How to Deal with Populism - <AUTHOR> https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/01/20/culturejam/ <comment><USER2> How about addressing the widespread concerns that cause "populism" even if it means setting back your own ulterior agenda?

Brexit and immigration is a good example of this. Blair decided mass immigration was a good idea for a number of reasons. At some point they surely realised that although it would provide an economic boost, some people would lose out financially and most did not want significant cultural change in their community. Over the years larger dissatisfaction with this policy grew and grew, only to be labelled racist by the ruling parties. This led to UKIP which led to splits in the Conservative party which led to Brexit.

Ignore a valid issue long enough and resentment will spread across the country. If these peoples concerns and wishes were not sacrificed for ulterior motives a EU ref would likely never occur.

Parallels to US/Trump seem reasonable. Large groups of people whose concerns have not necessarily been address because the contrary policies benefit an already privileged and distant few.

tldr: Offer real solutions to the large number of poor and struggling people in your country. Even if it slows down your grander plan. If you don't, resentment will build and there are more of them than you.

edit: The absolute biggest danger to the embedded powers is that Trump succeeds and does a good job. Hard to overstate this.

<comment><USER3> I agree completely with your premise but I don't think you've identified the real issue with immigration and brexit - the real underlying issue is unemployment/underemployment, fallout from the financial crisis, near 0% interest rates etc all combining to leave the poor with next to nothing.

Then they see immigrants arriving around the same time all this is happening and assign the blame to them.

<comment><USER4> "the real underlying issue is unemployment/underemployment"

Why is a country that as high unemployment allowing high levels of immigration? Being mad about that seems highly rational to me

<comment><USER5> Why aren't citizens doing the jobs that immigrants do? That's a more rational question.

Hiring immigrants isn't necessarily cheaper or easier. It's something employers do because they can't fill those jobs otherwise.

<comment><USER6> It's something employers do because they can't fill those jobs... [at the slave wage offered]

That last part is rarely, if ever, mentioned when the "locals won't do these jobs" nonsense gets trotted out.

<comment><USER5> Or in the case of skilled labor, locals _can 't_ do those jobs.

Is the reason there are so many immigrants in IT because the job doesn't pay well enough?

<comment><USER6> Perhaps it has something to do with the institutionalized abuse of the immigration system in order to import workers who are paid less and are far less likely to leave or demand higher wages.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU)

The idea that there is a STEM shortage is a bonafide myth. Remember that we're talking about the same industry that perpetuated the largest wage fixing cartel in human history.

It's amazing how many people around here just can't wrap their heads around the fact that increased labor supply means lower wages. You only have to listen to a handful of earnings calls with giant corporations talking with glee about how elastic the labor markets are, and how that will be a huge boon to their earnings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Your organizing principle is simple: don't feed polarization, disarm it._

This is so important.

Samantha Bee can't stop making piss jokes about Trump. That's not going to win anyone over.

Nina Donovan's poem, recited by Ashley Judd at the Women's March, is brave and powerful. It is also polarizing. There is a line: "I'm not as nasty as a man who looks like he bathes in Cheeto dust." That's not going to win anyone over.

Again and again, people are attacking Trump for the wrong reasons. Focus on the truly bad. Don't get hung up on his hair. It makes you look petty.

Edit: Frank Bruni beat me to this in the NYT: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opinion/the-wrong-way- to-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opinion/the-wrong-way-to-take-on- trump.html)

<comment><USER8> It does not need to be Samantha Bee's job to win everybody over.

<comment><USER9> It's not her job to win everybody over. But if she wants to contribute to what she'd consider progress, she can stop injecting so much noise into the signal. People only have so much exposure to "the message", and are likely to dismiss it quickly given too many scatalogical & other insults.

There's a difference between "winning everybody over" vs "do your part to contribute to polite discourse" vs "make your side sound dominated by insult- spewing jerks". Parent wasn't asking for total perfect solution, only to stop contributing to needless antagonism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Serious question, does this guy actually know how to deal with populism? Chavez died of cancer, he wasn't defeated politically. Current day Venezuela is led by Chavez's former Vice President.

<comment><USER11> In some ways, the issue is not the person. We will all die at some point. How can we limit the damage done to the world meantime?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's disappointing to me how many comments still refer to concerns by Trump or Brexit supports as essentially optics. "They blame immigrants", "they see immigrants coming in at the same time as things being bad and make assumptions", "they're just being racist", etc. Maybe some of them believe their country's culture is suffering and that part of the problem is an influx of immigrants. Maybe they're not wrong. Acting like this is all a matter of misinformation needing to be corrected seems stupefyingly arrogant to me.

</comment><comment><USER13> Don't like this pejorative use of the word populism. Populism is getting people to vote for you for what they want, telling them they need to do what you want is the polar opposite of what needs to be done to fight the far right.

</comment><comment><USER14> While it's true that you can reach out and have a meal, share a laugh, with a Trump supporter, I don't think that will do anything lasting or good. Trump supporters are, in my personal experience, willfully ignorant. They make general statements (particularly about the poor state of the US and Obama's failure) and cannot back them up with supporting facts. They get indignant and threatened when asked for facts. They ignore evidence of his lack of personal values.

Yet the doom that faces America is very real, and this is really the cause of their emotions. Intuitively they know we can't consume so much without producing it. If we offshore production, we must eventually offshore consumption. Chinese workers earning $5 a day, Chinese factories paying no attention to the environment or workers rights, this is really the ONLY problem we need to address. And the liberal elites don't care, because they don't make money making things, and never did.

Are you a liberal elite wanting to heal the divide? Build a factory in the USA. A real, physical factory that builds real, physical things. And if you do the math and realize you can't do that and compete with China, then fight like hell to punish Chinese producers for playing the game by unfair rules (e.g. impose tariffs to at least bring the price up to what it would be if they paid their people a living wage, benefits, and protected the environment).

<comment><USER15> There is the matter that, even if these Trump supporters provided facts you wouldn't believe those facts anyway. You would attribute the facts they provided to different causes and interpret them in your own way to suit your world view. It's really a waste of time talking to each other. I've spent plenty of time arguing with people on the left. Facts and figures and citations stored on my phone (TO SHOW PEOPLE IRL) and all for nothing. Complete waste of time. The only thing that made a difference was arguing with a liberal friend about diversity. I was able to point out that he lives in the whitest building in the whitest part of the city. So harping on about diversity is hypocritical because when he had time to put his money where his mouth is he did the opposite (he is white). That was the only thing that even made him pause to think for a second. In my experience, no amount of facts, no amount of well meaning discussion has any point. Nobody on the left will agree with you, they won't see your point, they willfully choose to misunderstand your points, they misrepresent your arguments when they repeat them back to you. It is a futile waste of time to talk to each other. The issue will eventually be decided the way all such fundamental irreconcilable disagreements are decided, might will make right in the end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> In Spain the word populism has turned into an insult that traditional political parties use freely against new political parties even if the statements are perfectly legit (e.g. universal basic income). Is this happening in other countries too?

<comment><USER17> Yes. Everywhere "populism" is used as an insult for political parties that actually listen to people and intent to do as the population wants, as opposed to established parties that mainly keep their power because of intertia and are getting more and more disconnected from their voters.

Populism is how democracy is supposed to work.

<comment><USER18> To a point. Good leaders are supposed to explain what is good, useful and especially _why_ in case someone does not understand.

That is called propaganda though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As someone who knows a lot of trump supporters and trump haters, this is what people who are afraid of trump need to recognize. I've seen the advice from this article work first hand, and I've seen people who don't understand what the author is talking about make situations worse first hand.

<comment><USER20> Interesting. Maybe give some examples?

<comment><USER9> Yes, the author completely misses the core issue: when the populace at large gets tired of getting hammered with elitist & special-interest issues, to the point of being told to actively facilitate what is broadly considered distasteful, they start looking for someone who will restore the mundane norms they are comfortable with.

The following is a list of US populist complaints, which Trump successfully addressed. (Don't up/down-vote based on whether you agree or not with the issues of the list, which I may or may not, just note that the points _are_ important to enough people to vote a Trump into office.) In no particular order...

