What Maddox doesn't seem to understand is that "raising awareness" is the only way you win these battles long term in a democracy. For example, gay marriage is slowly becoming a reality because over the last 20 years gays have opened people's eyes to their plight. Once a cause becomes a moral issue for most Americans it wins. But most people have no idea what us tech geeks are bitching about so we have to educate them about our causes. And that is exactly what yesterday was about.
Or the NDAA. Etc. Etc. Etc. Saying "We need a really shitty piece of legislation like SOPA in this country to be the spark that ignites the lazy, idle tinders of protest" ignores all the other "shitty pieces of legislation" that have been passed over the years without igniting the "lazy, idle tinders of protest." I (perhaps naively but hopefully) feel like SOPA could become the turning of that tide...
SOPA would only work if it interrupted the things that normal people care about. If Facebook was taken down for an extended period there would be a major rise in discontent. However, the censors know doing something like that would be suicidal, so they will let the entrenched players like Facebook go and kill every Facebook Jr. as soon as someone posts a link to a Daily Show clip from YouTube instead of comedycentral.com.
This may upset people, but in my humble opinion, gay marriage has been a pawn used by DC for political gain. Raising awareness worked because DC figured out a way to twist it into a campaign talking point. Makes me sick.
Honestly, on that issue I don't think it happened that way. They were doing great with stem cell research and abortion- especially late-term. In fact, I frankly think gay marriage took DC by surprise. At first it was, "Oh, that's just Massachusetts. I'm surprised California doesn't have it." And then they realized it was a "serious" issue.
My personal perspective, having lived in the DC area most of my life and moving to MA shortly after (or was it just before? I don't remember), is that yeah, I was a little worried about how to explain it to my young kids. Turned out not to matter. I personally don't think the government should give a rat's ass who you love.
Here's how you explain it to your kids: "Mummy and Daddy love one another very much, and so do lots of other people. Men love women, some men love other men, some women love other women. And when they love each other enough, they commit to being with that person for the rest of their lives and get married."
I'm not totally sure how a conversation like that means - as some same-sex marriage opponents seem to think - that one has to start describing the intricacies of sex, anal or otherwise.
I do think it's utterly disappointing that the primary reason people seem to think that denying same-sex partners from getting married is because they are too much of a pussy to explain to their kids that gay people exist and can love one another.
I'm not totally sure how a conversation like that means - as some same-sex marriage opponents seem to think - that one has to start describing the intricacies of sex, anal or otherwise.
Because some same-sex marriage opponents are obsessed with the intricacies of anal sex (whereas the typical preadolescent child really doesn’t care about the intricacies of any kind of sex). Heck, some of them are probably more obsessed with this topic than the gay men who do it.
Explain what to your young kids? People loving eachother should be allowed together or why your government is sometimes quite insane? I would think the second one is more of a worry to explain to your young kids... But dad, why do we live here if you think 'those morons cannot do anything right'? :)
I think the issue is actually harder to explain when homosexuality is seen as wrong. I mean, if any two given people are allowed to be married, then you just explain it as something that two people do when they love each other very much. If same sex couples aren't allowed to marry normally, then you have to get into the why of the issue, which eventually would boil down to some people not being okay with what same sex couples do with each other in bed.
Yes, unfortunately that's a truth. I'm from the Netherlands and here it's kind of weird if someone is against it anyway, so I don't encounter the issue very often.
I was half-kidding with my above remark, but thinking about it; I could not live in a country where that would be the case. I would think that even if big parts of a country work like that, in 'well educated' parts of the country, your kids would've seen some amount (edited) of gay people together already which means there is nothing to explain (it being already natural). If that would not be the case, it means there is some kind of suppressing force at hand which I would not be able to live with (I'm not gay, but i'm very much against the ignorance which disallows / restricts people while there is no solid or even non-shaky argument against it).
Also, it is not known what population of a country is in fact gay. I read somewhere between 2 and 15% depending on a lot of factors. The issue is ofcourse that in most countries most gays did not (and maybe will never) come out, so it's hard to analyze anything based on that. But if 2%, it's still 2 out of 100, so in your neighborhood there will be always a few around and they ofcourse find partners from all over.
TV has probably a very big effect of what people accept as normal, probably more than neighborhoods. For better and for worse, people - including kids - watch hours of the stuff each day.
Fortunately, I was not encumbered by any feelings of "wrongness" or "immorality" or any fear that my kids would "catch it." That's why it totally turned out to be a non-issue. In fact the kids probably ended up explaining it to each other, in the very few cases where it occurred that somebody in a class had same-sex parents.
yeah, when it came up, I did. And it wasn't a big deal. It just doesn't come up often, there are gay people around, and nobody cares. It's actually exactly the way you would hope it would be.
In fact, I may be the only male in the house that uses 'gay' as a reference to homosexuality. I think to the kids gay = wimp and FWIW fag = asshole. I think. It's hard to figure it out sometimes. I just caution them that there are plenty of people who find certain terms hurtful still and they should be mindful of who is within earshot.
Wait... why can't we make Internet communication a talking point? The tech community has been wrestling with censorship, net neutrality, and the like for a long time now. Can't we frame this into a simple, non-extremist message and start asking candidates about their stance on it? It is a talking point, and if we are persistent in asking these candidates their stance on the issue, it will end up on the evening news. But first we have to form a consistent and clear stance.
I think we should. I just worry that if one sides with "Internet Freedom", there will be others who will get votes for siding with "Internet censorship" (of child pornography, piracy, etc).
So at least we should send a strong signal that we ALL want Internet Freedom.
Right, that what I trying to say. Gay marriage has become a polarizing topic for a candidate to pick a side on. This is not how it should be, and it’s absurd. The same for any other politically polarizing issue.
I very much do NOT WANT this SOPA and any possible legislation after it to become a polarizing talking point in a speech. It’s a twisted bastardization of a real issue, which is how I feel the gay marriage dabate has become.
"Raising awareness"? What about all the LGBT people who were disowned by family? What about people who were beaten up and sometimes killed? What about the decades of marches (and initially, riots) for this. What about people who risked their jobs, their home, their family, their neighbourhood or violence from the police all for their cause?
The LGBT rights movement was hardly slacktivist 'awareness raising'. It was real struggle with real costs which is generating real results.
The struggle isn't over yet. But over the last 50 years things have gotten better. To give an example, the UK has gone from "Homosexuality should be illegal" to a conversative tory prime minister saying "I support same sex marriage because it makes marriage stronger"
Agreed. The problem is that the proposed changes are really big changes considering the size of the infrastructure you are trying to change. Like most things, change requires time to cultivate and raising awareness is just as important as taking active action. There is after all strength in numbers. One person vehemently protesting is not better than thousands of slacktivists.
It more or less comes down to a numbers game. Not everyone will proactively go out of their way to take action (or will only do the very minimum, like changing their profile picture). To expect everyone to be proactive is unrealistic. The advantage that awareness gives is that it reaches out to the masses potentially hitting those who have the aptitude and attitude to take firm action. You reach enough of those people and over time influence starts to propagate upward throughout the entire structure -- but again, that takes time. People and the structures they live within are not changed over night.
I don't know why you're connecting these two completely different issues together. Just because you can "demonstrate" that raising awareness helped one problem, doesn't mean it will help another entirely different problem.
... Unless raising awareness in one problem makes people start giving a shit, in which case caring about orphaned baby seals in Chile, does help recycling efforts in Omaha.
Those are different problems. SOPA is a business/political problem, and the gay marriage is a societal norms problem.
Politicians are paid by lobbyists or have their own monetary interests to pass SOPA, and massive businesses support such a bill.
On the other hand, no one* in Washington really cares about "gay marriage". They just pretend to because there is opposition to it by their voters.
So, they can give you "gay marriage" rights, because it doesn't affect any economic or power interest. In the large scheme of things, gay marriage is an insignificant novelty, while SOPA is part of Washington's and corporate America's vision of the future.
[*] Well, some conservative republican politicians might care, but those are in the minority, many more are just putting on an act (like those that are all about christian family values, and then they are busted with some prostitute.
One of the problems in the American political culture is that wealthy interests set the terms of the debate, and the mass media goes along with that frame of reference, which means that certain political perspectives are dismissed as not worth considering before they even make their case.
