Slashdot Mirror
The Worst Coders In Washington
spooky writes "The American Open Technology Consortium, 'a nonprofit organization of technologists who have joined together to educate lawmakers and regulators about technology -- especially in regards to The Internet' has compiled a list of the lawmakers responsible for eight bad internet laws. They say, 'These bad coders and their backers have done more damage to computing, the Internet and freedom than all the virus authors, spammers and crackers combined', Do you agree? Did they miss anyone?"
I always wonder about articles like this. Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse.
Maybe if so many script kiddies/ warez'ers/ napsterites hadn't gone so fscking overboard downloading/spamming/sharing, the legislations wouldn't have any backing. It would be too much bother for so little.
But, unfortunately, the masses found out, and spoiled for the rest of us.
I don't have a sig...Do you??
Looking at the list of congress critters, one might believe republicans deserve full blame.
Except, of course, that each bill needed a majority vote to pass, and each was signed into law by Bill Clinton, the only person that could have single-handledly stopped them.
Those that voted for the bills (many of whom are democrats) deserve just as much blame as those that authored or introduced them.
sigh
with a public presence like this, it's just one more well-intentioned group blowing a lot of air without making a sound...
No offense to those not US citizens. In fact, use my state (LA)'s motto (vote early, and vote often), and vote too, esp. if you are dead!
It also seems that they might not know dick about what they are doing. Mind you, most of the lawmakers on Capital Hill are old fashion, and might be afriad of this new tech. They may not know how to handle it the right way, and will panic which will lead them to approve of a unfair law. How do you think the DMCA was able to pass?
it is defn. important to have a list of the worst offenders, but even more useful would be the best of the bunch! knowing who to support is more effective than knowing who to trash - the truth is that this battle is going to need help from the inside, so lets recognize those lawmakers who can help.
one that i can identify is Orrin Hatch. i hear he is very distrustful of the MPAA, RIAA, and others who want to use their lobby money to preserve their dinosaur business models.
smd4985
These bad coders and their backers have done more damage to computing, the Internet and freedom than all the virus authors, spammers and crackers combined.
Note that these are not all laws. Some are just stupid ideas that are perhaps a sign of things to come if we don't do put up a fight. Well actually they are all stupid ideas, but only a couple are stupid laws.
Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats -- gave his blessings to the DMCA; he didn't oppose it, he didn't criticize it, he didn't veto it.
Remember that the DMCA was passed almost unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans, as was the 1998 Copyright Extension Act; likewise with almost all other draconian anti-consumer intellectual property laws, and digital laws.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I'm only counting 8 votes for the DMCA, and somehow I don't think thats enough for it to pass the house and senate. These numbers are pretty incomplete, so before jumping to such statistical conclusions, you might want to get the full data set
It's kind of silly to criticize a law for being written and pushed by a small number of lawmakers -- most all laws, including some great ones, are like this. And while log-rolling is certainly important on the Hill, in the end a majority needs to vote for a law, and the President has to sign it. Often the real tragedy is the laws that don't get passed, that die in commitee and such.
Some of these laws were passed for lobbyists (DCMA, P2P...) and other to please or pander to the public (CDA, COPA, CDA...). I think some of them are passed by lawmakers knowing full well they're unconstitutional; they take the credit and the courts take care of the bogus law (the flag burning statue, for example).
But on all of them the accountability is clear, and voters should hold their representatives accountable. A list like this helps a lot; the problem is getting folks to look at it and the alphabet soup of statutes. An honest lawmaker will do that pn your behlaf, hence the idea of representation.
Potent is the idea that special interest "buy" legislation through their contributions. Even when the contribution doesn't affect the lawmaker's judgment -- for example, and NRA donation to an avowedly pro-gun lawmaker -- the appearance of impropriety is terrible. And the more common abuse is the laws you don't see, that are quietly killed. Hence the need for even stricter campaign finance reform, within the limits of the 1st Amendment. Strangely Alericans have been quicker to embrace measures like term limits rather than the stream of money that pollutes the debate and most benefits those without compunction at taking it.
Evidence that moderation really works. Parent had a +1 score.
Like you're one to vote on the issues with that party line.
Not all "techies" are Democrats. Sheesh. And the reality is, this is not a partisan issue, no matter how much you want to make it be. That was, after all, part of the point of the AOTC listing. There are reps from both sides of the fence; they're all getting paid off.