Facilitation/celebration of LGBQT (most people aren't, and find differing sexualities repulsive). Demands for "safe spaces" while eliminating the only long socially established safe spaces: sexually segregated restrooms. Taking taxpayer earnings and spending them on advocacy of opposing views. Reducing a sense of safety vs crime, while seemingly protecting criminals (this issue dominated by the US "gun culture"). Laying blame/responsibility for environmental issues on those thinking themselves not guilty (say, global warming). Stifling parental preferences in education (Common Core, lack of school vouchers, absolute intolerance of anything hinting of Christianity). Broad/unrelenting accusations of whites & males as invariably & irredeemably sexist/misogynist/xenophobic/racist/etc (say, Hillary's declaration of 1/4 of Americans as "deplorables"). Incredible growth of national debt ($10,000,000,000,000 in last 8 years, doubling all previous debt) with prospect of populace having to pay it. Lack of jobs (need for jobs has far outstripped creation of jobs). Overwhelming regulations, making compliance & cost untenable. Abortion being considered, on the whole, inexcusable murder of children.

Understand that classic US culture is deeply rooted in individual liberty & rights. Basically, taking someone's money to make them pay for something they don't want angers them; they'll put up with a lot, but once "enough!" hits they're prone to taking dramatic steps to end the offense. Also note that the USA is _huge_ , having a broad range of views from coast to coast; what Hillary offered was "coastal" culture, while Trump appealed to "heartland", and with the Electoral College deliberately biasing Presidential elections toward populist views, the large number of central states won the vote.

<comment><USER21> >"most people aren't [facilitating/celbrating LGBQT], and find differing sexualities repulsive"

I believe most people in the US are accepting of homosexuality.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality)

<comment><USER22> Also it's not just homosexuality[1]

> 46 percent of respondents said transgender people should be required to "use > the public restrooms of the gender they were born into."

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/half- of...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/half-of-americans- dont-think-transgender-people-should-be-able-to-pick-their-bathroom/501947/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The core issue is not populism, its economic stagnation. 2008 came and showed the entire political and financial elite were swimming naked.

<comment><USER24> But a populist wasn't elected in 2008 or 2012. "Economic stagnation" doesn't explain Trump at all.

<comment><USER18> This plus weak counterpart does though. Plus genius use of new media to sway undecided people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Great article but it fails to address a key point of this type of revolutions (I've lived through a couple). Upset people don't like listening to reason. They want relief ( even the promise of it.)

</comment><comment><USER26> My take from this is that Trump is a symptom of a problem. The problem is never going to go away by attacking Trump or his policies. He is promising a solution to a problem that people are experiencing in the US. Like it or not, people are buying his solution.

If you don't like his solution, then you find a better one and sell it the people who are buying Trump's.

But most importantly, before we build another product to sell, we have to understand the problem. Get out of our ivory tower and understand the plight some people are experiencing.

</comment><comment><USER27> Feels like shallow reasoning to me to be honest. What can the author say about problem with 2nd/3rd generation of young immigrants' kids/large ghettos in Paris? Is it fictional problem? Probably not as my Parisian friends are saying and you can see burning cars from time to time. Police no-go zone seems to me like reasonable issue to be worried about. The problem imho is that the issue is not so close in time, but a bit further, 2+ generations (40y) from now. Similar to Rio de Janeiro favelas who is there to blame for all of the massive mess? Children don't choose where they want to be born. First immigrants are seniors/not here anymore. Politicians rotated dozen times.

In general I think that mass relocations of any kind for any reason are bad and should be throttled to sustainable throughput. This way churches, schools, hospitals and what not can keep up.

</comment><comment><USER28> Populism was dealt with by way of the electoral college.

<comment><USER29> Huge point. Beyond the electoral college, the founders of the US had many mechanisms to prevent this kind of thing, but we've degraded them in favor of the idea that everyone's voice counts equally.

Senators used to be appointed. Party candidates used to be selected by party officials, not the public. This last one in particular would have prevented a Trump presidency.

Andrew Sullivan explains all this very well here: [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america- tyranny...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny- donald-trump.html)

The summary is that too much democracy leads to tyranny.

<comment><USER18> I would counter it with facts that the weakening of the democratic process has been done by elected officials.

Electoral college rules in fact subtly break democracy even now. Wanted to vote, say, Bernie Sanders? Tough luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's convenient that this article and another on the nature (or lacking) of modern humility are both on the front page at the same time.

I think this entire argument reduces to a recommendation: "Humble yourself". It's so damn easy to get caught up in egocentrism. There's an intrinsic human bias towards believing that what you believe is the right thing to believe. I've never met someone who is genuinely innocent of this fault (if it can be called a fault), especially when it comes to dogmatic issues of _genuine_ belief. It's hard to imagine what it would be like to exist as a creature that does not put its own beliefs first, of course, so I think the logic instead has to be, "yes, we may believe our own beliefs foremost, at the expense of the beliefs of others. But we must commit time to hypothetical sympathy".

To participate in an argument, we _must_ engage in hypothetical sympathy with our counterparts. The first assumption on hearing what is perceived to be a wrong idea cannot be, "this idea is wrong, and therefore the carrier of this idea must be stupid and inferior to me, the right and correct". That turns an issue that might be argued productively into an issue of dogmatism. Most people are rational, to a functional extent. The difference lies more in the set of axioms we possess, rather than the logic used to build from them. And so we must humble ourselves; our axioms are unproveable by the definition of the word. The first step to engaging someone else is to try and imagine what set of axioms, assuming similar logic, would allow them to reach the positions they hold.

\---

I will note as a postscript that of course, there is a strong counterargument to this position: that there's no time for this bullshit. In an austere ivory tower, perhaps we could be humble all day, but as it stands in the real world, the lives of humans are finite, and the beliefs of some inflict real suffering. And so, most of the time it's impossible to justify this kind of gentle work towards mutual understanding. This is the perspective of arguing for the Human instead of Humanity. I don't have a good response to this other than, "damn, that's a hard one". And so, sometimes, wars are fought. I will never support their necessity, but I am sympathetic to their causes.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's hard to take someone like this seriously when he comes from the elite banking class that has long been at war with the Chavez/Maduro faction.

He's about as partisan as you can get.

</comment><comment><USER31> Great read.

</comment><comment><USER32> Why are you `dealing` with populism in the first place?

<comment><USER33> Because populism leads very quicky to dark places. Most all systems of government, of vested authority and state monopoly of violence, are to address our instinct towards populism. Egging on the mob never ends well.

<comment><USER34> You're only labeling it "populism" (which is normally defined as 'support for the concerns of ordinary people') because you don't like the outcome. If you liked the outcome you would call it "democratic."

Somehow the idea of being concerned about the outcome for ordinary people has become vilified by American liberals because red state, blue collar, ordinary people are worthless.

What is going on?! Trump wants to be a job protectionist while Democrats want globalization? Aren't you people aware that not that long ago the Democrats were fighting the Republicans against globalization because they claimed that globalization was only good for corporate interests and bad for ordinary Americans?

PS I think Trump is a nut job in many ways so please don't read the above as an endorsement.

<comment><USER35> The populous isn't always in the best position to think through the long-term implications of their desires.

In this case, Trump rode the anger of voters who want to close the borders to both immigrants and imported manufactured goods, because they perceived that some of their jobs going to illegal imigrants, and other manufacturing jobs had been taken overseas.

How many of those people, do you think, buy everything at Walmart (whether it's all they can afford or not)? How many of those people realize that a 35% border tax and getting rid of our internal slave labor force will lead to commensurately higher prices of goods and services, without necessarily bringing back the jobs that were actually automated away? If they have thought it through, where's the better outcome?

This is why we don't have a direct democracy. These issues are more complicated than one can wrap their head around without making it a full-time job for an industry, and the decisions aren't helped by folks making decisions out of anger and desperation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The wikipedia entry for Hacker News needs to be changed. It currently says:

"Hacker News is a social news website focusing on computer science and entrepreneurship."

Politics needs to be added. What a fucking joke. Someone regex the submissions.</comment>


Am I dreaming? - <AUTHOR> http://chrishateswriting.com/post/75158854851/am-i-dreaming <comment><USER2> I suspect what this really means is that Facebook doesn't need explicit identity markers anymore to work out who you are. That's done and trained. Now they benefit from additional metadata like "I don't want this message to be sent with my standard identity".

