveal the secret about "technology leadership". They aren't either. Mark Zuckerberg may be an exception; he's too young and too successful to have a refined skill at the judgment of character, so I'll give him a pass, because he seems to be a good guy in spite of his visible mistakes. But most of the people who have swept in and become the "fundable" (now MBAs with connections, who have outcompeted true technologists for VC and tech-press attention) don't really care about technology. They just heard that "tech" has a lot of people who (a) add a lot of value, but (b) are so deficient in social skills and negotiation that it's a cake-walk to take advantage of them. That attracts sociopaths into the upper reaches of "our" industry (no longer ours in any real way) who come in (always as boss-level implants) because they hear it's full of easy pickings and who stay because it turns out to be true.
- huherto 13y ago
  interesting comment. I am not sure if I agree, but it is thought provoking in many levels. | They just heard that "tech" has a lot of people who (a) add a lot of value, but (b) are so deficient in social skills and negotiation that it's a cake-walk to take advantage of them. People assume that if you are technically minded then you lack social skills. A lot of people lack social skills, some are technical and some are not. We should break that prejudice.
- incision 13y ago
  >That attracts sociopaths into the upper reaches of "our" industry (no longer ours in any real way) who come in (always as boss-level implants) because they hear it's full of easy pickings and who stay because it turns out to be true. First time I've heard it articulated this way. It rings true to me and would explain an awful lot.
- thetrumanshow 13y ago
  Love this. I have felt at times that I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value. This kind of relationship is becoming more and more frustrating over time. I feel like we sold our birthright.
  - seiji 13y ago
    I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value. You've gotta flip your situation around. Try to be someone they can't do without. That's the acquihire game. Instead of being a resume monkey, go make something (useful? popular? at least popular with useful people.) then sell yourself (and n employees) to a company for $30 million dollars (you, as founder, of course keep about $20 million, $10 million goes to investors (?), and your employees each get nice $30k "retention packages" at the new employer). People end up making $875 million dollars because they become symbols. They become seen as giant symphony conductors forcing the unwashed masses to act harmoniously — without them, there would be no Success, therefore they deserve most of the reward. We all know Success is foresight and direction, not physical labor. All labor is replaceable cogs and should be priced to the floor. Executed Vision has infinite demand and severely limited supply. Our birthright, if we can state it so audaciously, is understanding how things work and building new solutions the general public can't make on their own. These days, normal brilliant tech people get squeezed out of economic validity from two sides. On on side, there's an influx of strong personality tech people who want all the glory for themselves and they end up exploiting the quiet brilliant tech people. On the other side, there's strong personality non-tech people who swoop in and think they can "control" or "manage" or "direct" quiet brilliant tech people towards greatness (because they have Vision and quiet brilliant tech people just sit around staring at little colored dots all day long). But, in actual non-HN-everybody-is-a-change-the-world-founder reality, most quiet brilliant tech people are, on balance, not interested in organizing and building crush-the-world corporations. They're sitting around spewing off enough wasted potential to fuel six entire earth economies until they are picked up and organized together into a coherent operation. But, they will be paid 1/10th to 1/1000th of their actual value to the corporation, economy, and world. (also amusing, if you paste this into google (no quotes) you get a pg article ("How to Make Wealth") as the second result: I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value.)
grimtrigger 13y ago
Politics requires moral compromise, something many technologists find down right impossible. Thats not a bad thing, but it means that if you put the most important technologists in the country on the same political group, its bound to dissolve and splinter. Successful movements focus on ideas, not people. FWD.us is too focused on people.
- michaelt 13y ago
  Perhaps I'm being dense here, but what do oil pipelines have to do with Facebook? Facebook isn't an oil company, how are Facebook's interests served by campaigning for an oil pipeline?
  - grimtrigger 13y ago
    > but what do oil pipelines have to do with Facebook Nothing. > how are Facebook's interests served by campaigning for an oil pipeline? They aren't. ----- Facebook is only tangentially related to FWD.us. Its the political project of Mark Zuckerberg.
    - jonknee 13y ago
