Slashdot Mirror
Validity of Web-Forms-Based Advocacy Questioned
RobotRunAmok writes "We've all heard that, to better gain a legislator's attention, one should write a letter or send a fax, rather than click off an e-mail. Made sense, no? Well, PC World is reporting that the US Forestry Service is considering taking that truism to it's logical, or perhaps extreme, extension. The Tree People seek a regulation that would allow them to "ignore any public comments on the rule-making process sent to it through Web-based forms." The knickers of the EFF are in the predictable twist. The Issue: Sure, we all know Web-based petitions and advocacy campaigns are bogus, but they made us feel good, almost like we were participating in The Process, so is it really polite to rub our noses in our own ineffectuality this way?"
Would you really rather be politely ignored than impolitely engaged?
That the forestry service, who's mission is conservation, advocates wasting tons of paper each year mailing letters that could have been sent electronically.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Doesn't using electronic forms of communication "save trees" by using less paper?
However, the fact is that these people shouldn't be entrusted with the power to simply block opinions that they've heard before. The most relevant passage to me was the following:
"A bunch of e-mails that say the same thing with no specific comments don't tell us anything," Walsh says. "We'll take e-mails by the millions" if the correspondence becomes more specific, he adds.
"If you're going to take the time to respond and you care, then put some effort into it," Walsh advises correspondents.
Why should an individual have to formulate their own personal argument when their position is clearly stated in a form letter? Are we all supposed to quit our jobs and become full-time environmental researchers and activists? It seems to me that this would lock out petitions as well - after all, the petition is going to have one statement but will be signed as being the position of many people. Should each of those people have ignored the petition and instead written an individual letter?
The best course, in my opinion, is for the USDA to require a verified (automatically verified via a "go to this page" e-mail as message boards do) e-mail address on each web-based form letter they receive. This would allow them to weed out e-mail flooding by groups that are pretending to have thousands of people involved where it might in fact be just their staff filling in forms.
Alternatively, they could provide polls on their own website (provided to environmental action groups for linking) asking for opinions on each policy decision requiring public comments. Again, they could have an e-mail verification sent out that would have to be received and read (with a click verification) in an attempt to ensure that each vote is from a specific person.
Even simpler would be a "you've already given your vote/opinion" cookie, though this would be even easier to get around than a click-verify e-mail.
All of these would take a bit more work and there are still possibilities for abuse, but the solution they're proposing seems to be the most lazy and intellectually dishonest way possible - something too many bureaucrats love.
Web based petitions etc. are simply the electronic equivalent to all the paper postcard astroturf campaigns run by all sides of the political spectrum (I've seen 20/20 Vision, a liberal group, doing this, and I've seen anti-abortion and otherwise very right leaning groups do this as well). If they're going to ignore all the web form letters, they better start ignoring the paper form letters too.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
It seems really foolish to me they would discount electronic communication as a legitimate conduit for the voice of the people.
There are many advanages as well as a couple of disadvantages I can see.
Pluses:
1. The ease of use for most people is considerable. Just type and click. Many people, myself included, are too lazy or busy to sit down and write a letter, put it in an envelope with a stamp, then put it in the mail.
2. It's easily manageable. They can filter it electronically. They can make back-ups. They can measure percentages. They can quickly re-distribute messages. They can make the information readily available for the masses.
3. It's immediate. Feedback can be received on issues immediately, as they occur.
Minuses:
1. It could be flooded with astroturf, spam, junk, or just someone down the street with an agenda could write 30 messages a day skewing the data.
2. It's impersonal. If you REALLY cared you'd take the time to write or call your legislator personally.
Overall though I think the communication is what is important. I cannot see how the method of transmission can enhance or diminish the value of the thoughts or feelings contained therein.
It would be a bad policy, and a poor precedent to set, to blanketly ignore the voices of people who for whatever reason use a particular technology to speak their mind.
certainly they can come up with something better than "ignore everything".
how about "ignore anything that isn't from a verifiable email address".
Just send out a message to verify the person's email address, or use email to send each person a unique hash (and discard the email when through) so you know it's not just a semi-automated flood of junk.
I can understand the CRAP that comes through web comment forms, but certainly they must realize many people want to communicate this way.
personally, I just cut down one of those big, 50-foot-tall 100-year-old redwoods, shave off an 8.5x11 piece of wood, and write my letter on that. Then I burn the rest of the tree. it smells nice!
Why would you bother to participate in some ineffectual ritual if you know that's all it is? And if it is, what's wrong with being reminded that you ignore reality at your own peril? It may be uncomfortable for a moment, but then you can focus on other, more effective methods of change.
I don't know, why do Americans bother to vote?
Oh, wait, most of them don't.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Obligatory reference to FaxYourMP.com. I wonder why nobody in the US has managed to replicate this incredibly useful service. Web form -> paper fax. I've got three replies from two faxes sent! A 150% success rate aint bad...
It's sad that at the time I'm writing this, there are a total of 21 comments about a REAL issue that could significantly impact the political influence of every Internet user on important governmental issues, while there are 702 comments split between two topics concerned about a convicted felon's ability to get a job (Kevin Mitnick and other data criminals). I consider it to be indicative of a sad state of affairs in the world o'the Slashdot.
I'm by no means an environmental extremist and could not even be called an environmentalist. I just think it's a damn shame that people here can't seem to tell the difference between something that could be important to anyone who cares about the way our government works and something that's at best important only to people convicted of crimes.
This soapbox isn't going to hold up under my weight any longer, so I'll step down.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Let's all email them to tell them what a bad idea this is.
Deputy Chief of Staff & Director of CommunicationsKevin Herglotz - 202-720-4623 Rm 402-A Washington, DC 20250-1301
kevin.herglotz@usda.gov
FAX: 202-720-5043
One might criticize the Forest Service, but look at it this way. Every time someone sends an e-mail, this uses valuable electrons which have to be generated by coal-fueled electrical generating plants. Coal is made out of wood. The less electricity that people use, the less coal you have to burn; this in turn lessens the demand for trees. Thus, by sending e-mail petitions, you are actually killing trees. Shame on you.
Conservation, as the Forest Service site states, means management of the land and its resources. Management - guiding, maintaining, adjusting.
Conservation does not turn every tree into a monument which will last forever.
Conservation does not restore the forest to what it was in 1492 (or do you think removing 99% of the trees in central states so the prairie can be restored is a good idea?).
Conservation does not mean stop every forest fire until the forest is buried under 200 feet of dead logs.
They are not going to ignore all electronic comments, they are going to ignore reject mass-produced comments in which everybody sends an identical message. THIS INCLUDES PRE-PRINTED POSTCARDS.
They are not discriminating between paper and bits at all.
A website like EFF.org should send its members passwords for their petition pages through snail-mail, thereby establishing their physical address. Then when a petition is launched, the signers can be verified as being genuine opinions by real people.
What this means:
Unless a specific enabling statute for a set of regulations directs otherwise, a federal agency is required to have a general "notice and comment" period in rulemaking. What that means is entirely up to the agency, and sometimes agencies go through internal rulemaking to determine their rulemaking procedures. It all goes to supplement the legitimacy of the regulative process, and agencies generally err on the side of more comment than less. So long as there is a rational basis for their rulemaking, it is generally upheld on review.
I wouldn't blame this on the Bush administration, I'd just say that it's possible that it would be easier for agencies to ensure that people who submit comments are (a) actually people, and (b) accountable to their comments.
Paper carries a lot more weight anyway - if you feel strongly enough about proposed legislation, read up on it online, then write a letter and drop it in the mail.
That's my purse! I don't know you! -- Bobby Hill