The Occupy Wall Street protests and the “Internet strike” were both successful because they changed the terms of the debate. In the former case, the mass media, which had spent months obsessing over deficit deficit deficit, suddenly took notice of income inequality, and Romney’s Republican primary opponents started attacking him over his vulture-capitalist history. In the latter case, the fact that there was opposition to SOPA/PIPA, and that these opponents are not just “pirates”, finally became mainstream front-page news.
These are not legislative victories in and of themselves, but they are significant. The proper reaction is not “in the big scheme of things this is a small victory, so don’t feel smug about it” but “in the big scheme of things this is a small victory, so let’s build on it to go on to bigger victories”. Rome wasn’t sacked in a day.
If we set the terms of the debate, we didn't do a great job. We protested an "anti-piracy bill" according to the paper of record. Surely those are the sponsors' terms...
I understand that my age puts me in the minority here at Hacker News, but anyone who has ever followed anything I've said here knows that I really believe that's just a detail, not a real issue...I don't care as much about who you are as what you do and how you treat others.
I grew up in the U.S. in the 1960's and it was a very different time for all kinds of reasons. The biggest difference of all had little to do with money, technology, or superficial lifestyle; it had to do with state of mind. Like all young generations, we were confused and didn't understand why things were the way they were. So, with lots of energy and spare time, we took action...
We protested, we marched, we did whatever we thought it took to affect change. We took the side of the oppressed: blacks, women, gays, the poor and homeless, the environment, and most of all, we protested an illegal and immoral war. We ended the war and we changed the world.
It's great to see that some things haven't changed: young people still find a way to channel their resources to try to make things better, but here's the problem: All I see with this worldwide Occupy movement is people complaining, "Where's mine?" It seems like it's all about "me", not "us".
That's why these SOPA protests are so refreshing to me. It's the first thing I've noticed in years that reminds me of my youth, not so much in action, but in spirit. People have taken a few minutes to stop worrying about themselves to do something about the greater good for all of us.
But the spirit of modern times prevents us from doing enough. We will take action so long as it doesn't cost us too much. Where is the sacrifice? Where is the "put your money where your mouth is"? I love the way OP points this out.
I'm proud of Wikipedia. Craigslist came close, forcing its users to work to get to their local pages. But too many, like Google, just wimped out. All their black banner said was, "We care, but not that much."
Listen to OP! For just a few minutes, fuck the "stake holders", the "money managers", the "players", the "metrics", the "ROI", and the "bottom line". Can't we just once pretend that it's 1968, and stop giving a shit about ourselves long enough to realize that a couple of extra bucks today will soon be worthless in a world going to shit if we don't do something about it? Only when we demonstrate the passion that comes from true sacrifice will the "normals" really take notice.
In Britain, liberalism was architected primarily by people who were part of our very old establishment. The decriminalisation of homosexuality was achieved largely by the work of Lord Wolfenden, Lord Pakenham and Arthur Gore (8th Earl of Arran). The same goes for most of the political changes we associate with modernity and progress - with the notable exception of Bevan and his peers, the people turning the wheels were mainly minor aristocrats in dusty tweed. A great many of the most significant changes were made contrary to public opinion, the most obvious being the abolition of the death penalty - a policy which most Britons still oppose.
The boomers credit themselves with having changed the world when they were young, broke and essentially powerless, but deny any credit to the generation that constituted the establishment at the time. Conversely, now that they control the majority of capital, make up the biggest electoral demographic and holds most of the elected offices, they deny responsibility.
The most destructive act of the baby boomers was creating a culture in which the individual is seen as having supremacy over the institution. The consequences are obvious and stark - a political system with single-digit approval ratings, where nobody feels represented and nobody feels responsible. A political culture defined not by fundamental ideological allegiance and difference, but by special pleading. There's no such thing as a socialist anymore, no such thing as a conservative or a trade unionist, just people with opinions. America always pretended to be classless but Britain has gone the same way, preferring the egoistic fantasy of an egalitarian society over the reality of one where power and wealth and privilege are still very much in force.
We're trapped in a solipsistic nightmare, where conspiracy theories have replaced an understanding of social power. Until the people who are in charge actually admit that they are in charge, we're fucked.
The boomers have also presided over a period of unparalleled monetary inflation. They chose not to take hard decisions. Being an xer, I can totally relate to the concept of being trapped. The boomers are sitting on gazzilions of dollars of inflated wealth and god knows how much power that goes with it. It is not so much the lack of power that bothers me, but the conflict between playing by the rules defined by the boomers and the new hope of post materialism.
I think the xers and yers will remain conflicted generations.
The previous paragraph covers the issue of conflict between boomers and young generations, touching on the controlling forces of boomers conflicting with newer ideologies. So I think they meant to say that the x and y generations will remain in conflict with the boomers until the boomers grow too old to hold their power.
The problem I have with the invocation of post-materialism specifically to support this argument is that if post-materialism were manifest in the youngest generations, we'd have a lot of empowered voting and office-running youth overthrowing the boomer establishment. Post-materialists value freedom of speech and people collectively having power in political decisions more than they value material goods and even national order. Post-materialists would be fighting tooth and nail and leveraging every advantage they have against a corrupt, centralized material-obsessed authority.
A powerful post-materialist youth would leverage technology to empower their voices directly through the voting system and the lawmaking process. They would enable an open-source voting system with access to vote online and with publicly published by-vote data that associates votes to a generated unique key. When you voted, you would be given that key and then your association to that key would be destroyed. Thus, you'd be able to verify your vote was cast correctly and we could all verify voting data validity. The open-source voting system would ensure that there were no holes in this process.
A powerful post-materialist youth would reform lawmaking such that all bills had a single specific agenda with no riders (i.e., hidden pieces covering separate topics not covered in the abstract). They would ensure that every person could easily search for all the bills in consideration that covered topics they cared about and that the government actively marketed this data to the public.
A powerful post-materialist youth would have a crowd-sourced information platform for politics that tightly integrated with the searchable, taggable data. Think Reddit+Wikipedia for politics. With this there could be a wiki page for every issue and bill in discussion and a "subreddit" for every party and political action group to organize through.
A powerful post-materialist youth would develop these solutions and steamroll them into the status quo long before the boomers retired.
Maddox is highlighting that youth have not been exerting strong post-materialist influence in politics and joining a growing quorum of people saying, "Do more, care more, and you can actually shift ideologies and power structures to better align with your ideals."
The missing element to making this mainstream is a technology-focused social approach to reforming the voting system such that it is possible for the average working and school-going youth to develop and grow their understanding of the issues affecting all those that they care about by connecting them to those same people.
I think mainstream culture is a bigger impediment to the changes you describe than voting system reform. But I certainly would like to see the kind of changes you describe.
The boomers credit themselves with having changed the world when they were young, broke and essentially powerless, but deny any credit to the generation that constituted the establishment at the time.
In the U.S. at least, I don't think anything would have changed with regards to civil rights for a while if it had been left to the establishment. Without the protests, boycotts, and other direct action of the Civil Rights Movement, I doubt that the white Northern establishment would've gotten the guts to move against the white Southern establishment: the fact that the white Southern establishment reacted so violently and lawlessly to the civil-rights protests was one of the factors that forced the timid establishment to act, lest they allow in effect another open southern rebellion. Up until the moment they were forced to act, the establishment generally thought the protestors were hotheads who should've stopped rocking the boat so dangerously. (The presence of even more "dangerous" hotheads was also useful for that; e.g. the existence of Malcolm X made it easier for MLK to position himself as a moderate partner offering a way out, whereas his demands were themselves initially seen as extreme.)
There was some spread in generations in the civil rights movement, especially among black southerners; famously Rosa Parks was born in 1913. But among whites, the participants in the protests were almost exclusively under 40.
I do agree that they've mostly grown up to be a disappointing establishment, though.
Also, it's easy to go out and protest and be unwashed when you have absolutely nothing to lose. The unfortunate youth of today are not as unfortunate as in 1968.
1. There's no longer any military conscription, which in the 60s forced even the most temperamentally apolitical under-26-year-olds to pay attention at least somewhat, since it was (legally) impossible to just ignore the war and go about one's life.
2. While many black youth are still disaffected, there's no longer any de jure segregation, so what remains is a more amorphous disaffection lacking the sort of clear spark/goal that the civil rights movement had. Overall material conditions are also somewhat better, for at least some proportion.