      I'd argue that Facebook's interests are served by campaigning for an oil pipeline because there are some powerful people who are for both the oil pipeline and for expanding visas for foreign workers. They are swapping favors, but chose a tremendously controversial issue to do so with. > Facebook is only tangentially related to FWD.us. Its the political project of Mark Zuckerberg. Somewhat, but Zuck started it so that he could get access to more cheap foreign engineering talent to help build Facebook.
    - scarmig 13y ago
      As someone who has experience in both tech and politics... this is off-base. I say this as someone who thinks Keystone XL is an abomination that needs to be shut down by any means possible (that does not result in the loss of life) and who has no love for Facebook. The stated goal of Facebook in this is to push for immigration reform. Elite Republicans are, all told, fairly pro-immigration reform. They don't need convincing. The "base," however, is virulently anti-immigrant (the same is true to a lesser extent of the less-educated white and black portions of the Democratic base as well). Running ads praising Republican politicians for supporting immigration reform is not going to be effective and more likely than not would cost them votes. If Zuck wants to make sure he has their support for his policy agenda, he's got to have something of actual value for them. It's not going to be votes, but it has to be something you can easily convert to votes. Money is that, but you can't just spend money on anything and expect to automatically get value for your dollar.
apalmer 13y ago
I didnt really understand why so many 'outside' of the realm of big money power movers 'attached' themselves to FWD.us. Its completely counter to logic, the purpose as lobbying as it is today is when a small sized population with extreme financial resources want to influence specific legislature. If you want to influence legislature and you dont have big disproportionate finances at your disposal, dont turn to lobbying. Why a Zuckerberg, or Page, etc have turned to this is one thing... why joe developer with say 100K in the bank is jumping on board is beyond irrational. Number 2, when you are buying politicians, doing it in public view is bound to have negative 'PR' moments, you are buying politicians. Hello. There is a reason this is done in private.
- beat 13y ago
  It's probably because of a sense that Zuckerberg and his ilk are "one of us" because they're in the same industry we are. That's hardly true; they have very different interests than the average coder. If you're a programmer and want to donate to people defending your interests in the political realm, consider EFF instead.
- michaelt 13y ago
  Its completely counter to logic, the purpose as lobbying as it is today is when a small sized population with extreme financial resources want to influence specific legislature. I was recently involved with the libel law reform campaign in the UK. A well organised political campaign will often do a bunch of things - they'll decide what they want and produce clear summaries. They'll work out how much opposition this is likely to have and whether their desired outcome is politically feasible. They'll find high profile failings of the current legislation. They'll identify legislators who are likely to be sympathetic and help get a foot in the door. They'll get news coverage. They'll organise rallies where well-spoken people from organisations you've heard of explain what's wrong with current legislation. The speakers will be organised, so all points get covered and there's not too much repition. They'll invite their supporters to invite their representatives to those rallies. They'll look for celebrity supporters. And they probably do a bunch of other stuff behind the scenes that I don't know about because I'm not an expert political campaigner. Isn't hiring organised, experienced people who know how to do this politics stuff what lobbying is? Surely lobbying doesn't just mean ladling out gobs of cash to corrupt legislators?
danso 13y ago
I think tech people just have to get used to the fact that politics contains a lot of strange bedfellows...not necessarily because politicians are corrupt, but because they, in theory, represent hundreds of thousands of people to tens of millions (such as a Californian Senator)...chances are, some of those constituents have diametrically opposing viewpoints to many of the other constituents. For example...FWIW, Lindsey Graham was a key supporter of PIPA, the Senate version of SOPA: http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/G000359 http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/G000359
edw519 13y ago
Mark Zuckerberg is no more a technology leader than a powerball winner is a financial leader. He has worked hard, but no harder than many others. He is brilliant, but not any more than many others. He is tenacious, but not more than many others. He was is the perfect storm of the right place at the right time on the right thing and played his hand beautifully. But he still hit the lottery. The idea that lottery winners are suddenly Subject Matter Experts on other things just because they have money, eyeballs, connections, or whatever is silly. Out here in the diaspora, we pay little attention to the opinions of powerball winners. Too bad the same thing can't be said for the fanboys and followers in Silicon Valley. This was inevitable.
