Ask Slashdot: Is Making Government More Open and Connected a Good Idea?

Nerval's Lobster writes "For quite some time, there's been a theory drifting around that government can be made more open and efficient via the same crowdsourcing and social-networking tools that created such successes out of Facebook, Twitter and Kickstarter. In that spirit, numerous pundits and analysts have advocated the development of 'e-government' or 'government 2.0.' But what if the idea isn't as great as it seems? That's the angle embraced by Evgeny Morozov in a recent essay for The Baffler. Structured as a lengthy takedown of open-source advocate and O'Reilly Media founder Tim O'Reilly, the piece veers off to fire a few torpedoes at the idea of making government more responsive and transparent through technology (the latter being something O'Reilly readily advocates). 'One of the main reasons why governments choose not to offload certain services to the private sector is not because they think they can do a better job at innovation or efficiency,' Morozov writes, 'but because other considerations — like fairness and equity of access — come into play.' If O'Reilly himself argues that a government should be 'stripped down to its core' into a form more transparent and collaboration-friendly, Morozov counters with the idea that the 'participation' envisioned by most government 2.0 scenarios is limited, little better in practice than the comments section at the bottom of a corporate blog posting."

Comments

The power of the dollar vs. the power of the gun

[Gothmolly]

There are people who equate the two, and people who do not. The two camps will never agree. The problem with the first group is that they cannot allow the second to survive.

You've got to be kidding me

[MooseMiester]

When has the government ever done anything "fairly" or to ensure "ease of access"?

Politicians, after all, are the easiest people in the world to bribe, it is the only job in America where bribes are legal. The result is something that pervades every aspect of government at all levels called PAY TO PLAY.

This ensures that 1) The biggest briber gets the best deal 2) Everyone else gets screwed.

Worse, governments spout all kinds of emotional propaganda to cover up the actual reality of how the system works, directing people's anger away from the real criminals onto other groups in society. Then they promise "openness" and "transparency:" while doing the exact opposite. Millions of well intentioned good people are duped by this propaganda every single day.

Re:You've got to be kidding me

[khallow]

Too bad all the evidences points to that not being true..

Let's look at the claims in question:

Politicians, after all, are the easiest people in the world to bribe, it is the only job in America where bribes are legal.

People or businesses with interests before the government can contribute to the campaigns of legislators, the president, and a variety of political groups and PACs. Legally. So claim is TRUE.

The result is something that pervades every aspect of government at all levels called PAY TO PLAY.

Given the endless dribble of pro-IP law and bills coming out of Congress and the White House these days, I'd say there's some evidence for this position. MAYBE which might be upgraded to TRUE, if I bothered to google for it.

1) The biggest briber gets the best deal

That's going to take work to verify. Not feeling it. MAYBE.

2) Everyone else gets screwed.

Would be a consequence of point 1). MAYBE.

Worse, governments spout all kinds of emotional propaganda to cover up the actual reality of how the system works, directing people's anger away from the real criminals onto other groups in society.

Examples: the one percent, commies, gungrabbers, liberals, neocons, neolibs, tea baggers, etc. TRUE.

Then they promise "openness" and "transparency:" while doing the exact opposite.

While Obama made such a promise, his illustrious predecessor, Bush probably didn't. Insufficiently motivated to google. MAYBE FALSE.

Millions of well intentioned good people are duped by this propaganda every single day.

Bush and Obama both got elected. TRUE.

While not every claim has been demonstrated, there's enough there to indicate that your statement is FALSE.

Re:You've got to be kidding me

[ClioCJS]

The roads the government provides me are way more fair than the private toll roads built by private corporations, that require you to spend more on toll than your entire round trip gas price.

Yes

[SampleFish]

The answer is "yes"

Re:Yes

[geekoid]

Is it?

I used to think so, but now that I am in the government and see publica action I see a lot of crazy impacting the government.

Not differents of opinion, or rational debate. People who are delusional getting people to gethers and fighitng some battle made up in their head.

Millions and millions of dollars done for retesting, and showing people they are incorrect. Factually incorrect.

Imagine the people who think the contrails are a chemical being spread by the government being able to force the government o spend millions to prove they aren't doing it, then not believing it, making up some conspiracy and then demanding another independent party do another study. And never believing any study that shows them wrong.

In Portland we have a group that keeps making up conspiracy theories involving the water bureau. No evidence, just bold face and demonstrable lies.

So I don't know. Maybe the fore fathers had something with the idea that only educate people should be involved in government.

Loopy logic leaps

[Zigurd]

Going from "open government" to "outsourcing" is a non sequitur meant to set up a straw man. It is outsourcing that results in private firms treating government data as proprietary, and it is this kind of outsourcing that open government initiatives seek to avoid.

It's a long piece. Tl;dr: Think tank wonk mistakes Tim O'Reilly for a technolibertarian and turgidly tilts at windmills of his own invention.

Re:Loopy logic leaps

[TubeSteak]

We already crowd source our law making process.
The problem is that it's been crowd sourced to lobbyists and not to 'the crowd'

Re:Loopy logic leaps

[F9rDT3ZE]

unfortunately for your accusations, O'Reilly IS a technolibertarian, overtly supports outsourcing of critical government functions, is mostly concerned with getting government "out of the way" to allow corporate "innovation," and the responsibility part of government is of little interest to him, as Morozov's piece suggests. Read: O'Reilly's "government as platform": http://ofps.oreilly.com/titles/9780596804350/defining_government_2_0_lessons_learned_.html Harvard Law Professor Jennifer Shkabatur's "Transparency With(out) Accountability: Open Government in the United States": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2028656

Transparency since 2008

[Thunder6ix]

Didn't someone campaign in 2008 on the idea of transparency and open government? Oh yeah, he was campaigning.

Baffling trainwreck of an article

[0xdeadbeef]

Half the content is whining about "open source" versus "free software". The author was barely in high school when all that went down. Everything else is "zomg he is just like Ayn Rand!!!11!!"

Tim O'Reilly must have ruined his life somehow.

Re:The power of the dollar vs. the power of the gu

[fustakrakich]

Technically yes, but we have allowed it to deteriorate into a corporate aristocracy, and completely abdicated our legal authority to it.

What's happened to Slashdot?

[M4n]

Did you delete all the good with the old skin?

"That word..."

[meta-monkey]

"I do not think it means what you think it means..."

I actually read TFA (from the Baffler) earlier this week, and (shockingly) I think a lot of the other /. commenters did not. Is "open" government good? Everybody likes "open!" But the point is that the definition of "open" is, well, open to interpretation, and may not be the interpretation you like. Saying "yes" or "no" without qualification means you don't understand the point of the debate: the definition of "open."

In the context of the article, the author makes the case that "open" to O'Reilly means "the government opens its functionality for exploitation by industry," whether that means government databases, or the ability to provide services. But this serves the industry, not the people. Basically likening the government to say, FaceBook having an "open" API to give companies the "freedom" to interoperate with it. But that's openness and freedom for developers (industry) and not for users (citizens). And for the goal of efficiency, not morality. You, citizen, still don't get to know what's going on behind closed doors, or have more than a token influence on policy.

It's the free/libre debate applied to government. Is the purpose of "open government" to improve efficiency by having private companies "plug-in" to the government system to provide services, or to transfer power to the citizen to enable self-governance? The article argues it's the former.