Slashdot Mirror
The Coming Digital Presidency
Ranjit Mathoda writes "Marc Andreeson, the cofounder of Netscape, met Senator Barack Obama in early 2007. Mr. Andreeson recalls, "In particular, the Senator was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, Youtube, and user-generated content, and casually but persistently grilled us on what we thought the next generation of social media would be and how social networking might affect politics — with no staff present, no prepared materials, no notes. He already knew a fair amount about the topic but was very curious to actually learn more." As a social organizer and a lover of new technologies, Mr. Obama could be expected to make good use of such tools in getting elected, and he has done so. What may not be as obvious is that Mr. Obama appears to have a keen interest in using such technologies in the act of governing. And whether Mr. Obama becomes president, or Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain do, these new tools have the potential to transform how government operates."
A bit presumptuous to assume that, with Democrats fighting like cats and dogs among themselves now, the "Coming Digital Presidency" won't actually feature a 72-year-old man who probably thinks YouTube is a new type of waterpark ride.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
One nice effect of being a digital President: on the Internet, one rarely has to flee under sniper fire.
I really like the idea of a presidential candidate who is interested in technology and bright enough to find ways to apply it to reaching a goal. On the other hand, I really don't like the idea of whitehouse.gov becoming a government-run myspace which encourages people to give the government even more personal information about themselves. I guess my problem is that I find this an appealing characteristic in a candidate, but a scary characteristic in a President. How inconvenient.
Dugg for education and healthcare policy.
Burried for tax hike
Yes, I'm looking forward to digital democracy.
prez2008 has thrown a hamburger at you! Do you wish to throw one back? [yes][no]
My initial thought (however cynical it may come across?) is: Is this really just another plea of "Hey general public, I'm Obama and unlike the other candidates, I'm hip and in-touch with the current generation! Vote for me!" ?
The candidate I saw leveraging the power of the Internet the most, early in this election, was Ron Paul -- and it looked like most people just used it to smear the guy. EG. "Nobody but spammers and a few computer geeks with loud mouths care about him!"
Yes, the future of politics has much to do with the Internet as a communications medium. Unfortunately, the majority of people using it as a "primary" source of information and content is the younger generation. Folks (like my parents and all of their friends) who are retirement age voters, by contrast, generally pay NO attention to a speech given over YouTube, or what a candidate posts on a FaceBook or MySpace page. And the 40-something and 50-something crowd? It's a "mixed bag" right now. Some are very "net-savvy", while a good percentage of others write it off as "the computer stuff my kids are into".
I think you've got to let a few more election years come and go in this country before the MAJORITY of voters will really be "on-board" with the Internet as their information source, vs. traditional media like television, newspapers and radio.
A nice idea but to stop the inevitable trolling you're going to need some decent moderation. But then you'll probably get risk averse moderators taking down potentially inflammatory comments who will then be criticized for stifling free speech. And then when the people who might want to join in hear that free speech is being stifled over at opengov.com they'll come to /., and similar sites, in their hoards to moan about how repressive their government has become. Flame wars will be inevitable. /. will seize up, I'll have to go back to work. It's just another no-win situation.
I find the entire idea of creating a wired democracy to be revolting. The best government is seen in its effects and not heard. I don't want to think about government or politics in my day to day existence and would much rather just have the professionals that I elect get on with the business of governing competently. I don't want big crusades - I've had enough crusades with Bush. When I elect a President and a Congress, I don't want them asking me my opinion every 30 seconds. I want to know that they thought through the issues and made the best decisions they could, kept the army in powder, the navy afloat, the planes in the air, the satellites working, the bridges up and the roads in good repair. If it turns out that they do something that I politically don't agree with, I can -actually live with that-, so long as they bring a general air of competence to the table.
This is my sig.
John McCain has requested that you join the Sith in the Jedi Vs. Sith War.
You have GOT to be kidding. You're actually using a Google search of news.admin.net-abuse.email for "barack obama" as some kind of "evidence" of something? news.admin.net-abuse.email is the preferred home newsfroup of every k00k, forger, impostor, sock-puppet and whack-job on Usenet. It's the home of countless flame-wars, ridiculous accusations and general raving stupidity. My god, I wear a tinfoil hat AND a condom when I read that group. If that's the best you've got, then you should just go back under your bridge, troll.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
This US is a republic, not a popular democracy. The American founders were well deeply concerned with the possibility of mob government - hence (for example) the Senate, the Electoral College, and our system of checks and balances. (Yes, a gross simplification, but this is my lunch break.) The Founders were afraid of the mob for good reason. So should we.