Occupy movement at its heart is a fight to wrest control of the world from baby-boomers, who are now old and selfishly willing to burn everyone else to protect their benefits.
I've run into more jaded baby boomers than anything else. And they justify it by "well, now I have a job" or "I'm too old now" or "The Internet is over my head." Their pie is the 401(k), come what may.
The Occupy movement is about exactly the opposite of "me." It is primarily about the growing disparity in wealth and power, and how that disparity hurts everyone (including the 1%). A little disparity is fine. It gives us something to aspire to. Occupy's message is that the balance of wealth and power has shifted too far away from the reach of aspirations.
The occupy movement could of been about corruption & bailouts and how the government picks winners and losers that hurts everyone not directly involved (those picked as winners) (i.e. you and me). Instead Occupy turned into where's my bailout. They could've taken a principled position, but didn't wealth disparity is a good thing - as long as it's achieved in the appropriate ways (voluntary interaction).
It was about the bailouts and corruption. In fact, anti-corruption is probably the single biggest message of the occupy movement. That sign saying "where's my bailout" was complaining about "where's our bailout". It's pointing out that only the banks got taken care of, while the rest of us seem to matter increasingly less. It's not asking for a handout, it's pointing to the discrepancy.
Also, if you're against corruption, massive and increasing wealth disparity is not a good thing. Put all the financial power in the hands of a few and every single time they'll wind up with all the political power as well. If you want an example of correlation between money and political power, you could look at SOPA.
I wasn't referring to the sign, I was referring to people there wanting a handout - wanting student loan forgiveness, wanting government sponsored grants/loans for starting companies, wanting government help in increasing the value of their home or money/tax incentives to pay their mortgage.
There is an actually valid concern that instead of guaranteeing credit default swaps in a handful of institutions, you could've spent the same amount of money propping up some of these underwater mortgages.
Same outcome - a bunch of public money goes towards restoring confidence in the system - but with significantly less significant social costs/moral hazards.
Their problem is that they did not have a strong detailed message that could be related. You had liberals and libertarians fighting over nonsense and you had a lot of misinformed people. Plus, they should have been protesting our Government officials and demanding that they work for the people instead of protesting Wall Street. It just turned into a mess and got even more disorganized, which made it easier for someone to point a camera in several people's faces and make them seem like an idiot or a "socialist (which seems to scare people)."
I disagree pretty strongly, what I found most refreshing and "revolutionary" about the occupy movement was it's lack of a strong detailed message. It made it massively inclusive, it is not a one issue movement it is a new way of involving all kinds of people in the political process. That is what gave me hope (I'm cynical enough to know that it might not pan out as I'd like) it actually IS addressing the broken system the OP is complaining about.
The political process can only be corrupt as long as people aren't paying attention - I think the occupy movement did a great service in focusing attention on the inequalities inherent in the current system and provided a model for what democracy is supposed to be. People talking, debating and voting on the actual issues that affect them - when contrasted with the BS that is the congressional sausage factory and the media circus that surrounds it I know which I'd prefer to be the basis for a redefined version of democracy.
The lack of a strong detailed message did allow it to be massive and inclusive. But with no direction or goal, it's just a self-licking ice cream cone.
With no strong detailed message, it makes it really hard for politicians/media to argue against, but it makes it really easy for politicians/media to mock.
<The political process can only be corrupt as long as people aren't paying attention.>
I hope it will be like that forever: here in Italy politicians don't even need to fake the formality of democracy, the dialogue with the "real world".[referring to the facts of 15th november 2011]
I cringed at a lot of the coverage, so I know what you mean. A lot of the organizers were very new to this sort of politics. From what I've read (no articles on hand), they've moved into an office and have started acting like a coherent organization.
I'm sure we'll see a round two, and it'll have a clear message and better organization.
There no "we" in "I am the 99%". But Occupy hasn't put out and stood behind a coherent message, and probably never will, so it's a free-for-all to talk about what Occupy really is.
1. nobody can say what the occupy was about. the next guy will have a different opinion
2. It was always about wealth disparity. The little something to aspire to never existed. Everyone aspire large wealth disparity, or they are too busy making ends meet. It was always like that. See any previous human society or moment in history. Heck even the alpha male usually has most of the females
I hear things like this a lot about human nature, and I try really hard to believe them, but at the end of the day I have to admit that I don't personally know a single person who thinks this way. Everyone I know would very much like to pay off their debt, have easy access to shelter, food, and entertainment for themselves and their loved ones, and not have to work but be able to do whatever they love doing as much as they want to do it. It is possible that there is not enough aggregate wealth in the world for everyone to be prosperous enough to achieve these things, so desiring them is equivalent to the desire for wealth disparity, but it is not the disparity itself. I am not suggesting that there are no people who desire disparity itself, only that I have trouble convincing myself that it is "everyone", since I don't know any.
you, and I, and pretty much everyone we know, are making ends meet.
trust me on this one. it may seems far fetched that in all your friends circle, or mine, we don't know any rich person. but it is so.
We are all Class C, by the original definition that classify modern social classes by their aspirations and goals. not that non-sense sensus stuff. The successful guys in this forum, that made millions with their hard work, are class B. we have not even indirect connection to class A.
tl;dr do not base society on your personal knowledge.
Admittedly, I missed the dichotomy in your original post between those making ends meet and those aspiring to wealth disparity - I thought you meant that even those just trying to make ends meet aspire to wealth disparity, which is why egalitarian movements fail, when what I think you meant is that once people stop having to make ends meet, they then begin to aspire wealth disparity.
I would be very interested to see the data you are basing your knowledge of society on, since it must be outside your personal experience.
Also I'm not familiar with the modern social class definition system that you speak of, where can I read about that?
can't find it myself... will ask my athropologist friends later, as i'm curious to the actual terms too.
the original paper that mentioned A, B, C class outlined them by: C class, aims for sustenance. B class, takes sustenance as granted, aim for goods. C class, takes sustenance and goods for granted, aim for status.
Forgot 3. If you are making ends meet, your best bet is always revolution. But the goal will still be the same, even if you have to use talks of equality to get it started
This societal passiveness isn't accidental: it has been deliberately engineered in North America. The documentary "The Century of the Self" breaks this down better than anything else I've seen/read. There is also, within activist circles, the belief in a mythical version of history in which pacifism, isolated from militance, is what catalyzed change in the past.
Regarding the self-interest of the young, it's a rational thing. If young people today weren't saying "where's mine" then they'd be stupid. During the baby boom there were decent jobs because globalization hadn't happened yet and corporations still had to rely on domestic labor. Reliance on domestic labor also means the elite values having decent public institutions, which strengthen the labor force. Now not only do we have globalization but also systematic looting. Young people get to look forward to having it significantly worse economic prospects than their parents.
Maybe this is a little bit OT, but I think the biggest problem with the baby boomers is that, 12 years after '68, Reagan is elected and the whole generation basically turned their back on their youthful idealism and proceeded to create the mess we are in now.
I was in downtown Toronto on February 15, 2003, freezing my ass off in a protest march of nearly 100,000 people who were, in turn, part of a global march of between 10 and 20 million people protesting the invasion of Iraq. It was the single biggest protest in history, and it was against a war that hadn't even started yet.
Popular protest against the Vietnam War didn't take off until the war had been grinding for several years.
Sorry if this is rubbing salt in a wound... but, that protest really didn't have any effect. Did it? I agree with Maddox here that both protests (while impressively sizable and passionate) were equally ineffective.
It's an open (and probably unanswerable) question whether the invasion would have gone differently if not for all the popular global protest (though I can imagine that the US would have been less restrained if they knew the world wasn't watching).
I was responding to the OP's contention that the Boomer generation was more committed to protesting in support of social justice than people are these days.
I remember that date, being in New York myself. Seeing the police embrace their militaristic fantasy of being under attack; seeing the futility of organized dissent when it came to changing the course of an autonomous government. That was my last protest. "Cypherpunks write code".
Yes I remember that massive worldwide protest against the impending invasion of Iraq. But the US was still able to get 20+ countries to go with them into war. Based on the "get off your ass and actually do something" theory of the OP, why didn't this have any effect?
> We protested, we marched, we did whatever we thought it took to affect change. We took the side of the oppressed: blacks, women, gays, the poor and homeless, the environment, and most of all, we protested an illegal and immoral war.
If by "we" you mean some of the baby boom generation, then you are right. But let's not pretend that a huge group of people like the baby boomers have a unified approach to injustice and oppression. After all, many of the baby boom generation and have and continue to support oppression in their communities and as official state policy, but that doesn't mean that every baby boomer supports those things.
Also, the struggle against oppression in the US has a much longer and deeper history than prior to the late 60s, so don't pretend that the baby boomers were the saving grace to these movements as that erases the hard work and suffering that many people had to go through.
> All I see with this worldwide Occupy movement is people complaining, "Where's mine?" It seems like it's all about "me", not "us".
A lot of the anger stems from being denied opportunities that were afforded to the boomers. The American Dream was available to you in ways that our generation will never know.
We've been sold on this notion of security and prosperity that no longer exists. Yet, we're still supposed to support the preceding generation as they retire and draw benefits that won't exist for us.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
But it is wrong to say that you "ended the war and changed the world".
The "war" ended in 1975, long after all the protesting has slowed to a crawl. And the ending of the war mainly had to do with an exhaustion of resources amidst an economic and oil crisis, and, well, actually losing the damn thing. There is such a thing as a lost war.
Furthermore, people mainly protested not because the war was "illegal and immoral", but primarily because of the draft and how it affected them (or people they knew). Lesson learned: the government used only pro soldiers for their wars from them on, and no protests of that scale and that extend occurred again.
The baby-boomer, sixties "rebellion" was in all, a failure. It didn't "stop the war", and it didn't "change the world". It ended itself in the conformism and consumerism of the seventies and in a drug and "self-discovery" haze.
If the world has indeed changed since the 60s, it's for the worst, in the political sense, concerning society, freedom, public and international policy (technology and science have of course improved, but those two always do, since the dawn of time, and exponentially since around 1600).
Now, how about the societal change regarding the treatment of blacks? Well, that was due to their organized protests and political action (from the action around Rosa Parks to the Alabama march). And, to return to the point of Maddox, this is what the other sixties movements lacked (since SDS dissolved into irrelevance), and what we lack today.
If baby-boomers' sixties was a self-absorbed failure, there was indeed a time when Americans fought and won very significant rights. It was when they were actually organized, agitated, and fought (often to death), to gain their labour rights, regarding working conditions, eight hour day, etc. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
Without political action and determination, you cannot have change. Blacking out a webpage is idiotic. "But it spreads awareness". So? What is the viewer of your webpage supposed to do with this new found awareness? Until you can answer that, it's all in vain. And writing to your congressman is idiotic. What makes him "your" congressman? Even a boycott is silly, if it's just about individuals making a choice, instead of being the co-ordinated action of some group with a minimum program and coherency.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for one thing: the sixties protesters certainly did change the world, just not the way they wanted to:
* They ensured Ronald Reagan's landslide victory in the race for governor of California, whose campaign promise was to shitcan UC president Clark Kerr and "clean up the mess at Berkeley," which I believe he fulfilled his first day in office.
* They ensured that Lyndon B. Johnson, arguably the most liberal president in US history and most powerful proponent of the 196[48] Civil Rights Acts, would not even attempt to seek reelection.
* They incited a riot at the 1968 Democratic Nation Convention, ensuring a landslide victory for somebody as unpopular as Richard Nixon.
In short, they empowered the opposition. Being a loud vocal minority only ruffles the feathers of the majority and calls them into action, which is why no political leaders are going to touch the "occupy movement" with a ten-foot pole.
The anti-SOPA movement on the other hand is a different because at the end of the day, it threatens a multi-billion dollar industry. Whether Wikipedia and Reddit can rally your "awareness" about it or not, the Googles of the world will still fight it tooth and nail to protect their own investments, and their money speaks just as loud as the entertainment industry's. For that reason, I never really believed SOPA or PIPA stood a chance.
While I wholeheartedly agree with your overall sentiment that the baby boomers poisoned the well of liberalism for the next few generations, I feel compelled to point out that Nixon's landslide was in 1972. 1968 was one of the closest elections of the century.
>Blacking out a webpage is idiotic. "But it spreads awareness". So? What is the viewer of your webpage supposed to do with this new found awareness?
Most of the websites I saw participating in the blackout urged people to contact local congresspeople. Wikipedia, for example, featured a form that would show contact information given a zip code.
While not at the level of mass protests, it's certainly doing something.
Further, awareness does matter. In my local paper, the blackouts made the front page. That exposes the issue to a wide range of people that would never have been aware anything was happening.
Are there other actions people could have taken to protest SOPA/PIPA? Sure, and some are probably more optimal than the blackout. Even so, I would disagree that the blackout was ineffective, much less "idiotic".
Thanks for the intelligent reply, Batista. Just a few nits...
The "war" ended in 1975, long after all the protesting has slowed to a crawl.
The war "officially" ended in 1975, but it really ended with de-escalation and the ending of the draft years earlier by our activism. Make no mistake about it, LBJ, one of the most powerful presidents ever, was brought to his knees, not by his political opponents, but by us. March 31, 1968 was the beginning of the end of that war.
Furthermore, people mainly protested not because the war was "illegal and immoral", but primarily because of the draft and how it affected them (or people they knew).
One of many counter-examples: the My Lai Massacre. Do you remember how aghast the American public was that things like this were happening on television almost every night "for no apparent reason"? People have always really known right from wrong. The difference is when they decide to do something about it.
Now, how about the societal change regarding the treatment of blacks? Well, that was due to their organized protests and political action (from the action around Rosa Parks to the Alabama march)
I imagine there are quite a few who would disagree with that, from the urban infernos of the late 1960's even up to today.
It was when they were actually organized, agitated, and fought (often to death)...
I think we need to sacrifice more, but I don't suggest sacrificing our lives. Ironically, mine was a generation that did sacrifice the lives of our martyrs. To this day, I often wonder how different the world would be if the opponents of change hadn't murdered JFK, MLK, RFK, or Malcom X, or crushed the lives of countless others on college campuses (Kent State, 1970), Stonewall, or in the streets of Newark, Detroit, Watts, and a hundred other places.
...to gain their labour rights...
Kinda ironic that one of the worst cripplers of today's economy are the entitlements won by the overextension of organized labor (see auto industry or almost any local government).
I'd stay and debate more, but a client just called and I'm already 27% behind quota this week. (Oh how times have changed.)
What an odd and misguided rant. It's like the assholes who tell you if you don't like the laws, run for office. "What makes him "your" congressman?" Whoa. Deeeep, dude.
Well, those "assholes" might just say it to discourage you from attempting anything, but in the whole, they are right.
If you don't like the laws, do run for office, or at least, run to ensure that someone who shares your dislike for the laws, get's into office and gets the job done.
Without that, all the blackening of blogs, symbolic ribbons etc don't change a thing.
In fact, the very meaning of a republic is that of the handling of things/issues that belong to all and affect all ("res publica", public things, in latin).
Politics weren't supposed to be some specialized profession, for professional politicians, but the duty of the citizen of a democracy.
Same for ancient Athens, who invented all that democracy thing. Public officials there were chosen at random, as to better represent the majority (this incidentally solves the funding problem). So you could end up a congressman (or something equivalent for the day), like you could be chosen for jury duty today.
(Incidentally, Athens and Rome declined when their citizens stopped caring about the "public things", and demagogues and dictators seized the power).
As if awareness is completely useless in the fight. Even congresspeople admitted to not understanding the law. If I can do something (write them, call them) to help them understand, that does nothing?
Sure, I'm not willing to die for Reddit. So, I guess you got me there.
Well, congresspeople can admit to "not understanding the law", but that is just bollocks. You really believe highly educated guys in Washington, with a lot of lawyers among them for good measure, don't understand a law and it's consequences?
It's not about them not understanding some obscure technical details of how the internet works. It's about what the intent and spirit of the law is, and that they understand all too well.
"You're not willing to die for Reddit", you say. Irony aside, is that what internet freedom and SOPA amount to you, the closing (or not) of Reddit?
Can anyone back up his comment about recycling with any indisputable or at least convincing evidence/statistics?
