| |||||||||||||
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian)The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian)Posted May 18, 2012 15:08 UTC (Fri) by gorpon (subscriber, #25040)Parent article: The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian)
The following statements are generalizations so I'm predicting someone will accuse me of trolling, but I'd really prefer if they presented a vigorous and/or lighthearted argument to prove me wrong.
I think Cory's final point is well taken: that geeks faced with yet another invasion of their digital privacy and/or freedom, will generally try to come up with a technical solution to what is arguably a political problem, rather than trying to organize politically to fight it.
Assuming we accept that, what prevents geeks from organizing politically? Is it the stereotype of introversion? Or is it a lack of consensus politically among geeks in other arenas of life? i.e. conservative geeks, liberal geeks, anarchist geeks etc...
(Log in to post comments)
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 18, 2012 15:56 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Assuming we accept that, what prevents geeks from organizing politically?The same that prevents politicians writing good code: lack of skill and talent. Of course, different set of skills and talents are necessary to write good code and to organize a rally (or to lobby), but I guess few people have both set of skills.
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 18, 2012 16:00 UTC (Fri) by ledow (guest, #11753) [Link]
Because the technical solution can be put in place today, without asking anyone's permission, or going through the courts, or spending money, or lobbying politicians, or gathering votes in the hope that (someday) that law might change.
It's just much easier to form a technical solution, switch to it, and carry on as you were. The thing with geeks is: We can do that. We do do exactly that.
Yeah, politically, it's painting yourself into a wall but at least you do SOMETHING and keep restrictions at arm's length.
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 18, 2012 16:20 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] Assuming we accept that, what prevents geeks from organizing politically? Is it the stereotype of introversion? Or is it a lack of consensus politically among geeks in other arenas of life? i.e. conservative geeks, liberal geeks, anarchist geeks etc... Because the technical solution can be put in place today, without asking anyone's permission, or going through the courts, or spending money, or lobbying politicians, or gathering votes in the hope that (someday) that law might change. It's a lot less work for technically capable people to just deal with a problem in a technical way. Another example is dealing with persistent spammers: the purely technical solution is just to use various tools to make sure you never see their spam again; the political solution is to spend time on making sure that various private and public organisations are aware of the activities of the spammers so that the remote possibility that they are reprimanded and that the spam will be stopped permanently at the source may be achieved. The political solution is thus a distraction from more interesting and rewarding work, so frequently people just hope that others will get involved in that thankless task.
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 18, 2012 16:57 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
But geeks to organize politically: http://www.pp-international.net/
I'm not a member or in any way affiliated with them. But it would seem like they are what you're looking for.
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 18, 2012 17:25 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
Among many other reasons: technical solutions can potentially *solve* a problem, whereas political action can only ever temporarily delay a problem, right up until the point where you stop fighting the insanity, at which point you lose. Most hackers, when presented with a repetitive and tedious task, would prefer to automate it. :)
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 19, 2012 10:52 UTC (Sat) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]
Technical solutions can only solve technical problems. They don't solve human problems. Politics is very slow and massively inefficient in comparison, but it can't be avoided for solving the latter kind of highly complex problem, often solved best when technical and political people have figured out how to communicate with each other, and not solved at all until they do.
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted Jun 9, 2012 10:25 UTC (Sat) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
You're missing a key point - current evidence seems to indicate, IMHO, that virtually all politicians are not interested in communicating with technical people (or economists, doctors, any other form of scientist, or any form of real expert for that matter). And haven't been for decades. The electoral success of the pirates, in those countries that _actually_ permit more than 2 parties to participate in the electoral process, might change this a little for us. Or it might not. Or the pirates might destroy themselves or be destroyed from the outside. Or more countries might pass enablement acts like the UK with its pirated LRRB. We'll see.
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 18, 2012 18:06 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
> Or is it a lack of consensus politically among geeks in other arenas of life? i.e. conservative geeks, liberal geeks, anarchist geeks etc...
geeks are no more a monolithic block of opinions than any other segment of the population (not that this fact stops people from referring to the 'Black vote' or the 'Jewish vote' etc and claiming to represent them)
In fact, Geeks tend by their nature to be independent thinkers, and so anyone making claims that all Geeks believe the same way on any topic (including technical ones) just doesn't know what they are talking about.
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 18, 2012 19:48 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
In part, it's because organizing politically is only really viable if you disagree on the few most important issues to the public. In order to get political power, you have to either convince a lot of voters that you will fix the economy in addition to (or by) fixing IP law, or you have to convince them that fixing IP law is more important than the economy. Geeks don't necessarily even agree with each other on the top issue of the day, and most systems of government don't let people write IP law without also having a vote on fiscal policy. In order to get elected, you have to convince voters that you will do the right thing with respect to the issues that are most important, not just the issues that are also important. This involves a lot of the sausage-making that tends to be repugnant to geeks, and also a lot of the slogging that prevents anyone from staying up to date on secondary issues as well. They don't organize politically for the same reason that they don't design a new processor architecture to have the Caps Lock key in the right place; the sensible approach is to modify a much smaller portion of the system.
But Cory isn't actually restricting the question to geeks going to Whitehall themselves; he includes the assumption that politicians are corrupt and stupid, which prevents geeks from wanting to try to influence and inform them. There have been times that, for certain processor architectures, you couldn't remap your keyboard (with the software that was available or that you could write). Likewise, some politicians are impossible to influence with good information from geeks. But it's more usual that politicians (or their staffs) would be willing to listen to good information, but geeks don't call them.
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 18, 2012 22:21 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
Good summary/interpretation! It's not about whether geeks can be brought together to present a common platform, although you've summarised why this isn't easily done, but whether they are inclined to engage in politics in order to bring issues related to freedoms and liberties (although that does suggest a certain shared perspective) to the attention of those who represent them.