</comment><comment><USER3> Zuck said unnamed new apps possibly won't require you to log-in and this is a giant step forward for identity? Wait until they actually do it and then wait until they do it with something important.

<comment><USER4> My excitement is that Mark, who has been _extremely_ staunch in his belief in "Facebook identity" (First Name/Last Name/Profile Pic, Online == Offline), is starting to consider alternatives to that. It remains to be seen what that will ultimately amount to for Facebook's product/app offerings, but it's a _huge_ shift in his personal beliefs.

I wrote up some thoughts on Snapchat's mainstreaming of anonymity/ephemerality a few months ago -- and believe there are huge opportunities out there for people who will go where Facebook/Google won't: [http://chrishateswriting.com/post/67378144174/ephemerality-g...](http://chrishateswriting.com/post/67378144174/ephemerality- goes-mainstream-viva-la-snapchat)

<comment><USER3> I'm sure he's petrified of Facebook becoming being widely thought of as a for- profit arm of the US intelligence service. They don't have many more possible users in the US, Facebook needs foreign users or it will stop growing (which would be devastating to a company currently valued at 20x _revenue_ ). Facebook needs anonymity to work or the company's future is very uncertain.

<comment><USER5> That may be a factor, but an equal or greater concern is the threat of losing the young: teens through twentysomethings.

A single, merged, adult-centric identity visible to parents/mentors/distant- acquaintances/professional-colleagues is especially unattractive to this key demographic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "All we need now is for Google to wake up and actually innovate with Plus, and we'll truly have a party!"

That's a pretty great observation. Google+ isn't BAD, it's just the same as everything else.

<comment><USER7> I would argue that the Circles system was fairly innovative when it launched, but needed polishing and a better UI so as to be less confusing for users.

<comment><USER4> Circles was neat, but it solved the wrong problem. I gave a talk about it a few years ago: [http://youtu.be/e3Zs74IH0mc](http://youtu.be/e3Zs74IH0mc)

<comment><USER7> Watching now and I agree. I think it was a step in the right direction, but would have worked better if combined with a multiple-identity system.

<comment><USER8> I agree. Are there any examples of multiple-identity system or "share as"?

<comment><USER7> The closest thing I can think of is an email client's "send as". Apart from that I've seen some phone apps and browser extensions that focus on helping you manage multiple accounts on a given service, like Reddit or Twitter.

<comment><USER8> Thank you very much for your input. Looks like a lot of people have this kind of needs. Usually I have to create multiple email accounts to have multiple roles of me. I'll do some research on SnapChat, but why do it like it? That's for kids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Being anonymous on the Internet? Who woulda thunk?

In other words, back to the good old days.

Now if we could just cut the cord between these companies and our identities permanently.

</comment><comment><USER10> tl,dr: Facebook is finally starting to back away from their anti-anonymity stance. Wish the title had been more informative.

<comment><USER11> Facebook is backing away from anti-anonymity, _unless moot is dreaming_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> We're long past due for a free and open-source tool for managing one's own identity on the public networks.

When we go out into the world, we dress ourselves in a manner befitting the way we want the world to perceive us. For a decade, Facebook has been mandating that we can only wear one hat, ever, and never any masks, and services like Google+ have followed suit.

While I'm glad that Zuckerberg has finally admitted that one might want to change hats or put on a mask, I don't think it would be wise to just leave it all up to him, or any other person that has no vested interest in _your_ online identity. It has to be something no one else can control but you.

<comment><USER13> One disadvantage is in such a system, once you publish something, you can't change your mind and delete it, any more so than you can with email.

<comment><USER12> That is common to all systems that involve publication. It's no more a disadvantage than saying something before a crowd out in public. You can disavow saying it all you like, but someone is probably going to remember what really happened regardless.

At least if you say it while wearing a mask of pseudonymity or anonymity, you can shed the identity itself and grow another. And if you choose to defame homosexuals, people could look to see if you were wearing your corporate CEO hat or your religious zealot hat at the time--or even note that you do, in fact, consider them to be separate hats--before boycotting any chicken sandwich restaurants.

People do erect cubicle walls within their own psyche. Hardly anyone has a monolithic personality that is presented for all possible occasions. Many of the people who do have engaged in a lifelong pursuit of introspective remodeling to get there, as with a Buddhist monk who has trained himself to show equal respect to a homeless drunk as he shows to sober heads of state. Most everybody else would prefer to keep several different personas on file, to be used at need, including the persona that we show to _no one_ at all.

The Facebook strategy to date is only serving the universal public persona. And that's really only suitable when no one on it actually knows anyone else. The instant any two pepole have an actual personal connection, the invasion of their privacy begins.

<comment><USER14> _> And if you choose to defame homosexuals, people could look to see if you were wearing your corporate CEO hat or your religious zealot hat at the time_

I am unclear why you write as if this is a good thing. I don't do business with people comfortable trumpeting how horrible they are just because they say "oh I'm only horrible when wearing this hat". I would rather that speech have consequences (particularly when someone is in a position to harm less- privileged groups).

<comment><USER12> You're connecting the different parts of that person's life without his consent. That is functionally equivalent to telling the parents of a closeted homosexual that he's gay, just because he publicly announced it down at the Manhole. People sometimes wish to present different facades to different people. If you allow for closeted gays, you must logically also allow for CEOs that hold personal opinions contrary to their corporate policy.

There are legitimate reasons why someone would like to compartmentalize different areas of his life.

A doctor might be expected to wash his hands between every patient, but also choose to pick his nose before preparing his own dinner. When the superfluous lab coat comes off, my professional expectations of him as a physician end.

We have done this for centuries, with tokens of office and traditional garb. Kings have their crowns, Popes their grand miters. Judges don robes, and sometimes wigs. Cops wear badges.

Facebook does not allow for this. If you add your boss as a friend, he is connected to your everything. You have to work to separate him from your real friends. If, on the other hand, he were connected to your "corporate peon" role, you could switch him on and off at the... drop of a hat. In fact, he could _give_ you that hat when you get hired, already connected to everyone else in your office. And if you leave that job, you both burn that hat, and he gives one just like it to the next guy.

It is a good thing.

<comment><USER15> > If, on the other hand, he were connected to your "corporate peon" role, you > could switch him on and off at the... drop of a hat. In fact, he could give > you that hat when you get hired, already connected to everyone else in your > office. And if you leave that job, you both burn that hat, and he gives one > just like it to the next guy.

sounds like good old corporate email/network/IM account.

<comment><USER12> ...which does not integrate at all into the employee's existing social tools. Separate accounts. Separate servers. All managed by the company and not the employee. If you have separate accounts for just work and real life, that's manageable. What happens if you also need separate accounts for church/temple/whatever, kids' sports leagues, civic societies, multiple circles of friends from high school, college, previous jobs, and the like?

It explodes beyond the ability of a human to maintain, and user names and passwords start getting reused.

I already have three separate e-mail addresses just at work, and that's a pain to deal with. I have two different personal e-mail accounts, so the recruiter spam doesn't drown out actual friend communication. I don't necessarily want Apple or Google or Microsoft connecting all those for their own nefarious purposes, but nor do I want to be burdened by the weight of my own requirements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'll believe it when I see it.

</comment><comment><USER17> much humble so dream</comment>


The Day We Fight Back - <AUTHOR> https://thedaywefightback.org <comment><USER2> No, it's not _fighting_ back. Making clever memes online to earn a chuckle or two might help _spreading awareness_ , but in reality changing an online avatar and posting memes online won't affect much in real life.

What I find strange is that(Please correct me on this one) there just doesn't seem to be a political group of technologist who lobby(the original meaning) against politicians. In truth, technology-related policies should be consulted and heard by people who use and develop the said technologies.

What's worse about this _retaliation_ is that anyone participating it would have an illusion of having done _something_ without actually having done anything(i.e., impact). At the end of the day, you might walk home feeling good about yourself for _having fought for a cause_ , but some harsh reality check needs to be done.

Addendum:

As per the second paragraph, refer to one of the replies on this comment([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7038058](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7038058)):

> An abbreviated list of groups who do that: EFF, Public Knowledge, Demand > Progress, Engine Advocacy, CDT, OTI, Free Press. Many of these have multiple > registered lobbyists walking the halls of Congress and taking meetings.

I stand corrected.

