9 ms·

Expect a response pretty much like this: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-bradley-manning https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/respons

by freyrs3 13y ago

Expect a response pretty much like this: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-bradley-manning https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-commen...

Nrsolis 13y ago
This petition wont change anything. We have REAL petitions every 2/4/6 years. It's called an election. You want change, that's how you get it.
- quonn 13y ago
  In a two party system they won't understand why you voted that way.
- dominotw 13y ago
  You are joking right?
- overgard 13y ago
  How will candidates know what platform to offer if we don't tell them what matters to us? If you wait till election season it's too late, they'll be terrified of changing their positions and being a "flip flopper" or a "chameleon". Government is like a giant cruiser, you can't wait till the last minute to change its direction if there's an iceberg ahead, you have to start steering early.
  - Nrsolis 13y ago
    Well, just as an example, I wrote a letter to my particular Senators and Representatives. I talked about my support for them during the past election and pointed to my contributions to their campaign. I also made a point to make my voice an individualized one that connected my particular concern with a specific issue. I made my opinion personally known to their staff (the people who REALLY read the letters) and tried to educate them about my specific concerns. So, yeah, I participate in the process by being educated about the issues, educating my elected representatives about the issues, and then highlighting that my continued support for them as an elected representative depends on my determination of how good of a job they are doing at just that. That's why I'm poo-poo'ing this petition stuff. It's too general, too diffuse, not aimed at a particular politician with real influence, and ultimately going to be a wasted effort. It'll be ignored. That's where Alexis Ohanian and his group have really done good work. They made a point of getting people to connect directly with their representatives and make it clear where the populace stood. THAT is how stuff gets done. Slacktivism doesn't get you anywhere since it requires nothing that involves any real EFFORT. Letter writing and phone calling does. Working on campaigns does. Visiting representatives and senators does. Clicking a button does NOT.
    - jivatmanx 13y ago
      Thank you for this great response, but even more for your civic participation, and I agree with everything you've said here. I think that these petitions are helpful for the otherwise apolitical, who get a mental cue, "I signed this petition, I am for this cause". Nobody starts out writing letters, and it's not helpful to condescend those who aren't as committed as us.
      - Nrsolis 13y ago
        I think it might be going a bit far to say that nobody starts out writing letters (because I did) but I do appreciate that a petition is a good first step at getting active. And please interpret my comments in the spirit in which they are intended: to educate people about the way things get done in DC. I equate petition signing with quackery when confronting a dread disease. It's harmful precisely because it deceives the patient about its efficacy. I lived in the DC area for more than a decade. I have two friends who work in the actual White House, another former colleague who is a serving delegate (VA) and countless others who work on the hill as staffers. I worked as an IT volunteer for the OBA campaign in 2008. I've asked this question before: "What's the difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement? The Tea Party got their candidates ELECTED and changed the political discourse of the country." As long as our generation keeps showing up to political gunfights armed with snowballs, we're going to keep getting the water hose.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  So, you are satisfied with providing one bit of information every four years? Do you think a Democracy can be sustained with this level of input?
austenallred 13y ago
Yes, but honestly that's OK. It's a small step, but for the president to have to come out and say, "I recognize that a significant number of the American people support this man who is convicted of espionage, but..." is a pretty novel thing.
- yannis 13y ago
  You mean "suspected" of espionage.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- meowface 13y ago
  I'm sure he does realize it already, as does the DoJ and NSA. It doesn't matter to them. If you leak Top Secret material it better be something as damning as the assassination of a politician or anything along those lines, else you won't be shown any mercy by the government. It's really just a matter of "50 years, or life without parole" at this point.
  - austenallred 13y ago
    Exactly. Which is why the petition matters - it forces a response from the White House. (Obama promised to respond to each petition that reaches 100,000 signatures)
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "Obama promised" After all that has happened, it amazes me that anyone would put any value on a promise made by President Obama.
    - maratd 13y ago
      > it forces a response from the White House. It doesn't force anything. They don't have to respond and they usually don't, when it's not convenient for them. It's just a user-created poll on their website.
LoganCale 13y ago
I expect one more like this, these days: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat... That is, still no response at all, 4 months later.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - tehwebguy 13y ago
    This petition was created when the goal was 25,000 signatures, before it was increased to 100,000.
  - chid 13y ago
    At the time it was 25,000. > SIGNATURES NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 11, 2013 TO REACH GOAL OF 25,000
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    That rule was put in place after the Swartz petition passed the initial limit of 25,000 in the first day or two. At the time of the change, they specifically said the new 100,000 limit would only apply to new petitions, so the Swartz petition was still under the original 25,000 signature rule.
    - pvnick 13y ago
      Remember what Snowden said about policies changing?
      - comefrom20 13y ago
        For those of us who don't know, what did he say about policies changing?
      - comefrom30 13y ago
        For those of us who don't know, what did Snowden say about policies changing?
soundgecko 13y ago
Its sad that it took so long spite of being all over HN, Reddit, /. Etc. Shows that the tech community is not as big as we think and/or is apathetic to even filling a form, forget about peaceful marches. This is why politicians don't care and don't need to care about things that are important to only the tech crowd. The numbers are just not there. There are lots of posts, tens of thousands of comments, even more up votes, but when the rubber meets the road, there is nothing. And the people with lots of money in the tech field don't care to part some for social change or to form PAC. We have no one else to blame for this but ourselves for things like the Aarons case and the state of affairs. Politicians have zero reasons to care one bit when a simple online petition can't make 100k votes all over the US in 2 weeks of non stop and over the top coverage in tech circles and going viral.
- cle 13y ago
  I wonder...how many people are not apathetic but scared to sign a petition like that? Also I think many people aren't apathetic about the issue, they're apathetic about the White House's laughable petitioning system.
  - kimlelly 13y ago
    "people are not apathetic but scared to sign" That's exactly what this surveillance is doing: killing free speech by intimidation is killing democracy.
    - devillain 13y ago
      Or maybe not everyone agrees with you. There's been a lot of discussion about the 'means', but not much about the 'ends'. The 'ends' is the same as giving nuclear secrets to Iran or North Korea.
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        So are you saying the public is now equated to being the enemy of the state?