But, partisans be partisan. Oooo, ooo, economy--some say, "see, Bush's fault!" Reality is, Bushie ain't doing much now (I think he should deregulate markets more, but noooo) for future improvement and present perception, but the current economic climate is not his "fault" in a cause-effect relationship. Heck, given most bubbles were from the Clinton era with a Republican congress, both didn't incite much help or further development. Economists have said again and again that what the present adminitration does in the current term has little effect on the current term.
Then again, the right wing conspiracists are probably all saying the media is run by liberals and the economy is tanking because all the rich leftists pulled their money out of the markets causing the current climate (and hence forcing the political climate change). And someone's probably saying that he'd bet those lousy liberals colluded with the west coast dock workers too!!!
Meanwhile, the left wingers are probably saying that the lower interest rates favor businesses, although it probably favors the housing market even more such that more folks are buying homes (and conversely argued, getting screwed because of generally rising property taxes which they shell out in full whether they have a loan or buy outright).
Lovely this world of politics. I'll vote on the races, not the party line. The party line is what causes alignments to occur between politicans and groups (i.e. special interests), so I'll vote on the issues, hoping that in the chaos of a mixed political body, it'll be more difficult for such "legal limits over free market competition alignments" to occur.
The elections are tomorrow for us in the USA. We can at least vote for representatives that are "on our side" in these issues (Privacy, censorship, pick your favorite issue)
Does anybody have any suggestions, I am looking for NYC/NY State. Any good pages that will give stances and voting histories?
GO OUT AND VOTE TOMORROW!!! But please, do a little research first. 10 mins online will probably put you in the top half of informed voters.
ej
I also find your party-line voting suggestion to be harmful.
Voting along party lines is only for idiots, and will invariably produce undesireable results.
You can only vote along party lines if you agree with *everything* that a party stands for; even then, its not safe, because many Republicans deviate from the Republian platform, likewise with many Democrats. I consider myself Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I can just vote for any Libertarian who runs...why? Because there's some thing in the Libertarian platform I disagree with, and I don't know which tenants of the Libertarian platform someone is going to stick to.
The only way to vote intelligently is to research the candidates thoroughly and decide if you like what they stand for, or if you don't. You'll never find a candidate who you agree with completely; the idea is to vote for the one who's positions and actions are the closest to those you have or you'd take.
Voting along party lines for Democrats might be good in one state, regarding digital freedoms and intellectual property. But in Utah, it might elect Orin Hatch -- a pro-Napster, pro-technology, anti-IP (in its current form) Senator (R) -- out of office.
The best thing to do is to figure out what each candidates positions are on various issues. Attention should be paid to what they say they will do, but you should take that with a grain of salt. More important, is how did they vote on various bills. Firstly, look at their attendance record for voting on bills. If they're absent on half of them, they're not good Senators or Representatives. For those they did vote on, did they vote as you would have? Make a simple list like such. +1 is assigned for voting as you would voe, -1 for voting against your wishes. Add appropriate weights for things which you consider more important.
It is the kind of party-lines thinking that the parent advocates which is a major problem in our system, and why the wrong people get elected; its also part of why third parties -- though usually being superior -- are kept off the voting ballot and rarely elected.
I used to think like the parent, when I was a teenager. I thought of myself as a Republican. However, as I grew older (hence smarter), I realized that I disagreed with the Republican platform on many things which were important to me (i.e., abortion, prostitution, drugs, stripping, euthanasia, gay rights, and religion).
Don't be locked into the "I'm a Dem/Repub" mentality. Determine what your position is on the issues, and vote for (s)he who's closer to that position by in what they say and what they've done.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Oh really? Who signed DMCA into law again? CDA? NET?
All Clinton.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
This came up in a conversation I had with a librarian today...
I think that information is the most powerful weapon on earth. The internet is therefore extremly important, and anyone who would control the flow of information is extremely dangerous.
If you really think about it, Sadam isn't likely to churn out a bunch of nuclear war heads. Its not practicle. He'll get nuked too. With that out of the way, you can consider most military moves these days to be more like chess. It is not so much about who will be destroyed, but rather who has the potential for an attack. The potential reality is much more powerful than an attacking reality.
What we need to really fear are the forces that would control information. I think that the people who can ban internet in China, or regulate an ISP are more dangerous than all of your nuclear war heads and biowarefare combined.
Unfortunatly, slashdotters like to call these people congressman, and politians, but the freedom of the internet burdens on its users, and the people who create it.
Rob
A week or so ago, Jesse Helms went up to bat for online rights. I guess he isn't a Republican in your book? But Howard Berman is a Republican. Oh wait, no he's not. Also, who was President when the DMCA was passed?
Anyway, "all you techies", don't judge a person by his or her political party. See what they stand for.
This guy is way out there
As a resident in D.C., I have no voting representation in either the house or the senate (our one delegate can vote in committee in the house - whoopie.)
So vote one for the technies for me!
Support Voting Rights for DC
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Just wait until 60 days before the next election.
What happens then if the CBDTPA comes up for debate then?
It doesn't matter how much money the EFF has, they won't be able to run an issue ad.
Complain all you want about laws that limit code as speech, but don't stand and cheer laws that limit speech as speech.
Most democrats consider bill clinton "The Best Republican President we ever had". The truth is, the political climate has shifted so far to the right that most of the mainstream liberals are somewhere in the center. But seriously, look at those numbers:
rez@service01:~$ cat t | grep R- | wc -l
74
rez@service01:~$ cat t | grep D- | wc -l
19
(lazy mans way of counting)
They don't lie. I'm so sick of everyone pissing and moaning about Gore's infamous "I invented the internet". Why? Because its not a direct quote, he's never said it and not a single republican whose ever quoted it infront of me could come up with proof its a direct quote. I even saw it used on slashdot today... How shameful.
Yes, Micheal Moore has it right: Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. They're two groups who control our government with the backing of big business. The difference is the extent they're willing to sell their souls to industry. And whilst near 80% of the republicans sold out on thw issue of internet rights (free speech, fair use etc) only 20% of the democrats did. So maybe I am a troll, maybe this is flamebait but still - the numbers don't lie!
I read the article, as I'm sure everyone else did (ha!). An observation:
Does anyone else think that the AOTC might have a better chance of getting their point across if the article didn't read like something straight out of Conspiracy Theory? I expected some insight, some indepth discussion about WHY each bill was bad and WHAT chilling effects on various technology areas it might have. Instead, I got FUD. And, no matter how well-intentioned, FUD == FUD.
Screw both the Democrats and Republicans. Both of them listen only to their corporate masters.
If you are left/liberal, concider voting Green. If you are right/conservative, concider voting Libertarian. If you aren't sure where you are, don't like those choices or there isn't an alternative candidate running in the race you are voting, vote against the incumbant.
As for me, I'm voting Green where there's a Green candidate, Libertarian if there isn't a Green, and against the incumbant if neither a Green or Libertarian is running. If there's no Green, Libertarian, or incumbant to vote against, I'll vote for myself on a write in ballot.
Vote Democrat this November -- if not for them, for the poor children who are starving in the streets, the racially discriminated, the handicapped, and the gun violence victims.
Yes, I ran over a few on my way to Republican Party headquarters, just for sport. Because they're all over the place you know.
Then I listened to an address by the white Secretary of State and white National Security Adviser.
Then I went up a ramp for the handicapped from that hideos ADA signed into law by that well known Democrat, Bush. Curse him!
Then I drove into Southeast DC and left my vehicle unlocked and jingled my change without fear because guns are outlawed there, so no outlaws have guns.
But fortunately the Senator from Disney is a Republican, so I felt wonderfully secure in my allegience to the RIAA and MPAA.
It must be nice to know that a vague collection of competing interests just happens to be morally pure as the wind driven snow. Wait, you were saying vote Libertarian, right?
Sheesh.
This is really stupid. How would you like the RIAA to remotely erase your hard drive for having a copy of a Britney Spears MP3? How would you like to be forced to buy certain hardware to be able to view DVDs from around the world or just listen to your plain ol' CD from BestBuy because of stupid CD Copy Protection mechanisms blocking you from playing it otherwise.
Just because you have not had FBI knocking on your door (of course the ratio of people breaking laws a little bit to FBI actually coming to get you is small) doesn't mean it wont happen. If there are mega-corporations pushing for more and more of these kinds of laws and almost no one is pushing back, you will feel pretty stupid and sore in 5-10 or more years with your ass being constantly pounded in jail... with a life sentence for seems like something that should be only minor offenses or not illegal at all.
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
The real question is: do you think G.W. Bush would have been less supportive of these anti-free speech laws? Or would he have been more so? Would there have been even more draconian measures stuck into them?
And which party was pushing the most for these corporate welfare bills? Do you think it was the Democrats? Seriously?
Just because Clinton didn't have a perfect 100% voting record doesn't mean we shouldn't give him credit for the 90% record he did have. Compared to our current President, who seems willing to destroy America's freedoms in order to "save" it, he was a strongly positive influence.
I'm just sorry so many Americans are so inattentive to the issues, they allow their precious liberties to be whittled away.
The UK RIP, Council of Europe Cybercrime Treaty, and EU support for American DMCA law demostrates that even with the removal of major corporations from the political campaign funding process, EU politicians are just as capable of stark idiocy as that which US politicians have been paid off to commit. The bad laws you fear are already on the way via pressure from the USA. The good news is that EU governments are heading towards Open Source, which means they aren't necessarily fanatically opposed to good ideas.
The EU, among other places, has an opportunity to seize technological and incidentally, military leadership from the USA in the long run, by simply refusing to pass bad anti-technology laws because the US government and entertainment industry and Religious Right wants them passed.
Getting politicians to do nothing shouldn't be all that difficult. If I were in the EU and trying to get politicians to refrain from passing bad laws on technology and the Internet, I'd be asking questions like:
"Why does [insert your country's name here] need to pass a law which only gives advantage to the USA entertainment industry? Isn't it more important to protect our high-tech industries from them?"
"If America is bent on giving up its high tech leadership with laws like [insert bad US law that your nation seems to be trying to copy] shouldn't you be supporting our high-tech industry by not imitating the worst ideas of Washington, DC? Do you want us to have to buy leading-edge high tech from China, Taiwan, and India in the future? Why should we level the playing field for America when its problems are of its own making?"
Tech Public Policy stuff
Vote 3rd Party
It is quite obvious that the democrats are too short sighted on fiscal issues and republicans are too controlling on social issues. Sadly both are influenced by whoever gives them the most money(Few exceptions...McCain,Feingold). Both parties tend to oversimplify the issues. Nothing short of the rise of different parties will rid this nation duopoly on government. How in the world is it possible that the population for the most part only have two strains of political thought?
Do not vote Democrat just for the sake of voting Democrat. It would be too ridiculous.
Blah Blah Tacos
Throw your vote away on a first-party candidate.
The only real change in the system will come about if people vote third party.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
It still strikes me as odd that politicians can create laws that govern so much of what goes on through the internet, when they have no knowledge of it themselves
Not just the internet. Any technology from the last decade. They're not engineers, and they're not prepared to understand technical issues. Not that most engineers I know would be able to handle the full gamut of lawmaking. All the same, we need to do our best to educate our representatives about how these things are such bad ideas. Otherwise they'll just follow the money and doom us to a world that just sucks a bit more.
-Thorn
You had to know you were going to get flamed with this off-topic garbage.
"If not for them, for the poor children who are starving in the streets [who would have more money if the Democrats weren't raping their parents and potential employers with taxes and the social security Ponzi scheme], the racially discriminated [such as those protestant, white males who, through no fault of their own, can't get into college thanks to racist Affirmative Action plans], the handicapped [like me (I'm hearing impaired) who want the satisfaction of doing things for themselves instead of having forced charity (aka "welfare") take care of them], and the gun violence victims [who died because the gun control lobby took the guns away from the victims and they were unable to defend themselves]."
See? We can all play this stupid political rhetoric game. How about we vote for politicians based on the issues that are important to US, instead of to SexyKellyOsbourne?
Me? I'm going to vote for the politicians that want government to adhere to the Constitution and are gravely concerned about the government ever taking any right away from me to live my life the way I see fit, however immoral or environmentally unconscious it might be:
Is that politician going to vote to take away my right to use software the way I want? -- no vote
Is that politician going to take my money and give it to you so you can feed your starving kids when I don't know you? -- no vote
Is that politician going to make it illegal for me to light up a joint in the privacy of my own home? -- no vote
Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house? -- no vote
Is that politician going to prevent me from saying whatever I want on my website? -- no vote
Is that politician going to prevent drilling for oil by environmentally-conscious, high-tech American companies so we can be forced to by oil from countries that use rickety ships and could care less about the environment? -- no vote
Those are the issues that are important to me. Should you vote the way I do? Hell no! Vote for the politicians that represent your interests the best.