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  That's a little unfair. Zuckerberg did win a lottery, quite right. If there was a room of 10,000 entreprenuers flipping coins, he flipped heads 100 times. But it is not a fair toss - after the first few rounds those still in the game are a self-selecting group of people whose own biases more accurately match the new world than the average. So when Zuckerberg and many of those who are still tossing, makes a new bet, a new toss, the odds he is choosing a path that will prove solid in the future is better than even. One day his biases will lead him astray, afterall, there is no rational way to predict the future accurately. But if the bet is on "technology leadership" his biases so far are useful. This is not to say his biases apply in DC, or that his biases are already out of date, but still, if technology leadership is finding a trail through the wilderness, his biases have at least lead through a thicket and found water at least once. Of course the guy leading the Donner Party probably could say the same thing too. Anyway, point is, his technology bet is "America needs immigrants". His political bet is "everyone will forgive me if I fix that". He may be right on technology, and wrong on politics - which I think is the main complaint. Does not make his technology bet wrong. (personally I think its foolish to fix immigration for that reason - most people want to stay where they are and still work for facebook. And that is not an immigration problem)
  - pbiggar 13y ago
    A better analogy might be a poker tournament: no matter how brilliantly you play your hands, you'll still need to get lucky a few times.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
Can I make a different suggestion: Spend the millions in each of the State capitals, as openly and as locally as possible. The state senators are unlikely to have seen such attention, and most importantly, State law is still law. Washington seems to be a good place for the outward face of the USA to speak from, but seems not so hot for fixing internal problems.
- d0gsbody 13y ago
  State senators and representatives actually do get lobbied quite a bit.
  - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
    But as well, as nicely, as intensively, as lavishly as the ones in DC? If you have the same law passed in 49 states, how do you tell the difference between that and a federal law?
    - walshemj 13y ago
      It wont be the same law you will end up with 49 slightly different laws with favored son amendments inserted to please Senator Kinsey.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      When it comes to things like immigration or international pipelines, you can easily tell the difference because only one those laws will actually have force.
- walshemj 13y ago
  From outside the balkanised and overly complex nature of your local government layer looks like the problem. 52 subtly different sets of laws and taxes is not an efficient way to run a welk stall let alone a country. Passing an constitutional amendment along the lines of the parliament act so that an elected president can you know actually get on with running the country woudl be a good idea.
snowwrestler 13y ago
> See, their strategy feels like patronizing, as though us overly-idealistic Californians can’t possible deal with the realities of DC politicking. It's apparent from this post that that is the truth. For example this blogger writes as though he believes that the backlash against FWD.us is a totally organic expression of authentic opinion in the tech community. He mentions the truth in passing: > after a list of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, boycotted Facebook over FWD.us-funded ads that praised Republicans for supporting the Keystone pipeline (below) See, the opinion against Keystone is real, but the expression of it against FWD.us has been juiced by a significant outpouring of resources by politically savvy groups like the Sierra Club. This is not an organic uprising by Silicon Valley. It's one set of professional politickers (anti-Keystone) successfully leaching off the PR of another (FWD.us). It happens all the time. But it can be hard for idealistic people to spot because they tend to perceive one side of an argument as more authentic, natural, or real, than the other--leading them to underestimate the role of professional organizers in a given trend or action.
gojomo 13y ago
People didn't like FaceMash, either. The cynical favor-trading approach of FWD.us isn't for everyone... but maybe A/B testing will show it works better for achieving the tech industries' goals. Those who prefer other approaches should start their own activism group, working the same shared issues, within their preferred framework. A 1-2 punch, and trying a diversity of strategies, is most likely to achieve success.
jcampbell1 13y ago