Of course, the political systems in the UK and US in particular (and in most other countries to a significant extent) don't really lend themselves to the representation of the sophisticated mixture of views of the average voter, and as you point out, people don't feel comfortable about voting for a party that has strong opinions only on certain topics: they want to (or are obliged to) feel represented on the headline topics, too, unless they are completely disillusioned with the other parties, and if a narrowly focused party takes a stance on, say, economic policy, the risk is that the voter base will become fragmented as those who disagree with that stance try and find a second political home for their concerns.
But encouraging people to voice their opinions is still worthwhile: if people engage with parties that have completely different views on the usual mainstream topics, if they all start to hear the same concerns about technology being used to curtail civil liberties, then there's a chance that the desired effect will be achieved without needing a single party to gain a majority and then implement the necessary policy.
In short, one can play the (regrettably) secondary status of such issues to one's advantage by informing politicians who are potentially open-minded, persuading them to take a position that is not necessarily in immediate conflict with party policy.
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted Jun 9, 2012 10:38 UTC (Sat) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
> But it's more usual that politicians (or their staffs) would be willing to listen to good information, but geeks don't call them.
On what verifiable evidence do you base this claim?
I give you the war on drug users as evidence to counter your view. There's tons of studies (as well as simple common sense) to support legalisation. There is even precedent - the alcohol prohibition in the US, and decriminalisation of cannabis in the Netherlands. The medical evidence is clear, the social studies evidence is clear, the economic evidence is clear. And then there is the little fact that the "war" is a complete and utter failure in its alleged aim of reducing harm, or even reducing consumption. Yet we continue to prosecute hundreds of thousands of people for having done nothing wrong. So where are these politicians that listen to good information?
Another example, recently in Germany a law was proposed (it was summer) to introduce full-scale internet censorship on the excuse of reducing child abuse. The IT industry rallied against it. The digital rights movement rallied against it. Child abuse charities mostly rallied against it. The biggest petition to the federal parliament EVER opposed it. How did politicians respond? By accusing the starter of said petition of supporting child abuse and passing the law. After the change of government implementation of the law was (illegally) suspended by ministerial order and I assume by now the law has been repealed but this is the exception, not the rule. A wide range of other insane laws stands or has only been repealed by the constitutional court, not by political action.
Problem example - failure of Euro experiment Posted May 19, 2012 11:16 UTC (Sat) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]
Both reasons. Human problems require political solutions but these can take decades of work. Some human problems (e.g. how money works and who controls it) require both technical and political people who want solutions to learn to communicate with each other. The politically interested parties here seem mostly to be technically illiterate on this subject, and vice versa. So interested parties don't seem to have figured out how to communicate effectively at this level yet, in this particular area of interface between political and technical systems.
Take the Euro as a classic example of a monetary experiment going wrong due to this lack of effective communication. This ship is now heading into a rocky channel with strong currents and tides and uncharted shallows. Most of the time the bridge is empty, except for a committee which meets there every couple of weeks or so and then has to go back to their various constituencies in order to get authority for any hypothetical decision they discuss on the bridge about whether and how this ship should change course. Treaty changes take much time, and don't take many opponents to prevent, meantime the ship may as well not have a rudder.
Some of us figured that this wouldn't work out years ago when this ship was launched into open seas, but there was too much money and capital to be made for our voices to be heard then.
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 21, 2012 8:10 UTC (Mon) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]
> I think Cory's final point is well taken: that geeks faced with yet another invasion of their digital privacy and/or freedom, will generally try to come up with a technical solution to what is arguably a political problem, rather than trying to organize politically to fight it.
Vote Pirate!
There was a TED talk by Rick Falkvinge where he explained how few years ago he had exactly this revelation: there should be more geeks in politics or the politics will trample geeks. And he realized he was the only person available for the job :)
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 23, 2012 14:48 UTC (Wed) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
I don't think I'll vote "pirate" until they find an name that more accurately describes what they seek (unless it's already an accurate description, and I'll never "vote pirate").
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 23, 2012 16:44 UTC (Wed) by Jonno (subscriber, #49613) [Link]
The thing is that the Pirate movement was named so by it's opposition in an attempt to discredit us long before there was a Pirate Partly.
So when Rick Falkvinge was about to start a new party in early 2006, he knew that our political enemies would call us pirates no matter what we called ourselves, and decided that it was better to reclaim the name than to be ashamed of it, much like what the HBT-movement have done with "gay".
(As a side note, the first organization using the word Pirate in their name in reference to online piracy was the Swedish MPAA equivalent "Antipiratbyrån" (The Anti-Pirate Bureau), which was formed in 2001. The Swedish pirate movement didn't get organized until 2003 when the think tank "Piratbyrån" (The Pirate Bureau) was formed as a direct response to the lobbying by Antipiratbyrån. The bureau picked its name for contrast, and succeeded in building enough brand recognition in Sweden to make the original Pirate Party a well-known name within months of being founded, despite our next-to-nothing funding. No other name would have given a better start, and trying to re-brand now, after gaining just enough mindshare to be elected, would be suicidal)
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) Posted May 24, 2012 18:36 UTC (Thu) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432) [Link]
In my experience, the problem isn't limited to geeks. People in general don't organize politically.
Why? I believe it is because they don't understand power. Some fear it. Some consider it somehow immoral (we are all taught that repeatedly). Some don't want the responsibility that comes with it.
An understanding of the nature of power is absolutely critical to effective organizing but it is not the only thing. The ability to identify mutual self-interests and to actually care about the other person growing in public life is also necessary. None of these things demands an extroverted personality.
Organizing is HARD and takes a boatload of patience. It is not a way to quick victory. But it is the way to longstanding victory.
|
|||||||||||||