"Even if you, your neighbors, and everyone you've ever met recycled everything and reduced your waste output to zero, it wouldn't even make an observable impact on overall waste production in the world. Household waste and garden residue account for less than 3% of all waste produced in the US. That's less than the average statistical margin of error, and most people don't even come close to producing zero waste."
I've always suspected that this is correct, but I'd like to be able to back that up with some evidence.
The fraction of the total waste stream that you can affect is irrelevant when deciding whether to recycle. Any single industrial waste creator could make the same argument-- my company only creates 0.001% of the waste stream, so it doesn't matter what I do. This has to be wrong, because we know that the total outcome is nothing other than the aggregated behaviors of all of us, and the total outcome matters.
The important question is whether the impact of recycling the waste you create is a net gain or loss, after you take into account all the work needed to do the recycling. From an energy perspective, most recycling is a massive saver of energy [1], but that doesn't mean it's economical. England, for example, imports a lot of glass, but does very little glass manufacturing. Recycling glass there is probably not a valuable service, but that says nothing about its value where you live (unless you happen to live in England).
Waste stream sorting technology is still developing; I wouldn't be surprised if that reduces costs in the future such that sorting waste in your house isn't worth it-- you'll just dump everything in the bin and let robots pick out the valuable stuff later.
[1]: http://www.economist.com/node/9249262 (Money quote: "Recycling aluminium, for example, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass.")
this is a good example of the tragedy of the commons, if i am not mistaken.
Why should one person save when it doesnt make ameasurable difference, the probblem, the tragedy being that everone thinks this way and the effect compunds.
sort of broad strokes, but jon a global scale, human created by-products are bad. Reducing consumption, re-using, re-cycling, in the true sense are all great things to do - but OPs point, as i read it, is more abou the last part than the rant at the beginning. If we dont want people going after our internet in the long run, we need to make the people who tried to screw it up change their perspective. corporations will not support political support if it obviosly costs them painfully, much worse than whatever money they spent lobbying plus what they thought they were protecting against.
politicians can be ousted.
money makes the world go around, and while lobbyits throw. money at politicians for their election campaigns, in the end its the people who elect them who really matter. that money is used to convince people to elect them......
so if enough people start telling their local reps, very clearly, that they are DONE in office unless they change stance on an issue, and also that they will gain a vote if they DO change their stance, money means a lot less. If the majority of your constituents love you, and you are sure of it, you dont need nearly as much capital to stay in office.
the clear message should be "hands off the internet. totally. let it grow. its revolutionary for the human race and in its infancy, and it only works because people agreed to follow a set of standards that allowed it to come into being, it was not planned. it is a collection of networks, and it can, and will, let its users find a way around any censorship. i dont condone piracy, but the internet, and the ease of moving data around are only going to get better and better. hollywood and industries who IP laws to protect them are not inherently bad, they just have a big change in how things work in frint of them. I am sure hollywood can figure out how to continue making movies even though they can be copied globally in seconds.... because people still want new movies. there is still a market. music industry, book industry, same deal.
know when you get tempted to pirate a book? when there is no kindle edition, at the author or publishers choice. i want a digital version. i want instant delivery, and i am willing to pay for that..... its real ly simple.
Knowing the percentage of waste that is house hold waste is extremely important. If it's 50%, then getting people to recycle is essential. If it's 3%, maybe there are better things we can be concentrating on to reduce the overall amount of waste.
As long as the household percentage is nonzero, I'm afraid I disagree.
Suppose recycling used more energy than it saved (which is the case for some materials e.g. low grade plastic waste in places with little plastic manufacturing). Then, even if that waste were most of the waste stream, getting people to recycle would not be essential-- it would actually create more waste, something to avoid.
My claim is that as long as recycling is a net gain, after you count all the costs, it doesn't matter what percentage of the total waste stream it is.
Note that I'm not saying that industry shouldn't also recycle. I suspect that the potential gains there are even larger, but that's not an argument against household recycling, given that the tasks are executed by different people in parallel.
> My claim is that as long as recycling is a net gain, after you count all the costs, it doesn't matter what percentage of the total waste stream it is.
Then you are ignoring the very existence of opportunity cost.
Your argument only holds if the "effort" of recycling displaces effort/attention better directed toward other things. Some people might think that recycling absolves them from other environmentally irresponsible behavior, but I don't think that the effort to increase recycling is really an optimization problem since it doesn't really introduce meaningful costs into most everyday lives.
And the parent comments argument only holds if the effort of recycling at home is less than the benefit gained from doing it.
This is why unbiased figures are important. It's all relative. Why should everybody in my country have multiple bins picked up at different dates and have to separate garbage manually only to have a second group of people sort through it, if the overall effect is so tiny?
> The fraction of the total waste stream that you can affect is irrelevant when deciding whether to recycle. Any single industrial waste creator could make the same argument-- my company only creates 0.001% of the waste stream, so it doesn't matter what I do. This has to be wrong, because we know that the total outcome is nothing other than the aggregated behaviors of all of us, and the total outcome matters.
It's not wrong. There are two different answers: what's best for the individual and what's best for society/collective/etc are not the same thing. This is why legislation and reduction of barriers (like single stream recycling) are necessary.
Agreed. I'm assuming that even though individuals might all like to live in a society that is unfairly biased in their favor, we have no way of creating that. The next best option is a fair society, where, as you say, legislation and reduction of barriers attempt to align the interests of the individual with the interests of society.
I've seen some estimates saying that the total percentage of waste coming from households can be as lows as 2%, depending on how you count. For example, this cites an EPA study: http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/Statistics.htm
The same page mentions a higher bound of 20%, but in any case it seems reasonably well established that the vast majority of the waste produced (at least in the US) comes from the manufacturing/industrial process itself, not from households.
A book that goes into quite a bit of detail about this is "Gone tomorrow" by Heather Rogers.
I'd still like to have any real quotation. EPA claims about "Municipal Solid Waste":
"We estimated residential waste (including waste from apartment houses) to be 55 to 65 percent of total MSW generation. Waste from commercial and institutional locations,
such as schools, hospitals, and businesses, amounted to 35 to 45 percent."
See also what screwt writes: the rubble, for example, is not the kind of waste that has an environmental impact of the household waste (e.g. batteries with toxic materials etc). The important thing is environmental impact, not the absolute weight of the waste. I agree however that EPA seems to be too silent about the waste produced by factories.
tl;dr: Building waste is mostly rubble (not really necessary to recycle); these stats are by weight (density of rubble >> density of household waste). Treat these stats & suggestions of "no point doing any household recycling" with caution.
I think these statistics are somewhat misleading.
Waste from building tends to be rubble and dirt. Some of this can be re-used (eg filler for roads), but also the environmental impact of disposing of dirt is not much.
More importantly, the stats on the link above give waste measured by weight. A skip full of rubble (densely-packed stone) weighs far more than a skip full of general trash (loose-packed plastic bottles). A comparison by volume would be more informative[1].
That doesn't go for all building waste, and I don't know what comprises most industrial waste. All in all, I suspect cutting everyone's household waste to zero would make a significant impact on reducing the volume of waste produced nationwide; I don't know though whether it would make as much as a 50% impact.
[1] Obviously there are difficulties comparing by volume since household waste can be compacted to a great degree - my point is that comparison by weight skews heavily to the side of building waste.
Huh. Looking at statistics from Germany, the total waste is seperated into four categories: waste from building demolition and construction, waste from industrial processes, waste from mining, waste from private households and offices. Waste from demolition and construction makes up more than half of the total waste, the remaining three categories are split about evenly.
I'm surprised that the construction waste is that high. Apart from that, it seems that manufacturing and construction waste is less dominant over here than it is in the US. Odd! Maybe I'm reading the numbers wrong or they're counting really differently. FWIW, Wikipedia says that the per capita waste amount is about 500 kg, referring to just the category of private households/offices I assume.
97% of waste is industrial? That's pretty shocking to me. I wonder what part of this waste is from production of our cherished technological gadgets and computer equipment, replacing the gadgets of yester-year. Which are generally still working fine, but are replaced by something incrementally better...
I wonder what part of this waste is from production of our cherished technological gadgets and computer equipment, replacing the gadgets of yester-year
If we're talking about waste produced in the US? Probably not a ton. There is a lot of high-tech manufacturing in the US but it's generally industrial components (airplanes, solar cells) that companies keep around until they no longer work. There's not much in the way of consumer electronics manufactured in the US.