<comment><USER3> No. Why is achievement in our culture positioned to always be this 3-act epic like we have to slay the bad guy? try rethinking your approach here and accept that it is actually totally fine to walk home at the end of the day and celebrate a small victory.

There are indeed technology consultants that inform these govt policy: they're called lobbyists and their influence is often proportional to how much their self-interest will prosper. this is why the system doesn't work and Hacker's like Aaron need to step in. None of us believe we'll walk away from this having fixed anything, it is an ongoing process to keep the system in check. The point, however, is to simply concentrate our anger and focus over a month into, as a hacker, doing SOMETHING proactive against this.

<comment><USER2> > it is actually totally fine to walk home at the end of the day and celebrate > a small victory.

It _is_ fine to walk home and celebrate a small _victory_.

It may not be fine to walk home and celebrate a victory, however small, when that victory is nothing but an illusion. Exactly what kind of victory will this _movement_ achieve? From what I can tell it's another let's-feel-good- about-ourselves-by-shouting-at-same-time.

It makes you feel great, sure, but in the end what have you achieved? Two child comments from my comment have corrected me of groups who _are_ fighting back. Perhaps a donation? Spreading awareness _of the groups_?

A political motion needs to happen continuously. A day's worth party may be fun, but in the end it's a party. People walk home and do not follow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "If Aaron were alive, he'd be on the front lines, fighting against a world in which governments observe, collect, and analyze our every digital action."

While government surveillance and open access are both information issues, we definitely should not be construing what he would or wouldn't believe about revelations that were made after his death.

If we're taking a literal interpretation of his Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, he may well be on the front lines fighting for a world with zero privacy from anyone.

<comment><USER5> I think the emphasis on Aaron is really a mistake. I follow this news relatively closely, reading HN every day, and I don't really see how Aaron's abusive prosecutors tie in to the NSA stuff.

The spying scandals are bad enough on their own. Adding Aaron's death into the mix just muddles the message and confuses people who are less informed.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, it muddies the issue. I am anti-NSA-spying but I am also anti- stealing-IP...

I should point out that I don't think Aaron should have been hounded to his death (tho' equally if he were mentally ill, _anything_ could have pushed him over the edge). But that doesn't make what he did right. It has for 20 years baffled me that people can demand respect for the GPL et al but be happy to ride roughshod over anyone else's licenses.

<comment><USER7> The reason Aaron gets so much sympathy (EDIT: for what he _did_ as well as for how he was treated) is that 1) a substantial portion of the JSTOR data is _public domain_ , 2) a substantial portion of the rest is work _funded_ with public money where it is controversial that it is only available under copyright.

But even disregarding that, I don't get why you are baffled: The GPL is a _hack_ intended to spread freedoms. Many who support the GPL do not support it out of some desire to respect IP laws, but as a means of reducing the use of more restrictive licenses. E.g. to maximise _access_ to knowledge or maximise the ability to modify and use data.

Wanting the data in JSTOR freed up, possibly regardless of copyright status, is entirely consistent with supporting the GPL in those cases.

For some this is a moral or ethical issue - it is perfectly possible to consider the current state of copyright an immoral restriction of personal freedoms.

<comment><USER6> Without IP, what stops people incorporating GPL code in their closed source proprietary products? See you can't have your cake and eat it. Either you believe there is a thing called a license which travels with your product and binds the user as to how they can use it, or you don't, there isn't really any middle ground there. The alternative is "everything is public domain!" in which case, no GPL.

<comment><USER8> I would expect that nearly any supporter of the GPL would also support a change to the law that eliminated copyright restrictions on the use of code.

The purpose of the GPL is not to prevent people from modifying and building on the code. The purpose... well, let me quote from [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide- gplv3.html](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html) :

      There are four freedoms that every user should have:

        the freedom to use the software for any purpose,

        the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,

        the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and

        the freedom to share the changes you make.

The GPL is a clever legal "hack" to achieve this, by allowing the code to be used only by others who agree to play by these rules. If the law were changed to enforce these rules directly, then no GPL would be needed. And eliminating intellectual property law restrictions on the use of code would get _almost_ all the way there. (Companies would still be free to "protect" their code through secrecy: releasing only the compiled version and not the source code, but decompilers are pretty darn effective.)

<comment><USER9> _I would expect that nearly any supporter of the GPL would also support a change to the law that eliminated copyright restrictions on the use of code._

WTF?!? No way! (although to be fair I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "use of code").

 _Companies would still be free to "protect" their code through secrecy: releasing only the compiled version and not the source code_

This is _exactly_ what the GPL is designed to avoid.

As you quoted above "the freedom to change the software to suit your needs" \- that requires the source code!

<comment><USER10> "This is exactly what the GPL is designed to avoid."

...sort of. Source code access is important, sure, but here are a few _more important_ issues that are basically orthogonal:

* The right to redistribute software

* The right to modify software (without source code?!?! Sure; imagine if I took Windows, removed the license protection code, and distributed that copy to you).

* The right to use software -- this, incredibly, can be a problem:

[http://jalopnik.com/192843/robot-let-my-car-go-new-jersey- ga...](http://jalopnik.com/192843/robot-let-my-car-go-new-jersey-garage-holds- vehicles-hostage)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Am I the only one bothered by how many people are invoking Aaron's ghost? The intent might be pure, but it really bugs me when people speak for the dead.

And let's not forget, Aaron didn't pass away, he committed suicide. Case related stressors may have caused this, but it's also not right to make him the poster child for every anti-government/anti NSA campaign on the Internet.

<comment><USER3> Aaron was a pretty beautiful dude who had a clarity and pureness of intent to ensuring that information be as free as possible. That Aaron suffered mental illness, and the assumption that his legacy carry less value because he took his own life is kind of gross and disrespectful. Mental illness is stigmatized enough in our communities, and given a lot of the talk of HN users own depression issues, I'm surprised to see statements like this here.

Movements like this are part of Aaron's legacy. We know not the will of the dead. We can, however, celebrate the value and contribution of their lives. His was extraordinary (though all too short). What is so wrong with continuing the work he was so passionate about?

<comment><USER11> I don't believe his legacy should carry less value at all. If anything, I'm trying to defend his legacy so organizations like this will stop putting words and actions in his mouth/body.

I find this campaign to be in bad taste and on the brink of classlessness, despite the fact that I believe in the cause.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> People always ask, why can't the progressives make their own Tea Party -- If you read through the responses on this page you'll have your answer. So much doubt and skepticism about everything...

It's funny all these people putting down "social networking", when most of us here work for companies who pay a shit ton of money to advertise and gain traction on "social networks". Then, on top of that, there are many of us here working to build more and improve social networking.

You bitch about how the media is corrupting the public's mind, yet you scoff at organizations that tries to use the media to rally for support of meaningful causes....

Every. Single. Time. Someone wants to do something positive, you guys just come and shit all over it.

I think the true slacktivism is people who bitch about slacktivism and offers no other solutions.

<comment><USER13> this isn't a "progressive" issue, it cuts across partisan lines.

<comment><USER10> Not really. This is a left-versus-right issue. Unfortunately, most major party politicians are on the right wing of the spectrum.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Yay, slacktivism!

\-----

 _edit: I wrote the above because there was no clear "call to action" other than changing one's Facebook profile picture (seriously?) but, according to the "Open Letter" [0], I guess we're all supposed to call our legislators that day._

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7037532](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7037532)

<comment><USER15> I thought so too, but the big banner has a way to find and call your political representative about the issue. I'm just worried that the American populace isn't sufficiently interested in the issue to do anything about it.

Now if the top 100 sites in the US shut down for a day in protest ...

<comment><USER16> To be honest, I had to go back to the website and read it again so I would notice the suggestion to call the legislators. I think my brain has been trained (based on hard evidence) to ignore that option as ineffective (unfortunately).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> as a non-US citizen this won't change anything for me.

"free society" here should be really re-worded to "free US society".

as long as there is a intelligence apparatus in the US at all, spying on the rest of the world will continue. by definition.

the NSA is monitoring all internet traffic as it would be really hard to know beforehand if it only pertains to US citizens. not sure what exactly you're trying to achieve here. the NSA either monitors facebook or it doesn't.

<comment><USER18> The US Constitual protection for privacy only applies to US citizens. Would US citizens be willing to amend it to make it apply to everyone.