The idea of using Facebook, MySpace, and Digg as instruments of government is, in some ways, breathtakingly foolish. Reading the content on Digg - full of conspiracy theories, slander, and bigotry - seems reminiscent of the chants of a mob, not the (theoretically desired) reasoned vox populi.
The anonymity of the Internet, combined with the speed of activity on the Web, seems to lead in many cases to an amplification of our baser instincts. Do we want our political leaders receiving input from commercial Web sites, with no means of identifying who or what is promoting certain causes?
For months Digg was filled with article after article promoting the merits of Dr. Ron Paul, the coming Messiah who will Redeem America. After Dr. Ron Paul, savior, left the race we have the new and exciting stage of articles promoting the merits of Senator Obama, the Messiah who will Redeem America. True, their could be an upswell of support from individual users, but are we perhaps seeing an organized campaign(s) manipulating Web 2.0 sites for their own purposes? With anonymity of site users, who can tell?
I've watched as the social media sites race to extremes. The load, most obnoxious writers gain the most attention; well reasoned arguments are often more dull and are ignored. Debates on sites such as Daily Kos revert on a daily base to name calling, ad hominen attacks, and sheer bloody-mindedness. Is this how we want our leaders to be influenced? In many cases on Daily Kos you'll see the same author online throughout the entire day, every day writing "diaries" and defending their positions. Who the hell are these people? How can they afford to avoid work to write their blog entries? Are those who use FaceBook a representative sample of the population, or the young, hip, and independently wealthy?
Social Media sites dramatically lower the costs of individual citizens involvement in the political process. That's a Good Thing. Yet if we don't anticipate and accept the manipulation of those sites by external agencies and those with far too much time on their hands, we're bloody damn fools.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
My thoughts exactly. We need a real president with real priorities. While Obama was playing around with his Facebook page, Hillary was low-crawling through a hail of sniper fire, on a tarmac halfway around the globe. I heard that she was dragging along an 8 year old girl while signing an autograph with her other hand.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
The summary currently reads, "And whether Mr. Obama becomes president, or Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain do, these new tools have , by the People and for the People communicates and operates."
It should be (as stated in TFA), "And whether Mr. Obama becomes president, or Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain do, these new tools have the potential to transform how a government of the People, by the People and for the People communicates and operates."
Kind of a big difference there.
[...]
Obama values our First Amendment freedoms and our right to artistic expression and does not view regulation as the answer to these concerns. Instead, an Obama administration will give parents the tools and information they need to control what their children see on television and the Internet in ways fully consistent with the First Amendment.
[...]
Safeguard our Right to Privacy
[...]
To ensure that powerful databases containing information on Americans that are necessary tools in the fight against terrorism are not misused for other purposes, Barack Obama supports restrictions on how information may be used and technology safeguards to verify how the information has actually been used.
[...]
Protect the Openness of the Internet
A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
I don't understand this highly negative reaction. People are disenfranchised with the government, so surely it's a good thing that the government wants to find better ways for people to have a voice? It's really a question of communication, not control. That is, unless you believe this is a veiled way for government thought police to get into your brain. (Dons tinfoil hat.)
Your reaction reminds me of the typical paranoid position. If someone helps you they are interfering unnecessarily. If they don't help you, then they are conspiring to do you in. If they offer you the choice then they are manipulating you.
So the real question is - how would you like your opinion heard on issues that matter to you, such as the M$ hemogony or network neutrality? Or are you willing to take a stand and say that an ideal unobtrusive government does not need your opinion.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Obama's preacher isn't a racist. He went too far with "God damn America" (in one speech), but what he said was "God damn America so long as it's killing innocent people all the time", which is actually what any decent preacher who believes in damnation (they're all supposed to) would have to say. Because that's what the religion says.
There's absolutely no equation of Obama's preacher to a klansman. Klansmen are sick bastards joining a secret society with an unbroken tradition of universal hate (except for worshiping an imaginary idol of a White supremacy that almost ripped the country in half and destroyed it). Klansmen are murders, arsonists, rapists, and traitors, who demand the genocide and enslavement of the entire world, except a few people who look like them (but women are property).