I mean worldwide. Excluding the waste caused by production (in China, Taiwan, etc) of things consumed in the western world would be a more than a bit hypocritical.
I highly doute it. Im from Switzerland and we do alot of recycling. In our 3 person household we probebly reduce garbage produced by more then 50%. Switzerland is small but if everybody did this spezially ameria it would make much more then a statisticall margin error.
Of all the daily garbage we seperate out:
paper
carton
organic stuff (compost)
batteries
cans
Plastic bottle
glas
His point is that even if you, and all other households managed to get their waste to 0% (unlikely), that still only would make 3% difference in the total amount. Which is better than nothing but still only a drop in the bucket.
I'm sort of looking for statistics rather than anecdotes. As far as I can see, the figures for America look reasonably accurate. No idea about Switzerland though...
There are a lot of interesting responses to this comment but I think the whole percentage of waste thing is a red herring. As household waste is recycled it extends the life of landfills around populated ares significantly which means that the current landfills have a longer life and thus a higher current value from local government perspectives. This has a very significant impact on how much is invested in keeping them from polluting groundwater as well as preventing new landfills from occupying otherwise usable space.
This argument alone is enough to justify residential recycling programs, they do help the local environment (the environment most would regard as most important to themselves) and waste reduction comes close to paying for itself in saved municipal costs (which would be reflected in local taxes). In places where energy costs are high and land very valuable recycling makes economic sense without any concern for the environment.
Related point: I think it's unfair to entirely separate manufacturing waste from household waste. I think it's more about the combined waste generated in the production and consumption of household goods.
What I hate about recycling is that it's so much less effective than the other r's: reducing and reusing. I wish the focus was much more on those two; think of the impact possible if consumers just demanded less packaging, for example.
Maddox is a polemicist. He actively enjoys and cultivates such a persona and to what end? It seems to me his goal is to play devil's advocate as a kind of link bait. What I've seen of his work is pointedly provocative in an intentionally non-PC way. However I don't feel that simply being clever, and holding points of view that are seemingly diametrically opposed to the mainstream, is actually an effective way to effect change.
For instance, in this particular article, Maddox claims that we need a "spark to light the lazy tinder". There is here an implicated false dichotomy where either some draconian legislation passes, e.g. SOPA, and everyone "wakes up" or no other efforts will prove progressive. I don't buy it. In fact, I don't buy any argument that makes the claim that due to the current state of political economy we are unable to see the kinds of changes we want without total and complete revolution. I feel it's absurd to dismiss efforts such as yesterday's which net results that include some 13 new senators opposing the bills.
He is being very blunt, but what he is saying rings true because none of this is a long-term solution. These are baby steps and soon enough it will lose this momentum and get passed someway. People could boycott and hurt companies with what matter the most, but most people do not seem to be willing to do this because it inconvenience them. I can see how NDAA got passed, but when it comes to the internet, you would think that most of these sites would be boycotting. If this can't spark boycotts than I have no idea what will.
His point was "opposing the bills today." We'll have to do the same song and dance again in the very near future because the ignorance behind SOPA/PIPA isn't going away. So yes, we won the battle, but not the war, so to speak.
The solution to that isn't to not fight now in hopes that more people join later in outrage. It is to use current success to push the debate onto the opponents' turf. Counter the lobbying to (over)extend copyright protection schemes with lobbying to reduce them (more narrowly tailor them), which easily reads as increasing individual freedom and the scope of the public domain. Push back.
"The same could be said about DMCA, when it was passing. It just made everyone used to even more abuse."
Bingo.
Stopping legislation before it gets passed is the way to go. It's extremely difficult to get laws rescinded or overridden.
And what would make anyone think a few websites getting taken down by the Feds would cause some sort of massive street protest? Our government has done some awful things in the last ten years involving war, torture and civil liberties and most people couldn't care less. Even when there were massive protests over Iraq, they were ignored.
Nice sentiment, but I think boycotts are way less effective than many of the alternatives he discards. In this system, you change a congressman's mind and there's only two ways to do that: pour on the outrage, or contribute more money.
Tongue in cheek, I think there is another alternative: the tech industry could simply buy the movie companies. Some of them are certainly sitting on enough cash.
"In this system, you change a congressman's mind and there's only two ways to do that: pour on the outrage, or contribute more money."
If by contributing more money to a congressman you can affect the outcome of legislation/laws made in a country, doesnt that mean there is something wrong with the system that resulted in such a situation ? Shouldn't that be addressed and solved first?
This. All this effort into stopping single pieces of legislation could be better directed into fixing the political system. Everyone knows that senators can be bought, but we still play the game and protest the legislation instead of the process causing the legislation.
Why don't http://rootstrikers.org/ and Laurence Lessig get brought up in these discussions more?
Ultimately fixing the system is the way to go. I don't think the OP's boycotts would do ANYTHING to address that issue. As a short-term fix having tech giants throw money at politicians would probably be effective. However then the tech industry is one of the vested interests in NOT fixing the system because they're a big player in it... Kind of a catch-22
> There are a number of publishers on this list, including my own publisher. If the consensus I get from readers is that we should boycott publishers, I'll support the boycott even though it hurts me.
As much of an asshole as he is, I've always respected the guy for his shocking lack of hypocrisy.
If movie producers had the decency to make this kind of public stand, things might be different.
It's unfortunate that the companies he outlines to boycott (the ones marked in yellow) are the ones with the most legitimate complaints about counterfeiting.
The word "piracy" is unfortunate, mixing up Hollywood's complaints about bit-for-bit originals being available, and, for example, Chanel's complaint about fake Chanel being manufactured and sold "mail-order" online through offshore commerce sites.
Chanel and the like do need (but already have) protection by the law against counterfeit sales. They don't have a right to be protected for legacy distribution models. For example, Chanel shouldn't have a right to a law that says since existing Chanel stores only ship UPS Ground, any store shipping FedEx Overnight should be taken offline.
A bill for "Stop Counterfeiting" would be better focused on the actual problem, instead of stigmatizing the medium or channel ("online").
He isn't necessarily saying that the yellow ones are the ones to target, just that they're easiest to boycott. I am boycotting all of them right now, for instance, purely coincidentally, since I don't buy makeup or watch sports on TV.
You really should read all of it before commenting on it. His point is that stopping SOPA is meaningless because it will simply be tried again. "It has to get worse before it gets better".
I think that the root of the problem is not that generic "people" are unaware of anything(in this case that SOPA ).
I think that the problem is money in politics through lobbyists, they sustain at the top of the hierarchy the corporations' will against what common sense wants or even urges.
The problem with boycotts is that they perpetuate the same logic which led to SOPA - that people are consumers before they are citizens and that the persons who matter politically are corporate, not flesh and blood.
Most of the societies of today are broken, and western countries lead the way. Deep individualism and consumerism (I spend therefore I am) is the cause of the current state of the affairs however these are also result of weak communities and bond between people. The societies of old times that is belittled by modern man had much stronger bonds among themselves.
Although today's current communication means help spread the word to some extent but unfortunately most are filtering the real issues. Although internet gave a bit of hope that these filters could be subverted but legislations like SOPA, which I believe many look a likes will follow, unfortunately will smother free speech (take the most broader possible definition) eventually. Countries under dictatorships easily squash it but in "free" world it is censored by ignoring it. Why and how? Concentration of wealth to a few. I don't blame them because it is nature of things, they seek perpetuating their rule.
You can argue on some fact stated in the article, however it is irrelevant. The gist of this article is that the lack of inaction, conformism, and individualism cost societies a lot. 5K+ US soldiers, 1M+ iraqi citizens died for a bomb that did not exist (that is how they sold the war to you and then they mocked about it). How could this have happened in a "free" and "democratic" society. Anyone care to explain? How could a moron like George Bush could be elected in the first place in a country like US anyway?
I am sorry but he is right, as long as we are who we are SOPA, PIPA and other legislations with alphabet soup names will follow and tire you.
Form a group, pick a person in a 'safe' seat, preferably a senator as those are pretty much the safest seats out there, and get them unelected over this issue. Ensure the issue gets media coverage as to your group.
Anything else will do pretty much nothing. In two years get someone else unelected.
Diane Feinstein would be a perfect target, she represents the valley, has been in the Senate forever, and won the last election by a HUGE margin. If you could get her unelected you would put everyone else on notice.
