In my youth I spent thousands of hours I will never get back arguing about the merits of various social policies and I have never made a positive impact with my contributions.
Well then do more than just argue. And when you do argue, argue to change minds, not to win. I know I used to argue to win. I found that it just puts people off. It doesn't matter how right you are if you make the other person feel angry (obvious counter examples aside). Arguing to convince the other side is harder because you have to understand them. Not only that, but you have to demonstrate that understanding. It is always a continual battle.
But besides arguing there are things you can do. As coders and techies we can contribute code. We can encourage open source and make our own code open source. We can help others find secure forms of communication. We can also do what many others in the public can do: protest, write our congressmen, and raise hell. How much and how little of this you want to do or have time for is okay. But I wouldn't say that just because you haven't convinced others means you shouldn't try. It just means you should change strategies. You after all, no matter how smart or right you are, are not perfect and neither is the person you're trying to convince.
The geek/hacker contingent has been surprisingly inept at applying the hacker ethos on the political scene. This is despite the wealth and self-assessed brilliance - where are the subversive PACs exploiting loopholes? Or trade groups communicatinf what is "common sense" on HN to the rest of the world? Perhaps the industry attracts the lone-wolf/Randian types who do not see value in unity-of-purpose, because less-wealthy and allegedly "lower-performance" industries are much more politically effective.