Obama's preacher is a guy who sometimes shouts about racial and social injustice, and demands... that America stop killing innocent people, stop persecuting the Black community, face the fact that Hillary Clinton isn't in touch with the hardest problems many Americans face because of their race. Sure, he can get jerky and obnxious about it, and even be wrong about some of the injustices - and even more wrong failing to admit how much persecution of American Blacks is perpetuated inside the Black community, not by "Whitey". But he's got a right to be wrong. Hell, he's a preacher - he stands up every week to insist people do things because an imaginary supernatural force says so - his whole gig is unprovable, so he's going to be wrong sometimes. But what does he demand we do about it? He demands that we are compassionate, that we take care of one another, that we're honest about how we hurt each other, and that we do better.
Not what we reject from klansmen, even if we disagree with him, or offended by him.
Meanwhile, George Bush has sent us to war in Iraq and against "Terror" by invoking his own crackpot Christian ideas of Israel's sacrificial role in the "Rapture". He claims "God" told him to invade Iraq. He's actually lying, stealing and killing people in Jesus' name. McCain has relentlessly sought the endorsement of some of the most sick "Christian" preachers in America. Like Jerry Falwell before Falwell just died, even though McCain had earlier rejected Falwell as a crazyman when Falwell was endorsing Bush against McCain. But after Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed "gays, feminists, abortionists, the ACLU" for making "God" send us the 9/11/2001 attacks, McCain eagerly pursued their endorsements and kneeled at their feet. McCain went after endorsements from "reverends" John Hagee and Rod Parsley, who preach crazy "Left Behind" hatred of anyone not fitting their definition of "Christian" - like Catholics, whose church he says is a "whore", a direct agent of the devil. Hoping for those other people to burn alive in the streets, endorsing the widespread massacre of "sinners" by gangs of "Christians" trying to score their way into heaven when the Rapture leaves them behind for not having been sufficiently hateful in the "near-End Times". These people want global murder, actual apocalypse, and will pressure a president who listens to them to hand out nukes to maniacs in the Mideast to "bring it on".
Even the popular Billy Graham, who's had the ear of every president since Nixon, is a racist and antisemit who used to laugh it up with Nixon (and surely the rest, but off-tape) about what to do about the "problem" with those non-WASPs.
Clinton isn't much better, worshiping for years with "The Fellowship" (or "The Family"), a gender-segregated prayer group that's mostly secret, but includes some of
--
make install -not war
I know a guy that old.
He was the first to set up a punch-card system for what was new to them: computing.
Oh yeah. They're old so they cant figure out a User Interface. meh.
OK, someone has to lose his geek card here. Misspelling the name of one of the /." list.
Netscape cofounders is pretty high on the "how to look like an idiot on
His name's Andreessen, Marc Andreessen.
Just because Republicans have lowered American politics to divisive attacks irrelevant to facts, but playing on the worst impulses of Americans doesnt' mean we all have to accept it. Not when there's an alternative
You know why a lot of Republicans go listen to Pat Robertson - its because he preaches less than you!
It's your side that makes divisive attacks because you continually view the world as haves and have nots. Every time one of you liberals does not have something, instead of blaming your lot in life on your own dumb decisions, you have to make yourself the victim of some nefarious conspiracy.
Indeed, as much as liberals bemoan any conservative social initiatives, they see absolutely no need to attempt to reason or compromise their own point of view, and would have government ram it down the throats via the congress if elected, and through the courts if not. It is not conservatives that want to mandate what kind of houses people buy, what kind of cars people own, whether or not they have guns, or how they manage their money. Nope, that's all liberals, arguing, divisively, that they have the right to impose their social point of view on everyone in the country because their cause is 'morally right'.
It's absurd. There's no moral superiority in the left. It rationalizes racism against white people, and its environmental stances are a joke. You are innately divisive, because you judge people on everything.
Here's just one environmental example: Where's Sierra Club and MoveOn about estrogens from birth control leaching into environment? We have a controlled experiment in Canada where they took a lake, dumped 1 part in a -trillion- of birth control into it, and it lowered the birth rates of a number of species and caused deformities in others. It's solid, repeatable science, birth control at dosage levels equivalent to people peeing destroys aquatic life in the environment. Case closed. But... there's not a single word about this issue. But, god forbid, if someone buys an SUV, or owns a rifle, they are an evil destroyer of the environment. The moral of the story is, while you are complaining about someone destroying the atmosphere by owning a truck, bear in mind that you have most likely killed all of the frogs in the western world so you can get laid. And then, if killing all the frogs isn't good enough, you go and kill your offspring like so much tissue. You talk about sustainable living and having good practices, and here you are wrecking the planet and killing millions of unborn children so that you can pretend reproduction is a recreational pasttime.