The reality of the situation is that this won't happen. There is no permanent solution because everything is triangulated and marketed so well that it's virtually impossible to change it. People pass this legislation because no one cares and whatever negative ads get run during the 30 days before the election matter far more than anything else and quite frankly most people will be more upset about THEIR pet issue than YOUR pet issue.
If you could get Google or Wikipedia, etc to focus solely on getting ONE person unelected then it would show clout. But they won't because it would cause such a shitstorm of unimaginable proportions because 1/3 of their user base votes for her party no matter what they do, and 1/3 dislikes both parties and something about keeping politics free from corporate influence, which is something both parties agree on unless that influence comes in the form of campaign contributions, PACs, lobbyists, etc.
You've got a political system in which no one cares about habeas corpus. If they don't care about that then they aren't going to give a shit about dismantling the internet. Bread and circuses my friend.
Well, this is a "democracy" (in irony quotes), so there's no permanent solution to anything, as there will always be elections.
Perhaps a better and more sustainable solution would to galvanize this energy around SOPA into a culture of activism. After calling our senators and representatives, we should move on to talking the media and call them out when they broadcast misleading statements from the MPAA/RIAA (like the oft-cited $770 billion(!) lost to piracy every year). This would help us build a base.
Also, this fatalist attitude of things doing nothing is
a) wrong
and b) just gives you an excuse to give up.
For example, remember the anti-war protests during 2003? Those were the LARGEST PROTESTS IN HISTORY. Yet they did not to stop the war. Luckily, everyone did not adopt the attitude of "protests do nothing, we need to do X". And those who did adopt the "protests do nothing, we need to do X" attitude were proved wrong yesterday.
We did something yesterday. While it did not go as far a some people hoped, we did do something. And that is a victory we can build on.
Well, Wikipedia is a non-profit and is limited in the political action it can take. We're also non-partisan, and endorsing particular candidates is bad.
Choosing to unelect a single candidate has nothing to do with non-partisanship, you're choosing to unelect a single candiate similarly to how you chose to oppose a particular piece of legislation.
Wikipedia could be non-partisan and not endorse a particular candidate and still do a whole tonne of damage to Diane Feinstein's run for the Senate.
Opposing her election would have nothing to do with which party she's affiliated with and everything to do with her support for SOPA which you already oppose. You wouldn't even have to endorse a candidate just run a huge banner ad repeating a statement damaging to Diane Feinstein's candidacy.
Maybe something like a big picture of a burning american flag a picture of Feinstein and the words "Diane Feinstein hates free speech." Turn it into a speech issue and get the ACLU to make a BFD out of it via Streisand effect as she tries to sue wikipedia for violation of CFR rules. Then the next week run an image saying "Diane Feinstein thinks wikipedia should be shut down". Then go edit her page and put all the horrible factual things she's doing to wikipedia via the lawsuit.
Maybe election season could be the new donate to wikipedia season.
I'm not saying that it's particularly good idea for wikipedia as an org. just that if there was the desire to send a message to politicians that it could be done.
But it won't because of the aforementioned shitstorm it would cause. If people took on a little more of a scorched earth policy they could get a lot more done.
Exactly what Maddox suggests, don't buy their products. This is about counterfeit goods, and access to cheap competition.
Its nothing but building protectionist markets, the same ones most western nations have been fighting for the last hundred years because they entrap people, prevent competition, cause monopolies, and abuse customers. Its against the free markets, which (problems of market abuse aside) is getting money into developing economies and helping people. Its a great step backwards world economics and trade.
So hit them where it hurts, they are obviously scared of the new markets enough to try and outlaw them. Take 30 minutes out of your day to write a letter to a company and explain to them you are disgusted, they have lost a customer, and you will from now on buy counterfeit goods instead of theirs.
I will be doing my part by downloading all the mp3s I want, I'll go see the shows in person to make sure the artists get there dues, and I'll wait to see these middle men slowly fade... but I'm sure we are only about to see fireworks start, theres going to be some big noise as some of these guys go down.
I am generally skeptical of boycotts as a political tactic, because if the boycotts aren’t large enough to make a significant dent on the target company’s revenues, the effect is just noise. The Walt Disney company is grossing about $40 billion a year. How many people need to swear off buying Disney products, for how long, before the company even notices?
TBH companies aren't the problem. Companies are mindless automatons that act in one single purpose (to make money). Even people trying to change the world have to be money first to fund secondary projects.
So the behaviour is expected, the real problem is the political system and the legalised corrupt behaviour.
Maddox is correct, things are going to have to get worse. You need massive public anger to change what is essentially a few tiny aspects of how politicians deal with lobbyist, they are just gaming the system, they don't care if laws pass or don't as they get money either way, tonnes of it. The more ridiculous the law, the more money the get to push it. Tackle that issue and you'll liberate the whole country.
So you need to get people mad, how you do that is up to you guys as I don't live in America, I just watch from the side lines shaking my head.
However, the article suggests that if some terrible legislation passed it would ignite people into real action. That clearly failed to happen when the Patriot Act was passed. I'm sure there are many more examples. If the discourse surrounding legislation convinces enough people not to care (or fails to make it into wider public awareness), then there doesn't seem to be much standing in its way.
Vote with your wallet. Stop buying or consuming content from the IP mafia and convince others to do so. Don't buy records, especially don't listen to Spotify (all the money goes directly to the record labels, etc, almost none to the artists), don't go to the movie theater or buy movies, stop watching TV. The money you give (directly or indirectly through ads) to the MAFIAA racket will be spent on lobbying counterproductive laws. And then stop pirating that stuff, so you won't be a part of the statistics that are given to the politicians to convince that piracy is harmful.
Sounds difficult? Maybe. I did this, I stopped watching TV in 1999, going to the movies in 2001 and listening to music in 2006. The content I would have wanted wasn't (and still isn't) available at a price and terms that I could accept, so I don't want it. Not that I paid for the media I consumed, I pirated most of the stuff. But I don't want to be a part of the piracy statistics to give excuses for killing the internet.
I still enjoy music, though. Maybe even more now that I'm not constantly listening to it so the rare occasion when I do hear music, it sounds better. I do allow myself exceptions every now and then but most of the time I don't consume MAFIAA products or feel like I'm missing anything.
At minimum, a patch to the legislative system that requires actual voters' opinions (and not just lobbyist voters, but rather a statistically-random sampling) somewhere along the track to getting bills passed, even if it's just as a veto.
Preferably, though, a more complete restructuring of the legislative system that more tightly constricts what an individual bill can do (so nothing can be "tacked on" to anything else), requires that bills expire and must be re-evaluated after some period, and perhaps enables something equivalent to the "double-jeapordy" condition of the judicial system, where once a bill has been rejected for containing particular offensive clauses, no bill may then be introduced from then on if it contains those clauses or anything which would be equivalent in effect to them.
Bringing voter opinion into the picture for each piece of legislature would be a disaster. It's unreasonable to expect the public to be educated enough on each issue to meaningfully participate in this issue. What would happen is that it would make things worse, as politicians would have to pump even more money into advertisements for his/her pet issue; deepening the unfortunate dependency on special interest money from politicians.
The real solution is to tackle the lobbying and campaign finance issues, and all of these other issues will improve.
Well, sure, if you just expect them to vote with no priming whatsoever, they're going to make a stupid decision. This would be somewhat like asking a jury to vote on someone's guilt or innocence without first having a trial, or to vote on a representative without first having campaigns and debates (which I still consider kind of piffling in comparison, but that's a different issue.)
So—following instead on the judicial branch's nice example of bottom-up democratic decision making—why not just take 12 random folks, put them in a room, introduce the bill, bring out those in favour to make their points, and then—this is important—bring out a true devil's advocate to make the strongest possible case against the bill—and then have the jury vote on whether to pass it on? The worst thing that could happen is that the legal process would bog down greatly, because of all the bills suddenly not getting passed.