I have no idea what this article is really about. Did FWD.us really pay for the ad in that YouTube video? What are the actual facts that I should know? Both the article and the top comment on HN seems to be infected with borderline conspiracy theories.
jbooth 13y ago
This reminds me of when Stringer Bell tried to get into lobbying on the Wire and just got his money taken and no favors done for him.
damoncali 13y ago
What is it about the tech industry that makes it so politically inept?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Look at HN everytime a CFAA case comes up (as only one example) and just watch and learn. In the tech industry's world there's no such thing as: - compromise or shades of gray - computer-related crime - a actual public servant, or an honest judge - competing industries (only "old dinosaurs") and you could keep going with examples. The worst part is that most of the time the tech industry is actually right, but as it stands they can't even get onto the field, let alone make forward political progress. It doesn't matter how morally right you are if you refuse to work with stakeholders to get a bad law fixed.
kemiller 13y ago
There's a simpler solution than lobbying to the problem of not enough tech workers: increase their earning power, prestige, respect, and autonomy.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Tech workers have to already be in the top 5 of all workers in those 4 categories. If nothing else companies could hire and train unskilled workers themselves (this is how the military solves their particular problem even with poor earning power, low respect and autonomy as issues).
san86 13y ago
My beef is with the lack of details FWD.us provided. If you want to look at how to grow a grassroot movement, look at Ron Paul. I certainly don't agree with Paul's policies, but he provided his opinions on things that matter to him in excrutiating detail. Instead of doing that, FWD.us provides vague descriptions of what they support. I would love to know what their stand on each of the major sections of the senate proposal is. Do they agree with all of it? If not, which parts do they not agree with? What's their proposed fix? Which ammendments do they support? Tehre are no answers to these questions. I am done seeing successful people talking about what an awful time they had succeding because of the issue. It was endearing at first, now it's boring (I am one of those immigrants who is currently suffering a little bit due to messed up policies, so I am sensitive to the sufferings.. but the videos are just annoying)
crazy1van 13y ago
Every time I read a story about tech industry lobbying efforts, it seems very similar to every other lobbyist: favors for my industry, regulations for other industries. If the government didn't have such a massive impact on the bottom line of industries, there wouldn't be an incentive for companies to lobby. As it is now, a few million spent on lobbying is a bargain for favorable laws for your industry.
edwardunknown 13y ago
Another Frank Underwood quote: "Such a waste of talent. He chose money over power - in this town, a mistake nearly everyone makes. Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries." I wonder if this lobbying group thought that by throwing a little money their way they could persuade the Republicans to stop being Republicans. Instead the Republicans dragged Zuckerberg down with them and probably capsized FWD.us. There aren't any moderate Republicans, at the end of the day none of them are going to support what Zuckerberg wants with immigration reform and this whole thing seems fantastically naive.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  I suspect they want the same thing wrt immigration: more immigrants with commercially exploitable skills, admitted through programs that maximize commercial exploitation, while still pandering to the cretins' demand for more and higher fences.
crag 13y ago
Obviously his "PAC" has a PR problem. But a bigger problem is the way they are handling the immigration issue. They seem to be contracting ONLY HB1 Visas. And ignoring many other [immigration] issues that more Americans care about; like migrant workers; guest worker programs (mostly for healthcare and agriculture); a clear path to citizenship, etc, etc. My other problem with this PAC is they aren't focused. They are backing ANWR and Keystone? Neither have anything to do with immigration. So it's clear they are trading favors for cash. Ok standard politics. But why not back Marriage Equality or the end of the Drug War, or Feeding the poor - educating the poor? I mean is Zuckerberg about to become the next Koch brother?
hawkharris 13y ago
My girlfriend works as an environmental consultant for the Keystone XL project. She spends 13-hour days ensuring that the pipeline's route does not interfere with cultural sites, animal migration, water bodies and many other factors. She and her team will spend weeks re-routing if it means mitigating an environmental risk. Is the project infallible? No. But I would think twice before jumping on the bandwagon to oppose it categorically because of what people are saying on Facebook and Twitter. While I'm not privy to behind-the-scenes details, I've witnessed first-hand and been very impressed by the project's commitment to safety.