These laws really suck. But I think a lot of us are missing the real issue at hand here. It is not that the bad code mentioned in the article would stifle the growth of technology and the internet, it is not that they affect our daily internet/pr0n/piracy binges, nor is it the fact that people with no real knowledge of the technology are making/passing them. The real issue is that although the majority of the american population does not want these laws to be passed a few people with a lot of money are making it happen. Democracy my ass!! And what can we 'the people' do about it?? Nothing. ;)
I am glad I am presently living/working in Canada. Maybe I will stay here
www.madeofwinandawesome.com
That is not toooo surprising considering that is about the time the DOJ went after them with a flame thrower. The DOJ wanted to cleave up their company! With no real plan of why. The DOJ at that time was controlled by a democrat. MS figured out the enemy of my enemy is my friend... MS figured out the hidden tax. Pay or die...
Just remember what you see about ANY politics is usually distored by the one telling you. Because you dislike MS you blame the GOP. You have distorted your own view for that.
Remember most statistics can be changed by the smallest of things. The data that would be most interesting to see would be WHO voted for those bills.
Bush is also about the only president that I have been able to understand. He doesnt talk about bubbles, shields, or twinkly lights. He seems to do what he says he was going to do. Which is frankly somewhat refreshing. However it has the effect of making him seem less visionary. But we do not need visionaries. We need people who can make good decisions...
The thing that ticks me off is that most of what we see going on is a distorted view. Take 'the market'. When everything was growing and growing with NO fundamentals to show why. The media was a feeding frenzy of 'new market'. Now that the real truth to the mater was that it was a raping of the market by some shady dudes. Its the 'dot-com bust'. Yet during this time where was the SEC? They were getting budget cuts and told not to touch companies. We hear NOTHING of that. We here that its the tax-cuts fault, or post 9/11's fault. Whu!? These companies had no real rules that helped people. And the SEC was just letting them do it. Yet we get this wierd distorted view of it.
Also remember its not JUST the GOP that is playing this game. In my state the other party decided that they were going to have a tough time getting re-elected. So they decided to redistrict. There were districts that were 20 feet wide (about the min). There were other districts that were 10 counties wide. There were some VERY pissed people on both sides. Then the Gov who didnt get his lottery decided to pout and took it out on all the cities to make up for his incresed spending to the tune of several billion. It was to make up for a HUGE short fall because he wanted a lottery and didnt think it through of what if he didnt get that lottery passed.
I dont like what the GOP does sometimes also but the other party seems just as loony if not more so sometimes. And both sides seem to forget that its MY hard earned money they are spending over there. Course they cant tell you exaxtly where it is or how much they got... But somehow they know they are overbudget?!
A Libertarian would never pass any law to promote the internet, and would never let the government spend funding on such a venture. As such, if the world were in the hands of the libertarians, we wouldn't have had one at all until it became so obvious and cheap that companies would have put one together themselves.
Which means, it still might not be there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In a state with single member plurality districts (SMPDs), which is to say, one canidate is elected by simply having more votes than everybody else, not a majority, the total number of Effective political parties will equal two.
Lets assume that in the first ever election in a district there are three parties, named A, B, and C, and A is liberal, B is moderate leaning liberal, and C is conservative. Results come in and A recieves 30%, B 30%, and C 40%. The canidate from C will then have won. Come next election, because A and B have similar intrests, they will comprimise so their common intrests can be expressed, and some of their individual ones can as well. Then, assuming that there are no major changes in the electorate between the two elections, the new proto-A & B party-D will have 60%, and will defeat C, with its 40%.
A third party on either side of the political spectrum will only serve to marganalize the the larger party, as we saw in Flordia (which is the most prominent example I think) during the 2000 presidental election. If Nader had not been running, his votes would have presumable gone to Gore, as he is closest to Nader ideologically. Gore would have won, and we'd be in a marginally different situation today.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
What does the startup funding needs to be spent on? Mainly infrastructure and professionals. We can't depend on volunteers to come forward with the right expertise, the expertise largely doesn't exist in our community. We can't expect people to do the jobs we need full-time ... forever to have done without paying them to do it.