<comment><USER19> Some things in the constitution apply only to citizens, most don't. When it says person, it means person, not citizen. Educating people that this prevalent view is false would already go a long way.

<comment><USER20> However, this definition of "person" requires them to be subject to US law (typically by residing in the US) which foreign residents of a foreign country are not.

That is part of the reason we have a detention facility at Guantanemo.

<comment><USER19> It is not sufficient that the person acting on someone else is subject to US law? That seems kinda broken. Do you have a link that elaborates on this? From the 14th Amendment for example:

> No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or > immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any > person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny > to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note how it mentions citizens, any person, and persons within the jurisdiction as three separate things... ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If I got this right, we fight back by changing our avatars and putting banners on our blogs. Is that it?

<comment><USER21> The banners appear to be able to let you put in your zip code and then help you contact your relevant representatives in congress. If enough high-traffic sites participate, like what happened with the SOPA blackout, I could see this actually having an affect on policy.

However, there probably needs to some kind of bill to support or other action to be urging representatives to do, other than contacting them saying that "spying is bad". The Open Letter to HN from EFF, Demand Progress, and Cory Doctorow [1] mentions some of these, but the campaign site here doesn't seem to contain any mention of them.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7037532](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7037532)

<comment><USER22> > If enough high-traffic sites participate, like what happened with the SOPA > blackout, I could see this actually having an affect on policy.

The _policy_ didn't change with SOPA or CISPA or whatever name they've snuck some of the same shit in by now. The policy is: more surveillance, more police state, less liberty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is a worthy cause, but I find it ironic that the page has so many links to social networks that engage in spying on a scale comparable to that of the NSA. And while the NSA was probably just collecting the information we know that Google and Facebook actually _use_ it.

Saying that those services give you a choice not to use them is throwing sand in our face. We know that Facebook and maybe Google, too, collect information about people not using their services. They also track their users' behavior when they're not expecting it. Worst of all is the fact that most people don't fully grasp the deal those companies offer: they give you free services in exchange for your private information.

This reminds me of that recent South Park episode where Cartman goes to investigate the NSA while tweeting his every thought[1]. This kind of fight requires serious thinking about privacy in this day and age. Sure, it's bad that a government spies on people, but it isn't any better that some of the world's most powerful corporations trick people into being spied on and into becoming unknowing informants on their friends. This is a very serious and very broad issue. Let's not make it just about the NSA.

[1]: [http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s17e01-let- go-...](http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s17e01-let-go-let-gov)

</comment><comment><USER24> To me this looks pretty much like Don Quixote's fight against windmills. Pointless, and won't really accomplish anything. Do you think the NSA, or whoever else for that matter, would actually care about people changing their profile picture or blacking out their website for a day? I believe protest doesn't accomplish much, specifically if done in a frivolous way. This is extremely frivolous.

<comment><USER25> > Do you think the NSA, or whoever else for that matter, would actually care

What made you think that's the point of this? This isn't about convincing the NSA of anything.

<comment><USER24> This sentence from the page pretty much hints at that:

> Today we face a different threat, one that undermines the Internet, and the > notion that any of us live in a genuinely free society: mass surveillance.

Let's not forget that the NSA revelations are at the base of the mass surveillance outrage.

<comment><USER7> Clearly part of addressing mass surveillance would be to get changes at the NSA, but they are not the ones we need to make listen. Politicians are. US politicians who support and fund the NSA or doesn't voice their opposition. Politicians all over the world who allow their own surveillance organizations to be complicit, or who are not putting enough pressure on the US government to make it a foreign policy problem instead of merely a small nuisance.

And the large parts of the public who are not yet aware, or not aware enough to care.

The NSA is at the very end of a very long list of targets, each one of which may help put pressure on and/or have some power over the next target on the list.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I would "fight back" but I have a job.

Who am I kidding? I would not fight back even if I did have the time. Even if this were not horseshit. I would be dicking around with golang and flagging banal questions on StackExchange.

<comment><USER27> I appreciate your candor, sir/madam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's long past time that we channel our outrage into political action on this issue.

<comment><USER29> Everyone will just re-elect the same congressmen and senators who got us here. Because theirs is different, of course.

<comment><USER8> If it is your intention to assume that nothing can get any better so we should just sit back and do nothing, then would you do me a favor? Would you please start doing nothing BEFORE posting the "it's all hopeless" comment. From your point of view it won't make any difference, but from the point of view of those of us who think that one can (on the whole) make (slow) progress by speaking up and taking action it _will_ make a difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Yeah, let's fight online surveillance through facebook, google and the other NSA-approved social media.

How about instead we save some energy and invest it in better encryption and security?

<comment><USER31> So facebook and google are now "NSA-approved" how can I get my products and services NSA approved?

<comment><USER30> You can't. It's an invite-only elite club.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What are the specific goals and modes of action for this protest? (e.g. laws to pass, laws to vote against, people to fire etc.)

<comment><USER33> Apparently it's post a banner on a website, register on facebook, google+ and twitter to post there that you are against surveillance.

A nice attempt at sorting out people through self-selection who are to be put on a special surveillance list.

<comment><USER34> Well, if you're politically opposed to the NSA's surveillance they probably already know, so it won't make much difference whether you've revealed support for this campaign. The bigger problem is that the campaign seems entirely vacuous. What exactly are we doing to fight back? Complaining a little bit online? The NSA must be running scared.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The often mentioned quote from B. Franklin (reproduced in the linked site) about "any society" giving up a little liberty for a little security and deserving neither is I think quite funny, because giving up liberty in exchange for security is the very definition of society.

Society is not about liberty; it's about control, surveillance, obedience, in exchange from keeping aliens at bay.

If everyone's my brother I don't need "society", because there are no aliens.

On the other hand, if every brother is a potential or covert alien, then I need a very intense system of control.

I'm not sure it's possible to have society without surveillance; they are sides of the same coin.

<comment><USER36> Society is a bunch of people gathering togheter because they are happier that way. If everybody is your brother, you won't be any better living alone in a field.

Yeah, other people always come with some kind of surveilance and disagreement, but that's a consequence, not the goal.

<comment><USER35> > _Society is a bunch of people gathering together because they are happier > that way._

How is that? You're born in a given society (country) and usually you never change societies, so there's no choice involved.

<comment><USER36> You can move to some non-urbanized area, and just cut communications with anybody else. (Yes, you can not completely cut away because of taxes, but you can to a huge degree.)

Almost nobody likes that option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's nice to see that important national issues have been reduced to social media campaigns. It's going to take more than Twitter messages and Reddit comments to take down the NSA though.

Something tells me that Aaron would be pissed that they're using his name this way. Aaron got arrested for actually _fighting_ for openness, not tweeting about how he supports openness. If you want to fight the NSA, write your member of Congress. Join a protest. Leak info about what the government is doing. But please don't just post messages to your Facebook so you can feel like you're doing something.

</comment><comment><USER38> [reposting this from another comment for visibility]

Ever since the NSA business leaked, I've been thinking about this problem. It took me a few months to wrap my head around all the crazy stuff that's been going on but I've started building some systems that I think might have a chance of helping out.

"Call Congress Now"\- using Twilio, you can call Congress folk from your browser (for free).

[http://www.callcongressnow.org/](http://www.callcongressnow.org/)

Here are some Congress people who some consider are doing some shady stuff: [http://www.callcongressnow.org/profile/F000062](http://www.callcongressnow.org/profile/F000062) [http://www.callcongressnow.org/profile/L000174](http://www.callcongressnow.org/profile/L000174)

But it's pretty hard to get the word out about websites like that. In a sense, nobody passively cares enough to call Congress. Only when the Congress folks do something that brings about outrage do people care enough to really pick up the phone (or click the twilio button, as it were). So I built the /u/CongressionalHound, a bot on reddit that hunts for mentions of current sitting members of Congress in submitted articles and displays information about them in the comments:

[http://www.reddit.com/user/CongressionalHound/comments/](http://www.reddit.com/user/CongressionalHound/comments/)

If you are a mod and want me to run the bot on your subreddit, PM the bot and I'll have it saunter on over and get to work. Slowly putting the bot on subreddits that give me permission or invite me to. My hope is that when articles about the NSA, or Obamacare, or the shutdown, or or or any big political issue comes up, that the bot will channel people towards getting in touch with their representatives and senators and effectively voicing their opinions.