91 points by dmoney67 13y ago

As I get older and see what most of "technology leadership" is turning out to be, I'm unhappy with it. I feel like a lot of technological new money behaves like women in gangs. How so? Well, many sociologists have found that women who join gangs are more prone to violence and cruelty than the men; they go overboard in "proving themselves" and miss the fact that gangs are mostly about business, not cruelty and machismo (which are necessary, at measured but sometimes severe levels, to protect an illegal business; but otherwise undesirable) for their own right. Why? Of course, it's not that women, across the board, are more that way. It has more to do with the small set of people who join criminal gangs, and the fact that the even smaller set of women who join end up getting into a try-too-hard pattern. We see a lot of so-called "technological leadership" falling into historically-common new-money patterns of right-wing politics and bad workplace cultures (fast firing, closed allocation) because, instead of replacing the old elite, they become a caricature of what they were supposed to be pushing out. On the whole, the resurgent right-wing business elite of the Welch era (1977-95) was worse than the politically centrist old-board northeastern elite it replaced. And it seems that the "technology elite", when they go into business proper (i.e. personnel matters, not merely new product development) and politics is even uglier than that one. They aren't right-wing because it's not "cool" to be conservative, but they're politically apathetic and can be played by more skillful operators in both parties. So now I'm going to reveal the secret about "technology leadership". They aren't either. Mark Zuckerberg may be an exception; he's too young and too successful to have a refined skill at the judgment of character, so I'll give him a pass, because he seems to be a good guy in spite of his visible mistakes. But most of the people who have swept in and become the "fundable" (now MBAs with connections, who have outcompeted true technologists for VC and tech-press attention) don't really care about technology. They just heard that "tech" has a lot of people who (a) add a lot of value, but (b) are so deficient in social skills and negotiation that it's a cake-walk to take advantage of them. That attracts sociopaths into the upper reaches of "our" industry (no longer ours in any real way) who come in (always as boss-level implants) because they hear it's full of easy pickings and who stay because it turns out to be true.

huherto 13y ago
interesting comment. I am not sure if I agree, but it is thought provoking in many levels. | They just heard that "tech" has a lot of people who (a) add a lot of value, but (b) are so deficient in social skills and negotiation that it's a cake-walk to take advantage of them. People assume that if you are technically minded then you lack social skills. A lot of people lack social skills, some are technical and some are not. We should break that prejudice.
incision 13y ago
>That attracts sociopaths into the upper reaches of "our" industry (no longer ours in any real way) who come in (always as boss-level implants) because they hear it's full of easy pickings and who stay because it turns out to be true. First time I've heard it articulated this way. It rings true to me and would explain an awful lot.
thetrumanshow 13y ago
Love this. I have felt at times that I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value. This kind of relationship is becoming more and more frustrating over time. I feel like we sold our birthright.
- seiji 13y ago
  I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value. You've gotta flip your situation around. Try to be someone they can't do without. That's the acquihire game. Instead of being a resume monkey, go make something (useful? popular? at least popular with useful people.) then sell yourself (and n employees) to a company for $30 million dollars (you, as founder, of course keep about $20 million, $10 million goes to investors (?), and your employees each get nice $30k "retention packages" at the new employer). People end up making $875 million dollars because they become symbols. They become seen as giant symphony conductors forcing the unwashed masses to act harmoniously — without them, there would be no Success, therefore they deserve most of the reward. We all know Success is foresight and direction, not physical labor. All labor is replaceable cogs and should be priced to the floor. Executed Vision has infinite demand and severely limited supply. Our birthright, if we can state it so audaciously, is understanding how things work and building new solutions the general public can't make on their own. These days, normal brilliant tech people get squeezed out of economic validity from two sides. On on side, there's an influx of strong personality tech people who want all the glory for themselves and they end up exploiting the quiet brilliant tech people. On the other side, there's strong personality non-tech people who swoop in and think they can "control" or "manage" or "direct" quiet brilliant tech people towards greatness (because they have Vision and quiet brilliant tech people just sit around staring at little colored dots all day long). But, in actual non-HN-everybody-is-a-change-the-world-founder reality, most quiet brilliant tech people are, on balance, not interested in organizing and building crush-the-world corporations. They're sitting around spewing off enough wasted potential to fuel six entire earth economies until they are picked up and organized together into a coherent operation. But, they will be paid 1/10th to 1/1000th of their actual value to the corporation, economy, and world. (also amusing, if you paste this into google (no quotes) you get a pg article ("How to Make Wealth") as the second result: I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value.)

grimtrigger 13y ago

Politics requires moral compromise, something many technologists find down right impossible. Thats not a bad thing, but it means that if you put the most important technologists in the country on the same political group, its bound to dissolve and splinter. Successful movements focus on ideas, not people. FWD.us is too focused on people.

