4 ms·

Considering what recently happened at Mozilla, and other examples where we see protesters showing up at people's private homes, I oppose this effort. I used to

by jeremyt 12y ago

Considering what recently happened at Mozilla, and other examples where we see protesters showing up at people's private homes, I oppose this effort. I used to think that disclosure was the answer when it came to campaign-finance reform: let anybody give as much as they want as long as it's publicly disclosed. But now that people can lose their job because of their political views, I'm much more reluctant to speak out in favor of or donate to causes I believe in. Hell, I'm afraid to even say what I'm saying right now because it'll put me on record publicly opposing Matt Cutts, who can basically make or break any future companies I participate in that rely on SEO as a strategy. I think people should be able to donate to causes anonymously without worrying about retaliation..

jim-greer 12y ago
It's a tough balance, but I think most people disagree with you. Right now there's literally nothing stopping Russia or China from buying ads to sway elections. I don't think that's happening, but I think secrecy and corruption are a bigger threat to our democracy than a few protesters. Even Ted Cruz thinks there should be full and immediate disclosure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrmUvAoPV1I&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrmUvAoPV1I&feature=youtu.be
- jeremyt 12y ago
  With respect, I think it's a safe bet that this organization wasn't formed to prevent Russia or China from participating in domestic politics. It seems squarely focused on the David Kochs and Tom Steyers of the world. And if Russia or China was participating to a significant degree in our internal politics, that would come out as a national security issue and should be dealt with in other ways. I know that my position isn't popular, but the Federalist papers talked about this issue, and took the position that for every David Koch there is a Tom Steyer. Why not let them waste all of their money fighting each other? There are several recent examples illustrating that money doesn't buy elections. Maybe it's not a fact yet, but there's enough evidence behind it that I think it's a defensible position. If this takes off, I think the end result will be less participation in the political process by average Americans, who fear retaliation down the road. Maybe it looks like a difficult balance to you, but I think I would always come down on the side of more speech rather than less.
  - jim-greer 12y ago
    > for every David Koch there is a Tom Steyer. Why not let them waste all of their money fighting each other? I'd rather have small donors have a bigger share of voice.
  - staunch 12y ago
    > And if Russia or China was participating to a significant degree in our internal politics, that would come out as a national security issue and should be dealt with in other ways. We know Russia has done this successfully at least once. According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_m...
    - wooster 12y ago
      And it's been awhile, but IIRC the Mitrokhin Archive has a number of other examples of the Soviet Union influencing US politics through donations to political organizations. I would be surprised if governments weren't still attempting to influence each others' internal politics.
IvyMike 12y ago
> now that people can lose their job because of their political views I agree this is not fair nor beneficial, but from the Hollywood blacklist to Jim Crow to Martin Luther to "should we/shouldn't we build this golden calf", this has pretty much always been around.
- jeremyt 12y ago
  Whether I agree with your point or not, I don't think that changes anything. My argument stands even if I change the words "now that" into "since"
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    Except people do have a right to associate or not associate with others on the basis of their respective views. In the case of Brendan Eich, a lot of people made it clear that they didn't want to associate with him, and he chose to resign. That is, I believe, the definition of how a marketplace of ideas is supposed to work; you get to have your view, somebody else gets to have a different view, and if one of them "wins" then... it wins.
    - jeremyt 12y ago
      You call it a marketplace of ideas; I call it tyranny of the majority.
      - shiven 12y ago
        Perhaps you'd prefer the tyranny of the minority? Majority rule is a feature (or bug) of democracy. If you disagree with the prevailing views of the, in your words, tyrannical, majority, then you need to be more vocal, not less, in order to foster change. Yes, there will be consequences, but depending on the strength of your conviction and the fundamental correctness of your (minority) views, change can be brought about. Cases in point: Gandhi, MLK and leaders of other social movements who did it. At great personal price, yes, but nonetheless, did create change. TL;DR: Put up or Shut up. Change comes at a price.
SquareWheel 12y ago
>Hell, I'm afraid to even say what I'm saying right now because it'll put me on record publicly opposing Matt Cutts, who can basically make or break any future companies I participate in that rely on SEO as a strategy. You're basically making the claim that Google will manually take action on sites that they don't like, something which I've never seen any evidence for, and you haven't provided any.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jeremyt 12y ago
  No, I'm making the claim that if you get in trouble with SEO - even if it's an honest mistake - being on the good side of the Google team can mean the difference between your company surviving or dying. I can point to rap genius as a public example (and that wasn't even an honest mistake), but I've seen this happen myself and I've talked to a number of people who have admitted that Matt Cutts or someone on the search team personally intervened in their issue. To clarify: I'm not saying anyone is taking action against people they don't like, I'm saying that it's very easy to not take action to help people you don't like.
  - wldcordeiro 12y ago
    Rap Genius was actively gaming the system at the time so that isn't a worthy example.
    - jeremyt 12y ago
      Rap genius was penalized, but then the penalty was quietly lifted after a couple months. Tell me a less well-connected company would've gotten such a deal.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
snowwrestler 12y ago
The relevant Supreme Court decision in this issue is NAACP vs. Alabama, in which the state of Alabama attempted to expose the donors and members of NAACP so that they could be targeted with social pressure to stop working in Alabama. The U.S. Supreme Court found that Alabama's state law was superceded by the right of free association. A lot of people are going to balk at comparing American Crossroads to the NAACP. And I think they'd be right on the politics and policy. But since the law must treat everyone equally, there does not seem to be any way to force some organizations to reveal their donors and members without opening to door to forcing any or all organizations to do the same.
diminoten 12y ago
People should be willing to stand up for causes they believe in. I will not live in fear of judgement, and neither should you.
nsajko 12y ago
Maybe tolerance for differing political views will increase with disclosure becoming more prominent.
glesica 12y ago
"I think people should be able to donate to causes anonymously without worrying about retaliation.." But this has never been the case, it didn't start with Mozilla. Laborers used to be at risk of being murdered for attempting to unionize, here's a nice example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Little_(unionist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Little_(unionist). Even in less extreme cases, they could lose their jobs, and they still do, routinely (despite the fact that union activists have a small amount of legal protection today).
snarfy 12y ago
Fearing crimes being committed against you is a failure of the justice system. An angry mob outside your house harassing you is not legal. Also, you can lose your job for any reason, but only certain reasons can be disclosed publicly. A racist, sexist douche bag can fire anybody he/she wants as long as they say "Sorry, it's not working out" or whatever BS. If you are worried about what you say politically, you probably should find a better job.
- DougN7 12y ago
  Better job? Eich had a pretty good job methinks.

