5 ms·

Has any whitehouse.gov petition ever led to actual action being taken?

exiva 13y ago
The White House Honey Ale recipe was released from a we the people petition... So, no.
bobzimuta 13y ago
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/ale-chief-white-house-beer-recipe https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/ale-chief-white-ho...
bbatsell 13y ago
Here are the ones I can recall off the top of my head: * CISPA veto threat/defeat [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/cybersecurity-legislation-must-not-violate-americans-right-privacy https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/cybersecurity-legi...] * New open-access rules [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-access-results-scientific-research https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-...] * Halting use of animals in military training [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-halt-cruel-and-unnecessary-use-monkeys-army-chemical-casualty-management-training/tt2v2mc6 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-halt-c...]
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The animals one obviously doesn't count [1], since the petition was created September 27th, 2011, and the order halting the use of animals was issued September 20th, 2011. [1] Barring time travel
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    Perhaps the order and the petition were quantumly entangled, thus allowing for the measurement of the petition to affect the known outcome of the order.
- betterunix 13y ago
  I am pretty sure the CISPA veto and the open access rules were only tangentially affected by the petitions. The open access rules were a response to the treatment of Aaron Swartz, which was creating a media storm that was causing more people to notice the general abuses of power by prosecutors in this country. The CISPA veto threat followed pressure from lobbyists and well-connected corporations. Did the petitions matter at all? Maybe, but they were not even remotely close to being sufficient to get the administration to do anything. The Obama administration already knows how people feel about the Snowden situation; the petition is basically irrelevant.
techtalsky 13y ago
My opinion about it is that it's ONE way for them to take the temperature of the people. Of course 100,000 signatures alone isn't going to create meaningful action but it does allow for a certain amount of visibility into what's bubbling up to the surface. Thus, it's valuable... just not as valuable as some hope it will be.
fusiongyro 13y ago
It takes ten seconds and costs nothing. I honestly don't understand the argument against it. It may be no better than nothing, but it can hardly be worse.
- corin_ 13y ago
  It could perhaps be worse, either because it makes 100,000 people (or however many) think "well I've done by part now!" so they become complacent, or because the administration thinks "well they've got it off their chest with a petition, that will keep them away from doing anything stronger so let's keep going with what we were doing". Definitely subjective, though.
  - fearlessleader 13y ago
    What if the 'buzz' generated by all of these people inspires a few people to actually do substantive? Kinda like how spam only needs a few clicks per million to generate a profit. This is just speculation but it helps me cope with the facebook activism.
    - corin_ 13y ago
      I should clarify that I wasn't warning against signing the petition, merely adding a thought to the "well at the very worst it can't do any harm" logic. Make up your own mind on whether signing it is good, bad, or neither :)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mseebach 13y ago
  The argument is the same, but from the opposite end: Because it costs nothing and takes ten seconds. Why should I care about an opinion if the proponent can't invest more than that into it (say, a phone call to your congressman). What other artefacts of zero-cost, (near-) zero-effort expression should be considered in the legislative process?
- 13y ago
sneak 13y ago
No.

exiva 13y ago

The White House Honey Ale recipe was released from a we the people petition... So, no.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/ale-chief-white-house-beer-recipe https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/ale-chief-white-ho...

bbatsell 13y ago

Here are the ones I can recall off the top of my head: * CISPA veto threat/defeat [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/cybersecurity-legislation-must-not-violate-americans-right-privacy https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/cybersecurity-legi...] * New open-access rules [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-access-results-scientific-research https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-...] * Halting use of animals in military training [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-halt-cruel-and-unnecessary-use-monkeys-army-chemical-casualty-management-training/tt2v2mc6 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-halt-c...]

dragonwriter 13y ago
The animals one obviously doesn't count [1], since the petition was created September 27th, 2011, and the order halting the use of animals was issued September 20th, 2011. [1] Barring time travel
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Perhaps the order and the petition were quantumly entangled, thus allowing for the measurement of the petition to affect the known outcome of the order.
betterunix 13y ago
I am pretty sure the CISPA veto and the open access rules were only tangentially affected by the petitions. The open access rules were a response to the treatment of Aaron Swartz, which was creating a media storm that was causing more people to notice the general abuses of power by prosecutors in this country. The CISPA veto threat followed pressure from lobbyists and well-connected corporations. Did the petitions matter at all? Maybe, but they were not even remotely close to being sufficient to get the administration to do anything. The Obama administration already knows how people feel about the Snowden situation; the petition is basically irrelevant.

techtalsky 13y ago

My opinion about it is that it's ONE way for them to take the temperature of the people. Of course 100,000 signatures alone isn't going to create meaningful action but it does allow for a certain amount of visibility into what's bubbling up to the surface. Thus, it's valuable... just not as valuable as some hope it will be.

fusiongyro 13y ago

It takes ten seconds and costs nothing. I honestly don't understand the argument against it. It may be no better than nothing, but it can hardly be worse.

corin_ 13y ago
It could perhaps be worse, either because it makes 100,000 people (or however many) think "well I've done by part now!" so they become complacent, or because the administration thinks "well they've got it off their chest with a petition, that will keep them away from doing anything stronger so let's keep going with what we were doing". Definitely subjective, though.
- fearlessleader 13y ago
  What if the 'buzz' generated by all of these people inspires a few people to actually do substantive? Kinda like how spam only needs a few clicks per million to generate a profit. This is just speculation but it helps me cope with the facebook activism.
  - corin_ 13y ago
    I should clarify that I wasn't warning against signing the petition, merely adding a thought to the "well at the very worst it can't do any harm" logic. Make up your own mind on whether signing it is good, bad, or neither :)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mseebach 13y ago
The argument is the same, but from the opposite end: Because it costs nothing and takes ten seconds. Why should I care about an opinion if the proponent can't invest more than that into it (say, a phone call to your congressman). What other artefacts of zero-cost, (near-) zero-effort expression should be considered in the legislative process?
13y ago

sneak 13y ago

No.