To start with, not necessarily in this order, what's needed is:
- A DC office in a "good" area. Among other things, to get the message across to politicians that the organization is for real.
- Top bracket political lobbyists. When the organization is legally ready to collect and disburse contributions, we need people who know what they're doing to go and who are known to Capitol Hill and tell the politicians what they need to do for us to get our support.
- A Website capable of handling lots of traffic.
- A high-traffic web-to-fax gateway of the sort the ACLU, NRA, etc. has to allow us to communicate with our Congresscritters and the White House via point-and-click on issues of interest to the community.
- Legal professionals to navigate the intricacies of registering as a Federal PAC and to comply with state and federal law on political fundraising and spending.
- Political organizers / campaign consultants with at least real state-level experience. The organization is going to have to mobilize our community when it needs to be. Get our people to sign up for the mailing list so we know when Congress needs to be contacted, get our people into the field to volunteer for the political campaigns of our friends, make campaign commercials to help our friends and nail our enemies, etc., etc., etc.
- Staff to analyze new legislation and figure out what's of major interest to us, to make sure the e-mail and snailmail gets answered, to make sure that current information goes up on the Website and mailing list. This must be run by someone with relevant experience.
- A merchant credit card account capable of handling lots of small donations.
- A video production facility capable of broadcast-grade work if this can be fit into the budget.
This must be done before a single dollar is raised to help or fight a political candidate, before a single fax for or against a bill is sent, and this list is hardly complete.I don't think the problem is lack of interest, I think the problem is that... you're angry about CBDTPA. Without a credible organization that's ready to help our political friends (and given serious contribution money available, I guarantee we can make friends in Congress) and attack our political enemies that you can give money to, who will tell you who our political friends are so you can vote for them or volunteer to work for them, who will send you e-mail to let you know that it's time to hit the fax gateway to tell your Congresscritter how you want her to vote, just what the hell can you do other than to bitch and moan in places like this? Start a GeekPAC without funding or the knowhow needed to be effective? Write your Congresscritter a letter without a multi-kilobuck check enclosed?
The people with the money would rather spend it on wiring their houses for home entertainment as earlier articles here have discussed and invest in projects which probably can't be completed in the USA if laws and regulations under discussion become real.
I know where many of the professionals mentioned above can be found, a fact that doesn't really do either me or us a whole lot of good without the funding to put them to work.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Content-wise it's interesting not just becaue the poster knows his/her sh*t, but also because it highlights an approaching conundrum - lawmakers all over the US of A love to tout the technology sector as this great engine of economic growth, but clearly have very little understanding of how their actions affect the climate for the tech sector. It's not as simple as tax or don't tax, regulate or don't regulate in tech, and that confounds the parties' standard platitudes. So as the parent eloquently points out, there is not yet alignment of the parties with a particular stance on technology legislation, a state which begs techies to step into politics.
As for this:
Your cynical attitude towards politics in general prompts me to think that you're American (as am I), and it makes me sad. Of course both parties screw you, at the same time as their handing you manna. That's how power and politics have worked since the dawn of time. The military-industrial complex (definitely bipartisan, everyone wants a a lab or a military base in their district) begat DARPA and university network research begat the internet. At the same time, the military-industrial complex strengthed corporate hegemony which begat absurdly restrictive views of ideas as physical property begat DMCA. All brought to you by the same two parties, and quite likely the same cohort of politicians, or at least their proteges.
Interesting idea that well informed voters will help depolarize politics. I hope it's true, and I certainly support your claim that one should vote on issues, not a party line. I think a few more parties, a few new estates, like the "mythical" techies (who have a reputation for peppering their speech with slogans like "I hate stupidity", and fancying themselves independent thinkers), and perhaps some refined approaches to things like regulation will also help reduce some of this polarization.
To finish my other point... as a cultural milestone, these posts also interesting - just glancing through the responses shows that the site has succeeded in attracting politically knowledgeable people who have learned about tech, or vice-versa. I only hope that this crossover continues, and carries into other kinds of issues, like poverty, equality, and the environment.