Both of these are prototypes and there are major known bugs in both, but I think they can serve as examples of systems that could help citizens better impact their government through the power of the internet.

<comment><USER39> That bot is amazing!

<comment><USER38> Thank you! It's actually really dumb. Like, it's piping out to Readability and then just searching for capitalized pairs of words and then pounding a hash- map for look ups of Congress folks. MVP or something right?

[https://github.com/zmaril/CongressionalHound](https://github.com/zmaril/CongressionalHound)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> How in the world is this "fighting back"?

Did I just skim over a paragraph somewhere on the site? All I see are banners, social media buttons, and a mask to put over your profile picture.

Raising awareness is fine and good, but thanks to Ed Snowden (who fought back in a much more effective way than by changing his gravatar), we already know that the NSA are spying on everyone, everywhere.

They stuck a Ben Franklin quote on there. It's a good quote. But where are the public officials running on a pro-surveillance platform? Whose door should we beat down while carrying our torches and pitchforks? That battle is lost several times a second when we voluntarily step into the body scanner at the airport that both the TSA and the terrorists know doesn't catch everything.

I'm not ready to start a revolution. And I just don't feel like anything less than a revolution will do, at this point. The only thing I can do is leave -- and hope that my new home isn't doing the same thing or worse without having been caught yet.

But this sucks. I hate feeling powerless. So I guess I'm off to post some witty anti-NSA propaganda to my Facebook page!

</comment><comment><USER41> How about companies pledge to never hire NSA staff? Close the accounts of and ban surveillance supporters and their families?

</comment><comment><USER33> Calling upon what a dead person would have done if not dead is something I have a hard time getting behind. But using facebook, google + and twitter to fight back against surveillance made it clear that this whole initiative is a joke and a bad poorly executed one.

I wish those guys luck in trying to push against government surveillance towards private for profit transnational corporations' surveillance, but there is no way I would support this kind of initiative.

Either you fight against surveillance or you don't, but fighting some form of surveillance and promoting another is not fight against surveillance.

</comment><comment><USER42> Hmmm this is all well and good, but what do we expect NSA and GCHQ to do instead?

I don't especially like them or what they do, but we need them... I'm also surprised at the massive backlash and the revelatory nature of the Snowden leaks... I was expecting that NSA and GCHQ would engage in precisely these kinds of activities - its exactly what they are there for - I am surprised that anyone ever had any different expectations, but clearly a large majority did.

Are we suggesting that society has come far enough that we can do without espionage altogether?

<comment><USER43> More-specific investigations to uncover actual threats, real court oversight, and making sure that protections written into law are enforced during data collection.

<comment><USER6> If GCHQ and the NSA were actually dedicated to securing our networks that would be a start, e.g. helping businesses and individuals migrate to SELinux or something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Feb 11th is after the SOTU, where Obama will announce what will in effect be the only changes we're likely to see. Any attempt to influence policy should come before that.

<comment><AUTHOR> We did consider this very, very carefully. Our conclusion was that any reforms that Obama announces are very unlikely to result in meaningful change, and that legislation will still be necessary. Had we set the date before the SOTU, our activism would have concluded with no way to respond to his proposals.

<comment><USER45> So, what's your plan re: pushing legislation? Have you identified who in Congress will serve as a champion for your cause? Are there any lists of specific demands that any good legislation would address? Changing your avatar on Facebook, Twitter, or G+ won't sway anyone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> To me its obvious that the current paradigm with a central government that has a monopoly on force and businesses competing against each other with a mandate to increase profits is outdated. I think we need to experiment with rethinking fundamental societal structures in a way that incorporates our current science and technology.

</comment><comment><USER47> You lost me at "(and [spying on] everyone else too)". Spying on other countries is what the NSA is built to do, and it's for good reason. Every country does it, that's how geopolitics work. The issue people have here is spying on US Citizens, which is not what they're supposed to be doing.

<comment><USER3> Poppycock. Give me some "good reasons" why spying on the private lives of citizens of ally countries is not an act of terrorism?

<comment><USER48> > Give me some "good reasons" why spying on the private lives of citizens of > ally countries is not an act of terrorism?

Because terrorism is the use of violence or threat of violence directed at civilian populations or otherwise outside the generally accepted norms of warfare to effect political change, and spying, while it may _support_ the use or threat of violence, is, in and of itself, neither the use nor threat of violence.

<comment><USER36> Well, is blackmail a kind of violence? (honest question)

<comment><USER48> Doesn't really matter, because as with violence (or "other forms of violence", if you prefer), spying isn't blackmail, even if it might be used to support blackmail.

<comment><USER36> Spying is as good a "threat of blackmail" as one can get.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> You know what would be better than putting a banner on a site and tweeting your "outrage"? Giving a buck to the EFF. Or two. Do that other stuff if it makes you feel better, but if you want to make a difference, call a congressman, and give a pittance to people who specialize in doing the same.

</comment><comment><USER50> I am probably the only person who is bothered that this sounds like a deniable call to violent action. "BE CREATIVE"

edit: to be clearer - the issue is that we have left violent action open as an option and it isn't hard for a few people to take that option. Is this what we want politics to be?

<comment><USER51> You're probably the only person who is bothered, because you are probably the only person who can see anything remotely resembling a "call to violent action" in something as milquetoast as the nonsense we're discussing.

<comment><USER52> I see what the GP is talking about though, and would probably explain it as "fight" being used as a malapropism, not as a rallying ethic. That is, calling something "fighting" which is pretty much the furthest thing from it, rather than exhorting people to fight in whatever way they deem fit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world.

This should not actually be a complicated inquiry.

[http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html](http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html)

[http://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom- of-t...](http://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-thought- requires-free-media)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ciscosystemsrouteratcern....](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ciscosystemsrouteratcern.jpg)

Why would dead links help?

</comment><comment><USER54> _In January 2012 we defeated the SOPA and PIPA censorship legislation with the largest Internet protest in history._

Funny ... no mention of CISPA, which interestingly was _not_ heavily protested like SOPA and PIPA were, is reputed to be worse, and while initially passed in November 2011 was passed again in April 2013 after SOPA and PIPA were defeated.

Thankfully, it never passed the Senate ... but I wouldn't call that a "win" compared to the victory over SOPA / PIPA.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act)

</comment><comment><USER55> You need a law or a bill. And then the protest (and ensuing momentum if companies are incentivized to blackout their sites because it's strongly in their interests) pushes the lever for lawmakers.

</comment><comment><USER56> Let's try to be positive about this.

Presumably the NSA's capacities are limited by its budget. Presumably its budget is limited by political considerations. Presumably a popular social networking campaign, however lame, will be impact on politicians' willingness to lavish funds upon it.

I'd rather everybody involved set up and promoted GPG instead, but that probably isn't going to happen.

</comment><comment><USER57> You lost me by leading with a big picture of Aaron.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'd prefer to see "The Day We Fight Back" be used to promote mass adoption of stronger security measures and encryption.

<comment><USER36> And some alternative to centralized social networks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Ironically, at the moment the link to their own Privacy Policy page is broken. (I notified them by email.)

[https://thedaywefightback.org/privacy.html](https://thedaywefightback.org/privacy.html)

</comment><comment><USER60> If I join this wont they go out of their way to spy on me?

<comment><USER36> Yes.

And if you don't join it, they'll also go out of their way to spy on you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I'm so angry I put a banner on my website. While I greatly support the cause, I doubt the effects this "online protest" will have.

</comment><comment><USER62> Hopefully someday we can use this to help: [http://bit.ly/blibonline](http://bit.ly/blibonline)

</comment><comment><USER63> I'm on a shitty airport connection and I tried to load the page 3 times before I was able to read content. Just saying.

</comment><comment><USER64> I wonder whether they obtained proper license to use a frame from "The Big Lebowski" for their internet meme

</comment><comment><USER65> Great idea, but does it have to be so American? We're getting spied on over here in the UK too.

</comment><comment><USER66> Unsurprisingly, none of the PRISM gang companies support this initiative.

</comment><comment><USER67> We can't forget the corporate culpability in this matter...

</comment><comment><USER68> It bothers me that otherwise intelligent people are taking so long to realize that ubiquitous surveillance is never going away.

I would have exterminated humanity in the 80's if it hadn't been for ubiquitous surveillance.

</comment><comment><USER69> KonyLives2014.org

</comment><comment><USER22> So, something like this:

      People: "Stop spying on us!"
         NSA: "Well, we kind of want to, but if you insist.."
      People: "Alright then, cool."
        (NSA calmly continues doing whatever they damn well please)

Here's an alternative version:

      People: "Stop spying on us!"
         NSA: "Fuck you, peasants."
      People: "No, fuck you! We'll write to some thoroughly
               corrupt sociopaths and they'll stop your spying
               because they care about our well-being!!"
         NSA: "Good luck with that."
        (NSA calmly continues doing whatever they damn well please)

The _actual_ problem is the existence of the NSA and governments in the first place. They're not accountable to us for anything they do, until there's a revolution, and then the cycle just starts over. The real solution is to stop believing that anyone has the right to rule anyone else.

<comment><USER70> >The actual problem is the existence of the NSA

>and governments

That escalated quickly.

<comment><USER22> Sure, but it's true.

Think about it for a moment. They operate in complete secrecy behind the scenes. You have no power over them, but they have _massive_ power over you. Clearly, neither the NSA nor the government are accountable to you or people in general because you simply have no recourse against any injustice they commit against you. If the government imprisons you without due process, for example, you're effectively supposed to complain about it _to the very same government_ , which will then.. punish itself?

In what alternate universe is this a good arrangement?

<comment><USER71> >They operate in complete secrecy behind the scenes. You have no power over them, but they have massive power over you.

 _We_ vote these people into office. _We_ have the power. The government _is people_ \- just people _we 've_ decided get extra power so they can get things done.

Please, please, please don't ever forget this. The moment you start thinking of the government as some impenetrable adversary, you've already lost. Being politically active is how change happens, not falling into the dems-vs- republicans-vs-whoever trap of "the other guy is bad".

The government is us.

<comment><USER72> When you vote, you actually give credibility to, and thus your implicit acceptance of the results, whether or not they are in your favour.

You play the game that is stacked 100% in their favour, and you cannot expect to win. Your vote or that of even 1 million (or even 10 million) other people will not change 1 single micron of the overall outcome. Think of all the well- intentioned people in the past, say 100 years or so, that in all good conscience cast their vote, just hoping to make that change. Did that positive change happen? Of course not, look where we are.

Bow out and make other changes to protect yourself; voting is the least effective use of your time.

<comment><USER73> There hasn't been a large-scale violent uprising in the United States for almost 150 years. The US and state governments of today have continuity from that point.

In that time period legitimate democratic processes have brought about the 40-hour work week; the abolition of child labor; substantial improvements in the legal rights and protection of women, racial minorities, and sexual minorities; regulatory systems to protect the purity and wholesomeness of food and the efficacy and safety of medication; programs like Social Security and Medicare which have virtually eliminated the kind of wide-scale destitution of the elderly that previous generations had seen; environmental protections for water and air; and a host of other reforms enacted for the popular interest and by popular demand.

Many other democratic nations in the world can tell the same story about the 20th century as well.

These achievements are all incomplete and flawed, and obviously there have been many outrages, but modern democracies are by and large the most humane, least violent, and most responsive governments in human history.

<comment><USER22> > modern democracies are by and large the most humane, least violent, and most > responsive governments in human history.

That's because their tax cattle is still docile. You see, as long as people remain obedient and calm, governments don't need to get violent. That's the way _outright_ slavery works too: a slave-master only whips his slaves when they resist him.

Make no mistake though, governments are not your friends. They don't give a fuck about your well-being, and they're not here to help humanity. It's the exact opposite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> "The Day We Fight Back" and there's facebook like-button on the page. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

</comment><comment><USER75> Modifying websites is not "fighting back". Your time is wasted and meaningless and will not evoke change.

</comment><comment><USER76> Meh. I wasn't all that surprised by the NSA revelations. I think Snowden is a traitor and the US government (like any government) has legitimate reasons to spy on people.

The problem with this "movement" is that it fails to make an argument for its beliefs. It's just pure group-think.

> Today we face a different threat, one that undermines the Internet, and the > notion that any of us live in a genuinely free society: mass surveillance.

An NSA data mining robot reading my facebook wall is no more a threat to my freedom than Google reading my gmail. The threat comes from the abuse of that information: that some politician (or Google employee) has it out for me and blackmails me (or something like that). Maybe I'll get upset when we have evidence of that happening a bunch.

And though many people don't believe it anymore, there is in fact a real threat on the other side of this: there are actual terrorists in the world who want to kill Americans.

Now here's something I can't figure out: the very people up in arms about the NSA spying on us think that it's a great idea for the government to know all the most intimate details of my life via a government-run single-payer healthcare system.

Uncle Sam reading my latest tweet seems a whole lot less intrusive on my freedom than him telling me I must go to the doctor, get insurance, quit smoking, lose some weight, not eat or drink certain kinds of foods...</comment>


San Diego Refuses To Answer FOIA Requests About Drones - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/13591421096/san-diego-refuses-to-answer-foia-requests-about-drones-because-there-is-very-little-public-benefit.shtml

<comment><USER2> Original story: [https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/nov/15/san- diego...](https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/nov/15/san-diego-county- sheriff-refuses-release-drone-doc/)

Full FOIA Request: [https://www.muckrock.com/foi/san-diego-county-55/san- diego-c...](https://www.muckrock.com/foi/san-diego-county-55/san-diego-county- police-department-drone-documents-1487/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Alameda county is considering purchasing one as well: [http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Alameda-County-sheriff- se...](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Alameda-County-sheriff-seeks-drone- to-fight-crime-3965122.php)

Drones don't appear to be covered by the public domain airspace laws in the US: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights>

Airspace under 500' AGL is traditionally considered to be under control of the landowner - unless they are near an airport and the airport needs right of way for passengers. While the FAA technically controls ALL airspace, they can only use it for right of way purposes when dealing with passengers. It doesn't appear to be valid for unmanned aircraft.

The FAA has a few things to say about drones here: <http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=68004>. There doesn't appear to be a specific drone law in place by the FCC, only waivers to allow flying the drones by an agency.

That poses the question whether we are within our property rights to shoot down any drone flying around inside it? Given the FAA is limiting these drones to operate below 400' AGL, they would appear to be a fair target.

<comment><USER4> I realize there are other ways to disable or destroy a drone and that you're curious about the legalities. But if you did literally shoot a drone, you'd probably go to jail. If you miss you'll send a bullet miles away, endangering others. If you hit the drone, you'll rain shrapnel on the anyone below. Even then, I doubt a hit would disappate the bullet's kinetic energy safely.

<comment><USER5> A bullet expends its kinetic energy via air friction. Unless it richochets off the drone, it'll fall harmlessly some miles away.

<comment><USER6> Harmlessly? I know this is off topic, but....

A close friend of mine was killed by a stray bullet this year at a 4th of July celebration. She was in a crowd of thousands of people gathered to watch some local fireworks. The shooter was miles away and probably has no idea that they murdered someone.

[http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2012/07/student_shot_...](http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2012/07/student_shot_at_fireworks_show_died_next_morning)

<comment><USER5> I'm so sorry for your loss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> FWIW, I saw a drone hovering above the 5 freeway back in September right after the border patrol crossing. I think it was in the strip between Camp Pendleton and Oceanside.

It looked about the size of a microwave or a toaster oven, had at least 4 blades, and seemed to have a ridiculously good, likely six-axis attitude control and was simply hovering over the 5 doing god-knows-what.

Definitely a strange welcome to San Diego after being gone for 5 years.

<comment><USER8> That sounds like it would have been within R-2503A, which is the restricted airspace over and around Camp Pendleton. The Marines operate UAVs so it could have been part of a military exercise.

<comment><USER7> Thank you so much for this info! So, if I understand you correctly, the airspace above the freeway is still restricted even though the Highway is public land? Is this accurate?

I agree that it's entirely feasible that this was a military exercise.

What seemed particularly strange about it from my POV was that the drone was hovering directly above passing traffic. As I mentioned, it had extremely good attitude control and was just lingering directly above the flow of traffic with what looked like cameras.