michaelt 13y ago
Perhaps I'm being dense here, but what do oil pipelines have to do with Facebook? Facebook isn't an oil company, how are Facebook's interests served by campaigning for an oil pipeline?
- grimtrigger 13y ago
  > but what do oil pipelines have to do with Facebook Nothing. > how are Facebook's interests served by campaigning for an oil pipeline? They aren't. ----- Facebook is only tangentially related to FWD.us. Its the political project of Mark Zuckerberg.
  - jonknee 13y ago
    I'd argue that Facebook's interests are served by campaigning for an oil pipeline because there are some powerful people who are for both the oil pipeline and for expanding visas for foreign workers. They are swapping favors, but chose a tremendously controversial issue to do so with. > Facebook is only tangentially related to FWD.us. Its the political project of Mark Zuckerberg. Somewhat, but Zuck started it so that he could get access to more cheap foreign engineering talent to help build Facebook.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    As someone who has experience in both tech and politics... this is off-base. I say this as someone who thinks Keystone XL is an abomination that needs to be shut down by any means possible (that does not result in the loss of life) and who has no love for Facebook. The stated goal of Facebook in this is to push for immigration reform. Elite Republicans are, all told, fairly pro-immigration reform. They don't need convincing. The "base," however, is virulently anti-immigrant (the same is true to a lesser extent of the less-educated white and black portions of the Democratic base as well). Running ads praising Republican politicians for supporting immigration reform is not going to be effective and more likely than not would cost them votes. If Zuck wants to make sure he has their support for his policy agenda, he's got to have something of actual value for them. It's not going to be votes, but it has to be something you can easily convert to votes. Money is that, but you can't just spend money on anything and expect to automatically get value for your dollar.

apalmer 13y ago

I didnt really understand why so many 'outside' of the realm of big money power movers 'attached' themselves to FWD.us. Its completely counter to logic, the purpose as lobbying as it is today is when a small sized population with extreme financial resources want to influence specific legislature. If you want to influence legislature and you dont have big disproportionate finances at your disposal, dont turn to lobbying. Why a Zuckerberg, or Page, etc have turned to this is one thing... why joe developer with say 100K in the bank is jumping on board is beyond irrational. Number 2, when you are buying politicians, doing it in public view is bound to have negative 'PR' moments, you are buying politicians. Hello. There is a reason this is done in private.

beat 13y ago
It's probably because of a sense that Zuckerberg and his ilk are "one of us" because they're in the same industry we are. That's hardly true; they have very different interests than the average coder. If you're a programmer and want to donate to people defending your interests in the political realm, consider EFF instead.
michaelt 13y ago
Its completely counter to logic, the purpose as lobbying as it is today is when a small sized population with extreme financial resources want to influence specific legislature. I was recently involved with the libel law reform campaign in the UK. A well organised political campaign will often do a bunch of things - they'll decide what they want and produce clear summaries. They'll work out how much opposition this is likely to have and whether their desired outcome is politically feasible. They'll find high profile failings of the current legislation. They'll identify legislators who are likely to be sympathetic and help get a foot in the door. They'll get news coverage. They'll organise rallies where well-spoken people from organisations you've heard of explain what's wrong with current legislation. The speakers will be organised, so all points get covered and there's not too much repition. They'll invite their supporters to invite their representatives to those rallies. They'll look for celebrity supporters. And they probably do a bunch of other stuff behind the scenes that I don't know about because I'm not an expert political campaigner. Isn't hiring organised, experienced people who know how to do this politics stuff what lobbying is? Surely lobbying doesn't just mean ladling out gobs of cash to corrupt legislators?