There's no moral superiority on your side, and you don't need to come out like a bunch of thugs and pretend that there is, because I'm not and no one else is going to believe it. But if you go and say, well, here's what I want out of government, then, maybe there's room for compromise.
This is my sig.
I just read through the discussions here and find they reflect the general nature of discourse I've been observing in the United States regarding the candidates for the next leader of your country.
America is screwed.
It won't matter who is elected by whatever means, all the candidates have run campaigns of such breathtaking shallowness there is no way you have any idea exactly what policies any one of them will implement. You have been reduced to voting based upon sound bites, who they associate with, what their pastor said, what religion they are/are not, what tall tales they tell about their visits to war regions, etc. All points completely irrelevant to the actual actions that they will take during their governing of the country called the United States of America.
You might say their "mis-speakings" indicate they are not trustworthy. But who cares? You cannot inherently trust any government figure as there are too many vested interests vying for their attention. Interests with a lot more money and influence than you have. As far as I can see the best thing Americans can do is try to pin down the candidates on a common range of issues you know they will have to deal with during their term and hold them to that. Shorten this ridiculous one-year election process, hold just a few real debates and don't give anyone the opportunity to turn the process into a mud slinging contest.
McCain may now end up being president because he's coming across as a single stable party candidate against a couple of petty, bickering rivals who have nothing better to do than point out each others failings.
I had a bit of hope before that the end of the Bush era would bring in a new renaissance for the US. I have absolutely no hope of that happening now.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
don't claim "moral" superiority. I claim intellectual superiority, and whatever kind of superiority honesty gives me. You can claim only the lies and hypocrisy that Republicans earn with your projections of all your own worst fears about your own major malfunctions onto the people who care to tell the truth about you, who try to stop the damage you've unloaded that everyone can see is destroying everything you touch.
You don't have either. You are not intellectually better, and you are not honest with yourself.
But par for the course to hear some kind of contrived argument that it's "divisive" for judging people like you whose unregulated guns and trucks are actually killing people every day, and even threatening our entire civilization.
Guns don't kill people. People do. And you are divisive.
And no one but the 25% who still think Bush is god believes you. Zero tolerance for you faithy, crooked Republicans.
See, now that's divisive, because, about 35% of the people still approve of Bush. So, you can't claim zero tolerance for 35% of society, and not call yourself divisive. You just divided society! And then, there are a lot of people who believe in owning firearms as a fundamental human right. There are a lot of people that drive trucks responsibly. Now, you go and divide them too. See, you just keep dividing away, ever blissfully ignorant that your own totalitarian impulses are what is really dividing the country. Me, I just want low taxes and to keep my guns and my truck, but you, you attack me. And yet, I'm divisive for not wanting to change my life for your damaged view of the world. Why, didn't you already say you were a poor, abused victim of the evil corporations? Joining you would be the same as trying to team up with a kicked dog. You need, help, my poor victimized, disenfranchised friend, not political power. Best to leave the country to us, since you can't even pay your mortgage.
This is my sig.
That would certainly add a new dimension to the presidency.
Exactly. The blowing up of this by the media, and the subsequent word-of-mouth, is fucking bullshit. I watched the entire sermon in which those things were said, and taken in context, it was a good message and, while maybe not family-friendly in language and content, was an appropriate underlying lesson to hear at a church. If I remember correctly, the right to speak out against (or even act against) unjust acts of the government was one of the founding principles of this country - this is all Rev. Wright was doing. I'm white, I'm American, and I have no problem with what he said - seriously, just go watch the whole sermon, it's on YouTube.
Just because an older black man who grew up having to sit at the back of the bus still has the mindset that America is racist against blacks (and yes, it still is, but obviously not like back then), and speaks his mind about it, he's racist against whites now? And because he condemns the acts of the Israeli government against Palestine he's an anti-semite? People need to do their research and stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (he actually has the audacity to call Wright a "racist, poison-spewing hate-monger" when he has to have seen the whole sermon.)
What the hell is wrong with people? They don't want a president who's willing to listen to the views of someone who thinks there's some problems with racism in America? They don't want a president who's willing to listen to the views of someone who's not totally happy with everything in America, and says something about it? Remember, he repudiated Wright's more abrasive comments, but in a show of good character, didn't abandon the man. And I believe one of the founding fathers said something to the effect of, "the greatest patriots of this country are those who are willing to question it." (I don't remember exact words or who it was, that's a paraphrase.)