by freyrs3 13y ago

Expect a response pretty much like this: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-bradley-manning https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-commen...

Nrsolis 13y ago

This petition wont change anything. We have REAL petitions every 2/4/6 years. It's called an election. You want change, that's how you get it.

quonn 13y ago
In a two party system they won't understand why you voted that way.
dominotw 13y ago
You are joking right?
overgard 13y ago
How will candidates know what platform to offer if we don't tell them what matters to us? If you wait till election season it's too late, they'll be terrified of changing their positions and being a "flip flopper" or a "chameleon". Government is like a giant cruiser, you can't wait till the last minute to change its direction if there's an iceberg ahead, you have to start steering early.
- Nrsolis 13y ago
  Well, just as an example, I wrote a letter to my particular Senators and Representatives. I talked about my support for them during the past election and pointed to my contributions to their campaign. I also made a point to make my voice an individualized one that connected my particular concern with a specific issue. I made my opinion personally known to their staff (the people who REALLY read the letters) and tried to educate them about my specific concerns. So, yeah, I participate in the process by being educated about the issues, educating my elected representatives about the issues, and then highlighting that my continued support for them as an elected representative depends on my determination of how good of a job they are doing at just that. That's why I'm poo-poo'ing this petition stuff. It's too general, too diffuse, not aimed at a particular politician with real influence, and ultimately going to be a wasted effort. It'll be ignored. That's where Alexis Ohanian and his group have really done good work. They made a point of getting people to connect directly with their representatives and make it clear where the populace stood. THAT is how stuff gets done. Slacktivism doesn't get you anywhere since it requires nothing that involves any real EFFORT. Letter writing and phone calling does. Working on campaigns does. Visiting representatives and senators does. Clicking a button does NOT.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    Thank you for this great response, but even more for your civic participation, and I agree with everything you've said here. I think that these petitions are helpful for the otherwise apolitical, who get a mental cue, "I signed this petition, I am for this cause". Nobody starts out writing letters, and it's not helpful to condescend those who aren't as committed as us.
    - Nrsolis 13y ago
      I think it might be going a bit far to say that nobody starts out writing letters (because I did) but I do appreciate that a petition is a good first step at getting active. And please interpret my comments in the spirit in which they are intended: to educate people about the way things get done in DC. I equate petition signing with quackery when confronting a dread disease. It's harmful precisely because it deceives the patient about its efficacy. I lived in the DC area for more than a decade. I have two friends who work in the actual White House, another former colleague who is a serving delegate (VA) and countless others who work on the hill as staffers. I worked as an IT volunteer for the OBA campaign in 2008. I've asked this question before: "What's the difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement? The Tea Party got their candidates ELECTED and changed the political discourse of the country." As long as our generation keeps showing up to political gunfights armed with snowballs, we're going to keep getting the water hose.
jivatmanx 13y ago
So, you are satisfied with providing one bit of information every four years? Do you think a Democracy can be sustained with this level of input?