(Also, I don't think there's a real way to stop lobbying in spirit. Perhaps in whatever its current form is, yes, but there will always be new ways for corporations to make someone's life happier and more comfortable in exchange for undue political consideration. Unless we can remove the incentive corporations have to do this—by restructuring the legislative system itself—they will continue to apply all their ingenuity to the "problem" of making law that most greatly benefits them. And they will keep getting away with it, because the devices built into humans that we use to punish one-another for these sorts of social norm violations—shaming, group-exile, and the like—don't apply to corporate entities, which can split, merge, rename, dissolve and recreate at will, without a single actual employee having to move office. "Blackwater" is a shunned name, now, but hardly anyone has an opinion about "XE"... but oh, wait, it's called "Academi" now—I hadn't even heard!)
Small comment - actual voters' opinions isn't necessarily enough, if voters aren't informed about the actual consequences/implications of the legislation.
When SOPA came up in discussion recently amongst a few folks I was talking to, as soon as they heard the full spoken name of the bill - 'Stop Online Piracy Act' - they began to put their support behind it. That's how quickly and easily opinions can be formed - it took some calm and open discussion before they began to even consider it as a potential gray area.
I wonder (seriously) if banning names for bills wouldn't be a bad idea. No more cutesy names or names that are a blantant sympathy ploy ("Rachels's Law", or whatever). Just make them refer to it as HR3415 or whatever the actual designation is.
"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing — that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." — Richard Feynman
I guess the effect you're describing could've been multiplied if SOPA had been a backronym too. "USA PATRIOT Act? How could that be bad! Just look at its name!"
Create mini congresses for subcommittees. For stuff that's absolutely massive, Congress does a relatively good job of threshing out the issues. They have real debates in the public eye. For smaller issues, it's farmed out to subcommittees, who put the legislation together in back-rooms, usually after "discussing the issue with relavant stakeholders".
It would be to slow to do everything in Congress (that's why they have the subcommittees), but they could prepare the legislation in a much more transparent member. The members wouldn't like it, but that's their problem.
You could also require that bills are only valid if they are well described by their titles. So, you couldn't call stuff "Stop Online Piracy Act" unless you were willing to have in knocked down in the Supreme Court for having a silly name.
There will be no permanent solution that works for "the people".
Think about it, throughout history when a sufficiently powerful or profitable medium of information exchange has arisen (think radio, television, phones, mail), the govt. at the behest of rich corporations has legislated it. Every single time!
Laws are first passed to "curb criminal elements", which is what we are seeing now, then a few years down the road laws will be passed to allow the activity with prescribed limits...imagine Internet permits. Then, finally, tax money will subsidize the actual sell of the medium to large corporations to dole out in prescribed amounts to the public...for a fee.
The reality is that you need both. Getting 4.5 million people to sing the anti-SOPA/PIPA petition and blacking out Wikipedia to so that lots of users notice is part of getting them to wake up. It's not everything, by all means. You also need to have smart people who are playing the inside game, which means donating money to organizations who can play the Washington D.C influence game. Yes, it's dirty; yes, you will have to compromise from time to time, including donating $17,000 to Lamar Smith over six years (although to be fair the last donation was a year before Smith started working on SOPA, and it's nothing compared to the $94 million dollars the pro-Internet-Censorship forces poured into trying to buy this legislation). No question, the sausage making factory is ugly; but like the patent system, sometimes you have to play the game with the current set of rules, even as you work to try to change the rules. (Which is why companies like Red Hat and Google are filing software patents.)
So the big question is: what have you done on both fronts? Yes, anti-SOPA blackouts for the day are not effective, at least not as a standalone thing. But have you donated to the EFF? If you work for a computer/internet company, have you urged them to set up a PAC to try to influence legislation in Washington in the correct direction? And then have you donated to that PAC? I've personally donated to both the EFF and Google NetPAC. If you haven't done these things yet, today, the day after the anti-SOPA protests, is a great day to start.
By the way, if you think fighting SOPA is hard, just do a bit of research how much money big pharma could pour into defending the patent system as it exists today. If we all aren't pushing to make sure there are lobbyists working just as hard to influence legislators in the other direction, patent reform doesn't have a prayer.
Boycotts alone don't work. You need an alternative. Look, I NEED tissues. I don't mind buying a different brand, but I'm not going to boycott my tissue company without an alternative.
Boycott lists, like averages without variance figures, are borderline useless. You need the other part (alternative) to make the boycott list actionable.
Most of the calls to boycott companies seem pretty poorly organized (even this article is just a list on some guy's website, albeit one with moderate internet popularity).
What about an app entirely dedicated to organizing boycotts? Users would suggest and vote on issues and companies to boycott. The end result would be detailed guides on which products/service to avoid along with alternatives. The site would only highlight one issue at a time to maximize the effect.
I've been toying with the idea for a while (there are plenty of sites/apps built around single issues, but I've only found one site that does what I've described... though poorly implemented: http://www.boycottowl.com/ ).
I'm calling contrarianism. The fundamental premise behind this article is flawed. Things get worse without getting better all the time. We still have the Patriot act, the DMCA, the Copyright Term Extension Act, ACTA, etc. Make no mistake about it, if SOPA passes, it will be with us for a long, long time.
I hate to break it to Maddox, but the current situation is nothing new. I think our founding fathers would smile to see what is happening around SOPA, because it's exactly what they designed our system of government for. We have to remain ever vigilant to protect our freedoms from whoever wants to take them. Because if we don't, our freedoms will be taken away.
I don't think protesting these companies is a good long term solution. We need a protect DNS act or anti-censorship bill. Big tech has more money and power than hollywood. They should lobby more aggressively.
So much efforts to stop law proposal X. Which is great.
What about the idea of a Open-USA or other Open-Iran where a true Meta-Democracy or whatever open society model is implemented where all efforts would be PRO something instead of hateful stuff like protesting.
This laws are proposed by lobbies that go against the interest of 99% of the persons. How is that even conceivable ?
All this big companies opposing could create a github project for open government and then elect a person that implements that.
This is the best post on SOPA I've read yet, and it really highlights the only way anything will get done for real: A targeted and wide-spread boycott of SOPA supporting companies.
yeah remember Apple & Microsoft threatening to cancel their membership, in light of SOPA support of BSA. Wondering, why is Apple on Maddox list though.
I don't think they ever (explicitly) supported it. The Business Software Alliance did which they're a member of so guilt by assoc. They did announce public opposition.
Don't suppose someone could write a chrome plugin to block the sites he's listed as supporting SOPA?
I can't remember the list off the top of my head and I do want to make an effort not to buy anything from them ever again. I suspect many other people are the same, which reduces the effectiveness of the boycott.
There has always been a counter on his home page, so I'm guessing aggregate total visits over X period of time. The majority of his 'articles' have one.
Of course, he could just randomly increment the value using a script, but Maddox has been around a long time (I've been reading his site on and off for around 10 years) so I doubt he has need to.
he is right but not complete, its not the fault with your senators or representatives, its about the system that feeds the so called democracy. We must learn why the companies are so interested in politics and what they gain from these bills like this one.
Great post - more action oriented. I created my own list of things to avoid using the above list of companies. Everyone create their own list and post it on your blog, facebook, google plus https://plus.google.com/u/0/103713120145925411926/posts/CbLD...
I first came across xmission.com back in 2004. I was immediately struck by his writing style. I always aspire to be as fearless and concise as Maddox is. Just look at his range of knowledge, he is able to write well on a variety of topics. (Applause)
I never thought I'd see the day that Maddox was on the front page of HN. With the redditization now complete pg should bring back the display of the comment scores since it obviously didn't help preserve whatever it was that he was trying to preserve.
Regardless of what you think of him and his articles this one simply deserves to be here. It makes a lot of sense and IMO he hit the nail on the head with what he is proposing.
It's not productive to discriminate against someone simply because he is known to publish controversial stuff.
Did you read anything he said? While there's a lot of bluster to filter through, his points were more something like the following:
1) Americans want to "protest" by doing things that don't cost them their comfort.
2) We are (successfully) protesting SOPA/PIPA, but the real problem is not the legislation. The problem is how the legislation got created (companies lobbying Congress, and Congressmen acting solely in those companies best interest).
3) In light of 1) and 2), we should use what power we do have as consumers and voters to prevent such legislation from being created again.
While we can debate the merits and effectiveness of boycotts, or voting, let's try not to strawman the article.
Protests and boycotts are not necessarily the same thing. History has shown that protests are usually ineffective. I believe however that boycotts can be effective, because essentially you're speaking with your wallet, and money talks, and unfortunately it's the only thing some people will listen to.