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
Why do you think Hillary is so experienced? Because she was married to the President? Because she was shot at in Bosnia? Oh wait, that's right she lied. You wanna know why people walk away from her. Listen to the news. She acts as though she is entitled to this presidency. She acts as though she is the only one who can do the job and Obama is like some teenager in over his head. Sorry to point this out but Hillary is a jr. senator as well. She has been around for a while but just being there does not give one experience. Just because I sit next to the storage admins at work does not mean I am an experienced storage administrator. I understand what they talk about and understand NAS and SANs but I am still NOT an experienced storage admin until I work as a storage admin.
As for the whole Wright thing...... Thanks AaronW (33736)
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
All points of time and space are connected.
Why do you see experience as such a positive? Almost no one was more experienced than Dick Cheney and members of the cabinet. Where did that get us?
Intent is far more important than experience. A good leader will bring people into his or her circle who are more knowledgeable and more experienced. They are then leveraged to make intelligent choices. Obama's lack of experience in the Senate has almost nothing to do with how well he will run the office of the President.
Developers: We can use your help.
My initial thought (however cynical it may come across?) is: Is this really just another plea of "Hey general public, I'm Obama and unlike the other candidates, I'm hip and in-touch with the current generation! Vote for me!" ?
If you're wondering whether Obama's enthusiasm for the Internet and technology goes beyond "hip and in touch", you might consult Lawrence Lessig's endorsement of him. And after reading Obama's tech paper, I can't say I think any other candidate's compares even in showing awareness of issues.
That said, the fact that I see the net strongly leveraged elsewhere -- including Paul's rather impressive campaign -- makes me *less* jaded about the increasing use of social networking. Nor do I think it's really surprising or affected: to some extent, all politics is (among other things) organizing. Real-world social networks were a huge part of politics before social networks came to the web, it's a completely natural fit now that's here. So to one degree or another, *everybody* is using it. I think part of the reason Paul stands out in his use is his unfortunate and somewhat unfair uphill battle in traditional media -- he really didn't have anywhere else to go.
Now, I'd agree it sometimes seems Obama is using this tool more heavily and talking more about his use of tools than anyone else in the field other than Paul. But I think to the extent that's true, it's largely because up until the last 4 years of his political career, organizing has been a big part of what he does -- his start, for goodness sake, was as a community organizer. It really does appear he has a philosophy that includes bottom-up organization as a component of well-balanced politics. And what the social networking tools do that's new to politics is increase the reach and efficiency of that kind of organizing. They only marginally bolster the traditional political networks, but they're a huge boost at the grassroots level, especially the more you know about grassroots organizing.
I also would agree that not all candidates are created equal on the tech-friendly front, however. In particular, McCain has some issues with not fighting the internet, and while Clinton might have some good progressive impulses regarding it, I don't trust her not to throw it under a bus if some other "expediency" arises.
So while I'm sometimes a bit disappointed we didn't get a race like Obama vs Paul -- one that I think would have essentially signaled a real end to business as usual and a significant shift to digital politics -- I still think Obama stands out as an evolutionary step in the right direction, if not the Paul revolution.
One other thing about a part of the premise of the post ("Hey general public, I'm Obama and unlike the other candidates, I'm hip and in-touch with the current generation! Vote for me!"). This isn't necessarily directed at the poster I'm responding to, but I'm noticing a high degree of frequency in attacks on Obama that are essentially "Sure he SEEMS great, but SEEMING isn't the same things as BEING great and we just don't know what's REALLY behind HIM!" To some extent, I don't blame people for thinking this way. We've been let down pretty severely by quite a bit of our political leadership recently. And it's hard to really know whether what you know about a candidate is image or fact.
But I also think the time for this kind of talk about Obama is past. He's been in the spotlight for a while, there's plenty of material available about him and written by him to get genuinely familiar with the substance of his history and positions. I don't have a problem with people arguing about what they don't like about Obama's stated policies, or a vote he made in the past. But at this point, anybody bringing up this kind of "we don't KNOW" or "he's all STYLE and TALK" rehtoric isn't bringing up an insightful point, they're showing their own need to do homework. Or, in some cases, acting with ulterior motives.
Tweet, tweet.