3 ms·

Does it make me too cynical that my initial reaction to anything on petitions.whitehouse.gov is "Who cares?" Can someone point me to a petition that actually m

by ecaron 12y ago

Does it make me too cynical that my initial reaction to anything on petitions.whitehouse.gov is "Who cares?" Can someone point me to a petition that actually made a difference?

snowwrestler 12y ago
The SOPA petition drew a clear statement from the White House that they would not support any bill that messed with DNS. That was a win for the anti-SOPA folks because DNS redirection was a key part of that bill.
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  IOW, it happened to be one of the few cases where the White House's intentions were already aligned with the public's wishes.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    Yes, I agree that the SOPA petition did not change the White House's mind on DNS. But it did provide a good PR hook for them to put a stake in the ground, and clothe it in the veneer of public support. It's probably best to think of the petitions as a PR tool, not a policy tool. Getting a petition over the signature threshhold, or getting a response, is a great news hook that activists can use to generate press coverage of their issue. For example: this discussion would not be happening today if this response had not been issued. It's also possible that a petition can help affect policy over a long term. In general, people outside of government greatly underestimate just how long it takes to go from an idea or complaint, to a policy shift, to a change in the law. It's not uncommon for it to take a decade or more. For example Silent Spring was published in 1962, but DDT was not banned in the U.S. until 1972.
patzerhacker 12y ago
I was thinking the same thing, but thinking about it more I only get angry (which I suppose is constructive because anger can lead to the drive to do something instead of shitposting on the Internet). This government would be tripping all over itself to comment if Aaron Schwartz was a police officer that had shot an unarmed kid, although he likely wouldn't have been indicted. This government would be tripping all over itself to comment if Aaron Schwartz had released data from a private, multinational and said it was about an upcoming movie, although his actions would likely be blamed on what this government considers a rogue state. This government stands silent and swings its righteous hammer of legalism without concern for harm and proportionality since Aaron Schwartz committed a victimless crime that in no way would change the political party affiliation of anybody voting in the upcoming presidential election. Maybe if he had actually killed somebody or massively hurt the bottom line of a multinational company it would be different...
joshstrange 12y ago
I thought the site was really cool when it launched which looking back seems pretty naive. Nowadays I see is a way to make people think they have a say in something that they don't and way for the WH to pick and choose petitions to respond to that already align with their stance on things. So in short it's a PR machine for the WH and a blackhole for citizens.

by ecaron 12y ago

Does it make me too cynical that my initial reaction to anything on petitions.whitehouse.gov is "Who cares?" Can someone point me to a petition that actually made a difference?

snowwrestler 12y ago

The SOPA petition drew a clear statement from the White House that they would not support any bill that messed with DNS. That was a win for the anti-SOPA folks because DNS redirection was a key part of that bill.

thaumaturgy 12y ago
IOW, it happened to be one of the few cases where the White House's intentions were already aligned with the public's wishes.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  Yes, I agree that the SOPA petition did not change the White House's mind on DNS. But it did provide a good PR hook for them to put a stake in the ground, and clothe it in the veneer of public support. It's probably best to think of the petitions as a PR tool, not a policy tool. Getting a petition over the signature threshhold, or getting a response, is a great news hook that activists can use to generate press coverage of their issue. For example: this discussion would not be happening today if this response had not been issued. It's also possible that a petition can help affect policy over a long term. In general, people outside of government greatly underestimate just how long it takes to go from an idea or complaint, to a policy shift, to a change in the law. It's not uncommon for it to take a decade or more. For example Silent Spring was published in 1962, but DDT was not banned in the U.S. until 1972.

patzerhacker 12y ago

I was thinking the same thing, but thinking about it more I only get angry (which I suppose is constructive because anger can lead to the drive to do something instead of shitposting on the Internet). This government would be tripping all over itself to comment if Aaron Schwartz was a police officer that had shot an unarmed kid, although he likely wouldn't have been indicted. This government would be tripping all over itself to comment if Aaron Schwartz had released data from a private, multinational and said it was about an upcoming movie, although his actions would likely be blamed on what this government considers a rogue state. This government stands silent and swings its righteous hammer of legalism without concern for harm and proportionality since Aaron Schwartz committed a victimless crime that in no way would change the political party affiliation of anybody voting in the upcoming presidential election. Maybe if he had actually killed somebody or massively hurt the bottom line of a multinational company it would be different...

joshstrange 12y ago

I thought the site was really cool when it launched which looking back seems pretty naive. Nowadays I see is a way to make people think they have a say in something that they don't and way for the WH to pick and choose petitions to respond to that already align with their stance on things. So in short it's a PR machine for the WH and a blackhole for citizens.