Live data from Hacker News

Building FireStriker: Making Civic Tech Free

firestriker.org

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: Building FireStriker: Making Civic Tech Free

#11
The author might like knowing about a similar effort targeting Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR), that was discussed here a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46290916.

It relies on automated scraping + human confirmation. Louis Rossman describes how it works in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W420BOqga_s

Re: Building FireStriker: Making Civic Tech Free

#13
This is great but confused me at first because it's slightly misusing the term "civic tech". It's generally used pretty broadly to include all government and gov-adjacent technology. Public monitoring and engagement tools are a part of it but that's just one piece. Civic tech includes actual government projects like Healthcare.gov and IRS Direct File (RIP); organizing platforms like MoveOn.org and ActBlue; and volunteer programs like Code for America and U.S. Digital Response.

The line at the bottom of the page does a better job of describing what specifically this project is:

"FireStriker is a free civic engagement and legislative intelligence platform for community organizations, unions, PACs, and activists."

Re: Building FireStriker: Making Civic Tech Free

#16
post #5

Kind of sad to see AI water use as the first listed issue motivating this. It is a completely fake concern. See here: https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

There is so much nuance and context missing that I can't see this as anything other than astroturfing.

I can get behind "AI water use is not a serious concern" if all you are talking about is selling inference, and you're comparing some sort of usage metric (e.g. "water use per request"). Water and power use for inference is on the level of other heavy Internet products like video streaming or cloud compute.

There is a lot I can't ignore, though. Model training is incredibly demanding, so much that OpenAI was trying to get $1 trillion in investment to practically double the number of data centers in the United States by 2030. That is a serious concern when we have to make decisions between, say, consumer water availability and tech investment in water-scarce areas like Arizona and New Mexico.

In Oregon, there are some unique problems with Amazon's water deals in Umatilla, where they are increasing nitrate concentration of the local groundwater through evaporative cooling, and refusing to pay for on-site treatment.

I can go on about other environmental harms, but I think you should take a more nuanced look at the issue. Having ChatGPT summarize a news article is not an unreasonable demand compared to other compute activities, but AI in general is driving compute demand so high that the general public is forced to reckon with a problem that's been there since the beginning: the expansion, operation and use of the Internet has physical environmental consequences.

Re: Building FireStriker: Making Civic Tech Free

#17
post #8

I've been working on legislative data for 15 years now, on open source scrapers with OpenStates and running a commercial product targeted at professionals (competitor to those in the article). We tried for years with OpenStates to run a free legislative tracking product before eventually having it partner with a commercial provider who was willing to contribute the resources to keep it alive and help out with the ope…

> Fiscalnote burned 750 million dollars in VC money on this

What percentage of that went towards solving the actual problem?

3/4 of a billion dollars is enough to pay many, many people 50$ an hour to sit at a screen 24/7 and refresh any number of websites you want.

Re: Building FireStriker: Making Civic Tech Free

#18
All civic tech is awesome, but a word of advice (may or may not be applicable in your particular neck of the woods, but definitely is in mine):

Public comment is one of the least effective mechanisms for influencing policy, at least at the margin. You can drastically amplify your influence with a simple change: move from public to private commentary, directly and personally addressing your state and local reps. They all have email addresses and I think it's more likely than not you'll be surprised when they (and it'll actually be them, not some factotum) respond to your email.

This would stop working if everybody did it, but I live in an unusually (famously, in fact) engaged municipality and have been unreasonably successful at influencing policy and the evidence I see is that almost nobody does this.

There's probably a civic tech thingy to do here. Though I'd also be mindful of the appearance of canvassing. My experience is that decisionmakers very quickly clock canvassing efforts, and then mentally bucket input into "low-effort" and "high-effort", often in a way that amplifies smaller interests.

I also think you can probably get a long way just by doing a better job than your policy adversaries at presenting information. Another thing I've noticed reps quickly clocking: the commenters who clearly have never read a budget, or who don't know the difference between an Enterprise Fund and the General Fund. These are also problems tech can solve, by digesting and contextualizing data so people can present informed (or informed-sounding) arguments.

Re: Building FireStriker: Making Civic Tech Free

#19
Very good. I love the spirit. The cause.

Not sure you should be free. You want to be sustainable but not for profit.

Charging the customer is the small guys weapon to keep going.

The big guys cal also do that but they can subsidize lossy departments and sell data, sell stovk etc.

Make it GPLv3 open source if you want to offer a free.version

Post reply on HN