| |||||||||||||
The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian)The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian)Posted May 18, 2012 19:48 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)In reply to: The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian) by gorpon Parent article: The problem with nerd politics (The Guardian)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||