by jeremyt 12y ago

jim-greer 12y ago

It's a tough balance, but I think most people disagree with you. Right now there's literally nothing stopping Russia or China from buying ads to sway elections. I don't think that's happening, but I think secrecy and corruption are a bigger threat to our democracy than a few protesters. Even Ted Cruz thinks there should be full and immediate disclosure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrmUvAoPV1I&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrmUvAoPV1I&feature=youtu.be

jeremyt 12y ago
With respect, I think it's a safe bet that this organization wasn't formed to prevent Russia or China from participating in domestic politics. It seems squarely focused on the David Kochs and Tom Steyers of the world. And if Russia or China was participating to a significant degree in our internal politics, that would come out as a national security issue and should be dealt with in other ways. I know that my position isn't popular, but the Federalist papers talked about this issue, and took the position that for every David Koch there is a Tom Steyer. Why not let them waste all of their money fighting each other? There are several recent examples illustrating that money doesn't buy elections. Maybe it's not a fact yet, but there's enough evidence behind it that I think it's a defensible position. If this takes off, I think the end result will be less participation in the political process by average Americans, who fear retaliation down the road. Maybe it looks like a difficult balance to you, but I think I would always come down on the side of more speech rather than less.
- jim-greer 12y ago
  > for every David Koch there is a Tom Steyer. Why not let them waste all of their money fighting each other? I'd rather have small donors have a bigger share of voice.
- staunch 12y ago
  > And if Russia or China was participating to a significant degree in our internal politics, that would come out as a national security issue and should be dealt with in other ways. We know Russia has done this successfully at least once. According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_m...
  - wooster 12y ago
    And it's been awhile, but IIRC the Mitrokhin Archive has a number of other examples of the Soviet Union influencing US politics through donations to political organizations. I would be surprised if governments weren't still attempting to influence each others' internal politics.

