Slashdot Mirror
Obama Significantly Revises Technology Positions
method9455 writes "Barack Obama has edited his official website on many issues, including a huge revision on the technology page. Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago, and the swaths of detail have been removed and replaced with fairly vague rhetoric. Many technologists were alarmed with the choice of Joe Biden before, and now it appears their fears might have been well founded." Update: 09/22 18:07 GMT by T : Julian Sanchez of Ars Technica passed on a statement from an Obama campaign representative who points out that the changes in wording highlighted by Versionista aren't the whole story, and that more Obama tech-plan details are now available in a PDF, saying "there is absolutely no substantive change to our policy - folks who want more information can click to get our full plan."
They've cut out about half the content, and large chunks about what they'll do for kids.
Either they've had advice that they shouldn't be promising definite things (makes it harder to weasel out of stuff later) or they're just cutting down the page size for some reason.
Either way, bit of a non story.
Politician changes mind, big whoop.
"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
Barack is completely behind net neutrality, where as McCain is not, but don't let the facts get in the way of the way you try and put FUD out there.
Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important
What the fuck are you talking about? It's THE VERY FIRST GODDAMN THING HE MENTIONS.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets
* Protect the Openness of the Internet
If you're a McCain supporter trying to weasel votes away on Slashdot, you need to say so.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
From his current page:
"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
He still holds the same position, he dumbed down the verbage because dumb people wouldn't understand his first version of his website.
Hate to break it to you, but Obama voted *for* telecom immunity.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Well, McCain was the one who took the public campaign financing and is barred from raising money for his campaign now. Obama initially vowed to also take the public campaign financing, then chose not to and now has to raise it all himself. Of the two, it seems Obama is much more prone to being bought out or at least influenced by donors. Open Secrets shows Obama accepted far more money from large corporations than John McCain.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contriball.php?cycle=2008
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
The GP was correct, he voted against telecom immunity in the past. In addition, in the most recent vote, he voted against telecom immunity each time the subject came up (ie for all of the amendments that were aimed at removing telecom immunity from the FISA bill), but voted for the final FISA bill (which was about a lot more than telecom immunity.)
Whether the FISA bill was a good thing is open to question, I was disappointed in Obama voting for it myself, but it's a stretch to claim he supported the telecom immunity aspect of it when he supported all the attempts to remove telecom immunity from it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Um, Barack lives right here on the South Side of Chicago. And brother, let me tell you, this ain't the suburbs.
Also, he only became a "millionaire" in the past three years or so after writing a couple of best selling books. He only paid off his and his wife's student loans about five years ago.
He was never "just another lawyer". Ask any of his students from the UofC law school or the people at the community organization at which he worked, for about $29,000 per year.
Don't be a bozo.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you all (including the editor) would read the page, current as of 17 September, it specifically mentions Network Neutrality as a guiding principle.
Seriously, the whole commenting section is debating about something entirely wrong. RTFA!
Almost...
Except Barack's net worth is $799,006.
http://fortune535.sunlightprojects.org/lawmaker/507/
Maybe you were thinking of McCain? ($36,431,099)
http://fortune535.sunlightprojects.org/lawmaker/498/
And if you think you will get *any* change from an old man who has been in Office 30 years and only agrees with Bush *MORE* as it gets closer to election, I think you are misguided.
I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the Republicans still control Congress, by keeping it from passing anything substantive. They have 49 votes in the Senate, which makes anything the Democratic thin majority (49 + 2 independents, one of them Lieberman) does subject to filibuster (the Senate rules say 60 votes are needed to stop discussion), and the President has veto power, which can only be overridden by a 2/3 majority in both houses, so again Senate Republicans can keep any change from happening. Beyond that, regulations and oversight are the job of the Executive Branch through its agencies.
As for Pelosi, given that she (as Speaker of the House) would be third in line for the presidency should Bush and Cheney be impeached and lose their positions, I didn't blame her for saying it was off the table, as otherwise it would seem like a naked power grab by her. She hasn't, though, kept other Congresspeople from proposing impeachment. {ProfJonathan}
I was watching campaign ads from previous American presidential elections here -- it starts with the Eisenhower campaign and works forward -- and I was struck by how many candidates used the same rhetoric. "Change" has been a staple campaign theme for a long, long time.
It seemed there were three major types of ads:
There might also have been a fourth, "Our candidate is a nice human being!"
Here are some examples of #2, "Change," below (I've quoted the last sentences from a number of the ads at the above URL):
"Change" is exactly what you can expect the opposition party to be selling in any election. The only reason Obama's campaign seems novel is that we have the collective memory and attention-span of a goldfish.
I'm sure you can have one of these things but it's hard to see how you would get both.
You really have to question the submitters' motivation on this one.
If anybody bothered to read the diff, it is obvious that the page was re-written to improve accessibility, so that more voters can understand the issues. Long paragraphs were shortened and some of the details were omitted so that the page does not sound like a treatise.
Some of the items like immigration was taken out, I suppose, because it didn't belong on the technology page. A lot of the text was rearranged, I assume, for better structure.
If all you wanted to know about is net neutrality, then yes, a lot of the material that described the mechanism in detail is gone. However, this issue has been debated to death online and most people have less of an idea of how the internet works than Ted Stevens. I seriously don't think Obama has changed his stance on this, other than to put it on equal footing with other issues related to technology on that page.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
IMO: Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
Well, I'd like to point out that the United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. So, there's that.
You'll have that sometimes...
It's also happened before; it's often called a 'poison pill'. There's been bills that even the original sponsor has turned against it due to an amendment that was attached.
Still, while this was a rather obvious version of it, how about something like option 3 is a renewal of the AWB? Some congresscritters will like it, some will be against it, and the NRA/libertarians like me will be screaming, even though before that we were meh of the bill beforehand.
Well, actually, the 2nd part would have had me reversing position - I'm all for legalizing drugs, but I DO believe drug patents are an important part of new development of drugs. It's essentially government confiscation of the company's assets. Now, adjusting patent rules, or restructuring the FDA/drug approval process, then we can talk. At least patents are extremely limited compared to copyrights today.
I don't read AC A human right
From the campaign:
We've been updating the entire website to ensure consistency across the pages. The full tech plan is still available on the page, so there is absolutely no substantive change to our policy -- folks who want more information can click to get our full plan. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf