21–30 of 31 posts
This is idiotic. Silicon Valley and all the surrounding areas vote overwhelmingly Democratic. One stupid piece of legistation doesn't overcome the fact that the GOP are science-hating religious zealots. Republicans have a LOT of work to do before many people in this region would even consider a vote for them.
I quote from http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/sssca3.html
"According to the RIAA, the value of all CD's, live presentations, music videos, dvds in 1998 (from http://www.riaa.com/pdf/md_riaa10yr.pdf) was 13.72 billion US$.
According to the SOI, in 1998 the business receipts of the computer and electronic product manufacturing including both hardware and software (they do not divide it further) was 560.27 billion US$. This of course excludes the value of all the data stored on computers."
Also, Silicon Valley's business model depends on public trust of the cloud. As David K. Levine points out, SOPA/PIPA undermines public trust in the cloud, so Silicon Valley was right to oppose it. The choice is between supporting an industry in decline that turns to government for protection from competition, versus supporting a dynamic industry where the incentive is to grow businesses.
This is idiotic. Silicon Valley and all the surrounding areas vote overwhelmingly Democratic. One stupid piece of legistation doesn't overcome the fact that the GOP are science-hating religious zealots. Republicans have a LOT of work to do before many people in this region would even consider a vote for them.
I'm not sure I agree that it is idiotic. Certainly the GOP's track record on neutrality is abhorrent, but if the Republicans successfully turn this into a partisan issue where they are against and the dems are for, those who typically vote democrat and also support the internet will be faced with a decision in regard to what issue(s) take priority and who will be rewarded with the vote. Keep in mind that a republican…
There are other parties. If you don't want to vote for Republicans or Democrats, then don't .
As an systems architect and somebody who consults with large technology organizations, I am extremely interested in how systems of people interact -- hence the political junkie thing. But as part of watching that interaction, I've noted that we all we have a tendency to become very tribal, especially when the topic of our favorite "teams" come up.
So yes, I think it's very important to learn facts like the number of Republicans that jumped ship and the fact that Al Franken was a sponsor of the bill. Just like it's important to know that many members of the Democrat party hang on to the idea of the bill and that the administration was in support of it before they jumped ship as well. These are facts -- if you care about PIPA/SOPA you should know this.
But once we move into political analysis, which side is doing what for which reasons, I think the article becomes much more shaky as a topic for HN. Whether or not one party may benefit or not touches directly on what you already think of each party, so the comment thread could end up with just so much posturing.
As a libertarian, to me the interesting things are 1) that both parties supported the bills by large margins (or they wouldn't have been reported out of committee) until they got caught and 2) many years ago there was some general bipartisan agreement to freaking leave the internet alone. I'd like to know what happened to that. But because that's going to be a "team story" that's probably a topic for a different board besides HN.
There are other parties. If you don't want to vote for Republicans or Democrats, then don't .
Instead of spending time and effort to persuade people to throw their votes away, spend time and effort changing the voting system so that voting for third parties isnt as futile as FPTP. In the European parliament, the members belong to approx 160 different parties. In the US, you have 2. It has been known for a long time that FPTP converges to 2 (Duverger's law). It makes no sense to keep FPTP but then make voters…
Both parties are against our interests. Conservatives are for maintaining the status quo which is the opposite of what we do. Both parties cater to special interests, in this case placing democrats against us.
If our industry started putting votes and money behind a third party that let us do what we do best and left us alone (aka Libertarians) we'd be much better off.
There are other parties. If you don't want to vote for Republicans or Democrats, then don't .
Instead of spending time and effort to persuade people to throw their votes away, spend time and effort changing the voting system so that voting for third parties isnt as futile as FPTP. In the European parliament, the members belong to approx 160 different parties. In the US, you have 2. It has been known for a long time that FPTP converges to 2 (Duverger's law). It makes no sense to keep FPTP but then make voters…
I'm a political junkie, but I'm also a long-time HNer; I urge caution with stories like this. As an systems architect and somebody who consults with large technology organizations, I am extremely interested in how systems of people interact -- hence the political junkie thing. But as part of watching that interaction, I've noted that we all we have a tendency to become very tribal, especially when the topic of our fa…
It wasn't a threat at that point. It was a novelty. It's easy to agree to leave a novelty alone. It's difficult when it's threatening the revenue stream of the guys lining your pockets.
> that both parties supported the bills by large margins (or they wouldn't have been reported out of committee) until they got caught
Look, as much as we want to believe that our representatives actually read the stuff they're pushing, the truth is, they don't. I would be shocked if a singe member of the committee responsible for the bill actually read the damn thing. Each of them is on quite a few other committees, responsible for quite a few other bills, have speaking engagements, businesses, books they're writing, etc etc.
They decide on what to vote for and push based on who's supporting it. Some members of the GOP saw the Chamber of Commerce as a supporter and jumped on board. Commerce = Business = Good. Seriously, that was the thought process.
Once they saw the push-back, they realized things were more complicated than that, and dropped support.
Can the GOP be a strong ally for leaving the Internet alone? Absolutely. As long as Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc. line their pockets right before re-election time. If that happens, I promise you, they'll vote for whatever bill the "Internet" endorses. Without reading it. It's a promise.
Isn't it about time for people in our industry to admit they're libertarian and vote (and donate) that way? Both parties are against our interests. Conservatives are for maintaining the status quo which is the opposite of what we do. Both parties cater to special interests, in this case placing democrats against us. If our industry started putting votes and money behind a third party that let us do what we do best an…
Yes!
> If our industry started putting votes and money behind a third party
No!
For you to win in the general election with 3 parties, you'd need to muster at least a third of the vote.
That's a lot of people!
For you to win a primary of a major party, you would need to muster the vote of a fourth of the voting populace. Actually, it's even lower than that, since many don't affiliate themselves with a party and out of those, many don't vote in primaries. On top of that, you can end the primary early as long as you kill off your opponents in a few early states.
So it's much easier to take over an existing party (like the GOP) than to create a third. On top of that, all those conservatives you don't like ... well, they'll vote for your guy now. Because they have a choice of two and they like your guy more.
Ron Paul is doing it right. That's the only way a libertarian leaning pol will ever get close to the presidency.