IvyMike 12y ago

> now that people can lose their job because of their political views I agree this is not fair nor beneficial, but from the Hollywood blacklist to Jim Crow to Martin Luther to "should we/shouldn't we build this golden calf", this has pretty much always been around.

jeremyt 12y ago
Whether I agree with your point or not, I don't think that changes anything. My argument stands even if I change the words "now that" into "since"
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  Except people do have a right to associate or not associate with others on the basis of their respective views. In the case of Brendan Eich, a lot of people made it clear that they didn't want to associate with him, and he chose to resign. That is, I believe, the definition of how a marketplace of ideas is supposed to work; you get to have your view, somebody else gets to have a different view, and if one of them "wins" then... it wins.
  - jeremyt 12y ago
    You call it a marketplace of ideas; I call it tyranny of the majority.
    - shiven 12y ago
      Perhaps you'd prefer the tyranny of the minority? Majority rule is a feature (or bug) of democracy. If you disagree with the prevailing views of the, in your words, tyrannical, majority, then you need to be more vocal, not less, in order to foster change. Yes, there will be consequences, but depending on the strength of your conviction and the fundamental correctness of your (minority) views, change can be brought about. Cases in point: Gandhi, MLK and leaders of other social movements who did it. At great personal price, yes, but nonetheless, did create change. TL;DR: Put up or Shut up. Change comes at a price.

SquareWheel 12y ago

>Hell, I'm afraid to even say what I'm saying right now because it'll put me on record publicly opposing Matt Cutts, who can basically make or break any future companies I participate in that rely on SEO as a strategy. You're basically making the claim that Google will manually take action on sites that they don't like, something which I've never seen any evidence for, and you haven't provided any.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jeremyt 12y ago
No, I'm making the claim that if you get in trouble with SEO - even if it's an honest mistake - being on the good side of the Google team can mean the difference between your company surviving or dying. I can point to rap genius as a public example (and that wasn't even an honest mistake), but I've seen this happen myself and I've talked to a number of people who have admitted that Matt Cutts or someone on the search team personally intervened in their issue. To clarify: I'm not saying anyone is taking action against people they don't like, I'm saying that it's very easy to not take action to help people you don't like.
- wldcordeiro 12y ago
  Rap Genius was actively gaming the system at the time so that isn't a worthy example.
  - jeremyt 12y ago
    Rap genius was penalized, but then the penalty was quietly lifted after a couple months. Tell me a less well-connected company would've gotten such a deal.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

snowwrestler 12y ago

The relevant Supreme Court decision in this issue is NAACP vs. Alabama, in which the state of Alabama attempted to expose the donors and members of NAACP so that they could be targeted with social pressure to stop working in Alabama. The U.S. Supreme Court found that Alabama's state law was superceded by the right of free association. A lot of people are going to balk at comparing American Crossroads to the NAACP. And I think they'd be right on the politics and policy. But since the law must treat everyone equally, there does not seem to be any way to force some organizations to reveal their donors and members without opening to door to forcing any or all organizations to do the same.

diminoten 12y ago

People should be willing to stand up for causes they believe in. I will not live in fear of judgement, and neither should you.

nsajko 12y ago

Maybe tolerance for differing political views will increase with disclosure becoming more prominent.

glesica 12y ago

"I think people should be able to donate to causes anonymously without worrying about retaliation.." But this has never been the case, it didn't start with Mozilla. Laborers used to be at risk of being murdered for attempting to unionize, here's a nice example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Little_(unionist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Little_(unionist). Even in less extreme cases, they could lose their jobs, and they still do, routinely (despite the fact that union activists have a small amount of legal protection today).

snarfy 12y ago

Fearing crimes being committed against you is a failure of the justice system. An angry mob outside your house harassing you is not legal. Also, you can lose your job for any reason, but only certain reasons can be disclosed publicly. A racist, sexist douche bag can fire anybody he/she wants as long as they say "Sorry, it's not working out" or whatever BS. If you are worried about what you say politically, you probably should find a better job.

DougN7 12y ago
Better job? Eich had a pretty good job methinks.