danso 13y ago

I think tech people just have to get used to the fact that politics contains a lot of strange bedfellows...not necessarily because politicians are corrupt, but because they, in theory, represent hundreds of thousands of people to tens of millions (such as a Californian Senator)...chances are, some of those constituents have diametrically opposing viewpoints to many of the other constituents. For example...FWIW, Lindsey Graham was a key supporter of PIPA, the Senate version of SOPA: http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/G000359 http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/G000359

edw519 13y ago

Mark Zuckerberg is no more a technology leader than a powerball winner is a financial leader. He has worked hard, but no harder than many others. He is brilliant, but not any more than many others. He is tenacious, but not more than many others. He was is the perfect storm of the right place at the right time on the right thing and played his hand beautifully. But he still hit the lottery. The idea that lottery winners are suddenly Subject Matter Experts on other things just because they have money, eyeballs, connections, or whatever is silly. Out here in the diaspora, we pay little attention to the opinions of powerball winners. Too bad the same thing can't be said for the fanboys and followers in Silicon Valley. This was inevitable.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
That's a little unfair. Zuckerberg did win a lottery, quite right. If there was a room of 10,000 entreprenuers flipping coins, he flipped heads 100 times. But it is not a fair toss - after the first few rounds those still in the game are a self-selecting group of people whose own biases more accurately match the new world than the average. So when Zuckerberg and many of those who are still tossing, makes a new bet, a new toss, the odds he is choosing a path that will prove solid in the future is better than even. One day his biases will lead him astray, afterall, there is no rational way to predict the future accurately. But if the bet is on "technology leadership" his biases so far are useful. This is not to say his biases apply in DC, or that his biases are already out of date, but still, if technology leadership is finding a trail through the wilderness, his biases have at least lead through a thicket and found water at least once. Of course the guy leading the Donner Party probably could say the same thing too. Anyway, point is, his technology bet is "America needs immigrants". His political bet is "everyone will forgive me if I fix that". He may be right on technology, and wrong on politics - which I think is the main complaint. Does not make his technology bet wrong. (personally I think its foolish to fix immigration for that reason - most people want to stay where they are and still work for facebook. And that is not an immigration problem)
- pbiggar 13y ago
  A better analogy might be a poker tournament: no matter how brilliantly you play your hands, you'll still need to get lucky a few times.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

Can I make a different suggestion: Spend the millions in each of the State capitals, as openly and as locally as possible. The state senators are unlikely to have seen such attention, and most importantly, State law is still law. Washington seems to be a good place for the outward face of the USA to speak from, but seems not so hot for fixing internal problems.

d0gsbody 13y ago
State senators and representatives actually do get lobbied quite a bit.
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  But as well, as nicely, as intensively, as lavishly as the ones in DC? If you have the same law passed in 49 states, how do you tell the difference between that and a federal law?
  - walshemj 13y ago
    It wont be the same law you will end up with 49 slightly different laws with favored son amendments inserted to please Senator Kinsey.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    When it comes to things like immigration or international pipelines, you can easily tell the difference because only one those laws will actually have force.
walshemj 13y ago
From outside the balkanised and overly complex nature of your local government layer looks like the problem. 52 subtly different sets of laws and taxes is not an efficient way to run a welk stall let alone a country. Passing an constitutional amendment along the lines of the parliament act so that an elected president can you know actually get on with running the country woudl be a good idea.

snowwrestler 13y ago

> See, their strategy feels like patronizing, as though us overly-idealistic Californians can’t possible deal with the realities of DC politicking. It's apparent from this post that that is the truth. For example this blogger writes as though he believes that the backlash against FWD.us is a totally organic expression of authentic opinion in the tech community. He mentions the truth in passing: > after a list of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, boycotted Facebook over FWD.us-funded ads that praised Republicans for supporting the Keystone pipeline (below) See, the opinion against Keystone is real, but the expression of it against FWD.us has been juiced by a significant outpouring of resources by politically savvy groups like the Sierra Club. This is not an organic uprising by Silicon Valley. It's one set of professional politickers (anti-Keystone) successfully leaching off the PR of another (FWD.us). It happens all the time. But it can be hard for idealistic people to spot because they tend to perceive one side of an argument as more authentic, natural, or real, than the other--leading them to underestimate the role of professional organizers in a given trend or action.

gojomo 13y ago

People didn't like FaceMash, either. The cynical favor-trading approach of FWD.us isn't for everyone... but maybe A/B testing will show it works better for achieving the tech industries' goals. Those who prefer other approaches should start their own activism group, working the same shared issues, within their preferred framework. A 1-2 punch, and trying a diversity of strategies, is most likely to achieve success.