austenallred 13y ago

Yes, but honestly that's OK. It's a small step, but for the president to have to come out and say, "I recognize that a significant number of the American people support this man who is convicted of espionage, but..." is a pretty novel thing.

yannis 13y ago
You mean "suspected" of espionage.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
meowface 13y ago
I'm sure he does realize it already, as does the DoJ and NSA. It doesn't matter to them. If you leak Top Secret material it better be something as damning as the assassination of a politician or anything along those lines, else you won't be shown any mercy by the government. It's really just a matter of "50 years, or life without parole" at this point.
- austenallred 13y ago
  Exactly. Which is why the petition matters - it forces a response from the White House. (Obama promised to respond to each petition that reaches 100,000 signatures)
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "Obama promised" After all that has happened, it amazes me that anyone would put any value on a promise made by President Obama.
  - maratd 13y ago
    > it forces a response from the White House. It doesn't force anything. They don't have to respond and they usually don't, when it's not convenient for them. It's just a user-created poll on their website.

LoganCale 13y ago

I expect one more like this, these days: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat... That is, still no response at all, 4 months later.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- tehwebguy 13y ago
  This petition was created when the goal was 25,000 signatures, before it was increased to 100,000.
- chid 13y ago
  At the time it was 25,000. > SIGNATURES NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 11, 2013 TO REACH GOAL OF 25,000
- LoganCale 13y ago
  That rule was put in place after the Swartz petition passed the initial limit of 25,000 in the first day or two. At the time of the change, they specifically said the new 100,000 limit would only apply to new petitions, so the Swartz petition was still under the original 25,000 signature rule.
  - pvnick 13y ago
    Remember what Snowden said about policies changing?
    - comefrom20 13y ago
      For those of us who don't know, what did he say about policies changing?
    - comefrom30 13y ago
      For those of us who don't know, what did Snowden say about policies changing?

soundgecko 13y ago

Its sad that it took so long spite of being all over HN, Reddit, /. Etc. Shows that the tech community is not as big as we think and/or is apathetic to even filling a form, forget about peaceful marches. This is why politicians don't care and don't need to care about things that are important to only the tech crowd. The numbers are just not there. There are lots of posts, tens of thousands of comments, even more up votes, but when the rubber meets the road, there is nothing. And the people with lots of money in the tech field don't care to part some for social change or to form PAC. We have no one else to blame for this but ourselves for things like the Aarons case and the state of affairs. Politicians have zero reasons to care one bit when a simple online petition can't make 100k votes all over the US in 2 weeks of non stop and over the top coverage in tech circles and going viral.

cle 13y ago
I wonder...how many people are not apathetic but scared to sign a petition like that? Also I think many people aren't apathetic about the issue, they're apathetic about the White House's laughable petitioning system.
- kimlelly 13y ago
  "people are not apathetic but scared to sign" That's exactly what this surveillance is doing: killing free speech by intimidation is killing democracy.
  - devillain 13y ago
    Or maybe not everyone agrees with you. There's been a lot of discussion about the 'means', but not much about the 'ends'. The 'ends' is the same as giving nuclear secrets to Iran or North Korea.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      So are you saying the public is now equated to being the enemy of the state?