Interview: Ask the Internet Political Activists

Jonah Seiger and Shabbir Safdar own Mindshare Internet Campaigns, a Washington DC consulting firm that specializes in online political campaigning. Jonah and Shabbir are geeks who originally got into political activism by working to defeat political attempts to muzzle free expression on the Internet. Now they've turned pro -- very successfully -- but they're still avid Slashdot readers, and they're happy to answer questions about how the Internet is gaining acceptance as a political tool, and how you can use it to further your favorite cause or candidate. Please post your questions as comments below. Slashdot moderators and assorted dancing hamsters will pick 10 or 12 of them to forward. Answers will be posted Friday.

Comments

Teach politicians the GLOBAL nature of the 'net!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want politicians to realize once and for all that the internet is a global construct; especially when it comes to making laws about what to try and regulate or what is and is not "illegal" to do over the net.

Strong crypto? Internet casinos? Child pornagraphy? Sale of perscription drugs over the net? Gun sales over the 'net? Piracy (software, movies, music, pictures, etc.)? All of these items are LEGAL somewhere on the planet. The 'net, though, brings totally counter and conflicting laws and idealogoes together in the same place in a way that's never been done before. And isolationism and treating the whole 'net as within your borders in making up laws to deal with these issues is not acceptable. Tolerance and a hands-off approach to the 'net in the EXTREME is called for and a realization that no-one has a monopoly of definitions for the terms "right" and "wrong" across the planet.

Crypto-phobia

[Hobbex]

I would like to know if they, while up there rubbing elbows with the powerful and incompetent, have gotten some sort of feeling for where the rabid Crypto-phobia of Washington is stemming from?

Certainly, most free thinkers of the world recognize the importance of free and strong crypto in the information society, yet in Washington, which as I understand and hope is still a collection of moderately intelligent and educated people, it seems no one supports the issue. Even our friends (SAFE etc) are just less destructive enemies.

Is it, as many like to believe, the NSA and the rest of the Intelligence community still running the show like puppet masters with absolutely no resistance, or is there in Washington a deep, pessimistic belief that freedom must truly be fought with all means possible because we the lesser people of the earth cannot handle it?

Internet censorship

[Mr. Slippery]

Citizens who find themselves in the minority on many political issues have found the Internet a very valuable tool to organize, share information, and make their views known to the mainstream.

Now it seems that the federal government is trying to censor such discussion. For example, we have the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999", which would criminalize many discussions of drug policy.

I believe that you can't have a meaningful discussion on, for instance, the sentancing guidelines for possession of crack vs. powder cocaine without an understanding of how crack is made. Thus, my drug policy site has such information.

Trying to censor "dirty" bits is bad enough, but to censor political discussion is utterly abhorant. Political censorship is a life-and-death issue - people will fight, kill, and die for free speech. What, short of bullets, is it going to take to stop the cybercensors? (Or should I just go buy more bullets while I still can?)

Questions

[xmedar]

1. New models of politics
What do they think about using the Net to spawn new types of democratic politics, e.g. the ability to vote on individual issues bypassing traditional representatives. Maybe only allowing people to vote if they have already contributed something to the debate on the topic?

2. Advocacy
There is strong advocacy within the geek population as epitomised by the Linux Advocacy
How To, ways of increasing debate, and providing good quality information rather than FUD, therefore increasing everyones understanding of the situation rather than polarising arguements and ending up in irrational finger pointing. Do you think this ethos can be translated to the world of politics, and what effect do you think it might have?

Bush & Gore = cable pay per view choices

[GuySmiley]

For over a year, we have been told to either vote for Bush or Gore in 2000. The mainstream media does not let anyone else get air time.

How can you bypass the networks and use the internet to publicize a candidate that actually has a brain and a flying chance in hell of getting elected?