jcampbell1 13y ago

I have no idea what this article is really about. Did FWD.us really pay for the ad in that YouTube video? What are the actual facts that I should know? Both the article and the top comment on HN seems to be infected with borderline conspiracy theories.

jbooth 13y ago

This reminds me of when Stringer Bell tried to get into lobbying on the Wire and just got his money taken and no favors done for him.

damoncali 13y ago

What is it about the tech industry that makes it so politically inept?

mpyne 13y ago
Look at HN everytime a CFAA case comes up (as only one example) and just watch and learn. In the tech industry's world there's no such thing as: - compromise or shades of gray - computer-related crime - a actual public servant, or an honest judge - competing industries (only "old dinosaurs") and you could keep going with examples. The worst part is that most of the time the tech industry is actually right, but as it stands they can't even get onto the field, let alone make forward political progress. It doesn't matter how morally right you are if you refuse to work with stakeholders to get a bad law fixed.

kemiller 13y ago

There's a simpler solution than lobbying to the problem of not enough tech workers: increase their earning power, prestige, respect, and autonomy.

mpyne 13y ago
Tech workers have to already be in the top 5 of all workers in those 4 categories. If nothing else companies could hire and train unskilled workers themselves (this is how the military solves their particular problem even with poor earning power, low respect and autonomy as issues).

san86 13y ago

My beef is with the lack of details FWD.us provided. If you want to look at how to grow a grassroot movement, look at Ron Paul. I certainly don't agree with Paul's policies, but he provided his opinions on things that matter to him in excrutiating detail. Instead of doing that, FWD.us provides vague descriptions of what they support. I would love to know what their stand on each of the major sections of the senate proposal is. Do they agree with all of it? If not, which parts do they not agree with? What's their proposed fix? Which ammendments do they support? Tehre are no answers to these questions. I am done seeing successful people talking about what an awful time they had succeding because of the issue. It was endearing at first, now it's boring (I am one of those immigrants who is currently suffering a little bit due to messed up policies, so I am sensitive to the sufferings.. but the videos are just annoying)

crazy1van 13y ago

Every time I read a story about tech industry lobbying efforts, it seems very similar to every other lobbyist: favors for my industry, regulations for other industries. If the government didn't have such a massive impact on the bottom line of industries, there wouldn't be an incentive for companies to lobby. As it is now, a few million spent on lobbying is a bargain for favorable laws for your industry.

edwardunknown 13y ago

Another Frank Underwood quote: "Such a waste of talent. He chose money over power - in this town, a mistake nearly everyone makes. Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries." I wonder if this lobbying group thought that by throwing a little money their way they could persuade the Republicans to stop being Republicans. Instead the Republicans dragged Zuckerberg down with them and probably capsized FWD.us. There aren't any moderate Republicans, at the end of the day none of them are going to support what Zuckerberg wants with immigration reform and this whole thing seems fantastically naive.

jessaustin 13y ago
I suspect they want the same thing wrt immigration: more immigrants with commercially exploitable skills, admitted through programs that maximize commercial exploitation, while still pandering to the cretins' demand for more and higher fences.

crag 13y ago

Obviously his "PAC" has a PR problem. But a bigger problem is the way they are handling the immigration issue. They seem to be contracting ONLY HB1 Visas. And ignoring many other [immigration] issues that more Americans care about; like migrant workers; guest worker programs (mostly for healthcare and agriculture); a clear path to citizenship, etc, etc. My other problem with this PAC is they aren't focused. They are backing ANWR and Keystone? Neither have anything to do with immigration. So it's clear they are trading favors for cash. Ok standard politics. But why not back Marriage Equality or the end of the Drug War, or Feeding the poor - educating the poor? I mean is Zuckerberg about to become the next Koch brother?

hawkharris 13y ago

My girlfriend works as an environmental consultant for the Keystone XL project. She spends 13-hour days ensuring that the pipeline's route does not interfere with cultural sites, animal migration, water bodies and many other factors. She and her team will spend weeks re-routing if it means mitigating an environmental risk. Is the project infallible? No. But I would think twice before jumping on the bandwagon to oppose it categorically because of what people are saying on Facebook and Twitter. While I'm not privy to behind-the-scenes details, I've witnessed first-hand and been very impressed by the project's commitment to safety.