I can't personally understand why a "military exercise" requires hovering over civilians for extended periods of time, but I'm sure there could be extremely reasonable explanations. I'd still like the benefit of at least being offered one though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is it just me or does this not seem like a big deal? Yes, they didn't comply with the law, but they appear to have done it out of laziness rather than trying to hide something. After reading the full FOIA request linked in morisy's comment, it seems to me that they were responsive to the request, but not the the extent that Muckrock wanted. They didn't want to go dredge up the footage video that the drone sales team gave them. They probably didn't really know where it was. But they did say that they didn't purchase any drones, and acknowledged a sales inquiry.

</comment><comment><USER6> Unless there's missing information, this sounds like a non-story. It seems like the San Diego PD looked at a quote that was sent to a different police department and never bought anything. They didn't respond to the FOIA request because they hadn't bought anything. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER2> We asked them for any documents related to drone purchasing plans, drone guidance, internal reports on usage, etc. That they decided not to go through with a purchase is irrelevant in this case: They flatly stated they had nothing, which was, at best, inaccurate.

Public records laws are of little use if the government can lie or mislead without oversight or repercussion.

Hope that makes sense!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Find some info about your own jurisdiction(s) and pass it on to Muckrock to (hopefully) find out what they plan to do wrt drones: [https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/jul/03/drone- wat...](https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/jul/03/drone-watch-help- eff-and-muckrock-uncover-planned-/#file)

</comment><comment><USER11> Note to people in positions of authority: people have to actively want to use technology that lets you surveil them for it to work.

Note to entrepreneurs: build such technology and you'll get rich.

Note to people not in positions of authority: don't be so naive.</comment>


Attenborough's classics go online - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8273000/8273655.stm

<comment><USER2> I love Sir David Attenborough! Some of my fondest memories growing up were watching his shows on PBS with my family. The way he talks and grips audiences without all of the antics that a lot of the newer hosts use is a lost art form. I even bought the Planet Earth series with him as the narrator instead of Sigourney Weaver (although she did a good job too).

<comment><USER3> Wow, I didn't realise they re-voiced them for the US market! Is this usual for British productions that make it over the pond?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is this working for anyone outside the UK? I get "This content doesn't seem to be working. Try again later." when I visit <http://www.bbc.co.uk/wildlifefinder/> \- are they using their usual IP filtering?

<comment><USER4> Yes they are:

[http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/lic...](http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/licence_overseas)</comment></comment>


Anyone familiar with www.updox.com? - <AUTHOR>

I was digging through some medical tech news and came across www.updox.com (I'm in the healthcare field).  Seems like a interesting concept. Any here have info on this company or know anyone that has used it?  Thanks! <comment><USER2> It's built on the Direct protocol, so I'm not seeing why it's particularly special. Direct, secure messaging and V/D/T is a requirement for the 2014 MUS2....</comment>


Google Is Quietly Rebuilding Itself Offline - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcodesign.com/3067713/google-is-quietly-rebuilding-itself-offline <comment><USER2> "Quietly" is the new clickbait headline trend word of the moment. Would be great if we banned it here. Don't believe me, search HN or reddit for "quietly."

</comment><comment><USER3> Not sure if the author has been to many of the developing countries he's talking about. While network coverage in the US becomes very unreliable (and often 2G or slow 3G) if you leave cities&interstates, the network in many Asian countries seems to be rather more reliable. Perhaps it's because there has never been a 2G network, they started with 3G/4G.

So far, Google Maps offline has helped me most on trips through the US.</comment>


American Express files patent for blockchain based payment processing - <AUTHOR> http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20180075453.PGNR.&OS=dn/20180075453&RS=DN/20180075453 <comment><USER2> This seems like a meaningless broad generic patent using buzzwords to try and generate some valuable "intellectual property" that could be licensed, sold or used in a patent war.</comment>


Why Your Job Application Emails are Not Getting Any Responses - <AUTHOR> http://reliscore.com/why-your-emails-are-getting-no-responses-from-the-companies-you-apply-to A majority of the students passing out of Engineering colleges in India have no clue how to write an email. Missing subject lines, sms lingo, bulk applications to companies, spelling errors, and bad cover letters (or no cover letters) abound. Colleges should, but aren't teaching them this - and it's up to us to educate the students.<p>Good students get rejected because of bad cover emails (and because they did not know any better) <comment><USER2> tl;dr: Write like crap, get passed over.</comment>


Why Ghana Started a Space Program - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-ghana-started-a-space-program <comment><USER2> Good for them. I think putting a cubesat to orbit is under $100k these days.

Was thinking an EM railgun (either from ground or from a plane flying as high as it can) could probably put a nanosat type payload to orbit for much less.

My guess is there will be a lot more satellites (and eventually debris) in orbit in the coming decades.

<comment><USER3> A company in the UK is working on a multithrust rocket/launch vehicle that would be reusable. It mixes a super-cooled jet engine with a rocket booster. For once you get beyond enough air pressure for the jet engine.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_\(rocket_engine\)) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_\(spacecraft\))

Something like this, that's reusable, would allow small (but larger than cubesat) payloads into orbit for what should be a reasonable price. 200 launch lifetime on the vehicle is the plan.

<comment><USER4> Seems like a really interesting idea. For now I've got my money on SpaceX in terms of decreasing the cost to orbit first, they have the hardware already up and flying, and it's a bit less exotic so the engineering issues may be more well understood.

<comment><USER3> I agree, I think SpaceX will have re-usable rockets with the Falcon 9 long before this is working. But I believe you could extend the jet-powered-rockets to larger launch vehicles than you could the tech in the Falcon 9. Plus, the tech might be able to be extended to have cheaper super-sonic flights. But that's long ways down the road.

<comment><USER4> I agree, it's quite an exciting proposition if we can get a real space plane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Space Exploration can be debated, but launching Satellites, every country should be able to do it.

<comment><USER6> Why should every country be able to launch satellites? There are many countries which have no sea ports, yet they all need space ports?

<comment><USER5> Should have the ability to build satellites and if geography permits should be able to launch them _

<comment><USER6> Apologies for being repetitive, but you didn't answer my question. Why does a country need to be able to build and/or launch satellites? I really can't see any reason for it. There are many countries with little or no shipbuilding and/or port capabilities.

Switzerland has done very well without a sea port, and I cannot imagine why any country needs satellite capabilities (aside from nationalism).

<comment><USER5> The advantages of Earth observing satellites in the arena of \- telecommunications \- navigation & mapping \- meteorology \- agriculture, mining etc. things that are part of both defense and commerce.

>>and I cannot imagine why any country needs satellite capabilities (aside from nationalism).<< GPS ?

<comment><USER6> There is a strong case for there being satellite and launch providers/provisioners; this does not mean that every country needs their own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ghana is at an interesting position vis-a-vis UK.

We are on the same time zone, and there are about five daily flights between london, which has what anecdotally feels like a big Ghanaian population.

I am not sure where I am going with this other than if Ghana was a stock, she would be a strong buy.

<comment><USER8> Ghana does have a stock exchange so if you really believe and not just hope that Ghana is on the rise buy some stock - put your advice to the test.

<comment><USER7> Thank you. I shall

<comment><USER8> I hope to read a feel-good story on your blog about this in a few years' time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Every time I hear of an underdog trying to introduce a space program I'm reminded of the anime Planetes and the pessimistic take it had on the issue.

But it would be great if Ghana did indeed stat a Space Program. We need at least one African country seriously trying to build a bridge to the stars.</comment>


Overleaf v2–Launch Announcement - <AUTHOR> https://www.overleaf.com/blog/654-overleaf-v2-launch-announcement <comment><AUTHOR> Overleaf (or writeLaTeX as we were back then) got off the ground in part thanks to early support from the HN community.

Last year we joined forces with ShareLaTeX, and the culmination of a year's efforts in combining the two platforms is about to be released in full (it's been in beta for most of 2018).

Feedback is always appreciated, good or bad, and so I wanted to post this here to see what the HN community makes of it, over five years since we first got started :)</comment>


The wit and wisdom of Dr Johnson is still of benefit to us all - <AUTHOR> https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-dr-johnson-is-still-of-benefit-to-us-all/ <comment><USER2> I think the wit and wisdom of Johnson was pretty much all wit and no wisdom.</comment>


I always new that computers kill :-( - <AUTHOR> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/get-up-get-out-dont-sit/

<comment><USER2> "knew" not "new"</comment>