Slashdot Mirror
Geeks, Silicon Valley, and Politics
A reader wrote to us saying that The Economist has an interesting article/editorial in this week's issue about Silicon Valley and politics. Mostly that they just don't get it, but are finally coming around to playing the game the same old way and trying to change it at the same time. It's an interesting, changing landscape - maybe this is the election that the Internet really starts to matter.
I subscribe to The Economist, and I can assure you that this is not its editorial position. A month or two ago it had a large article on US campaign finance, what is wrong with it, and the various proposals to fix it.
Part of the point of this article is that the geeks are not buying politicians because they want to own them, they are buying them to defend themselves against other people's politicians.
Remember the old definition of an honest politician: one who stays bought. (I first read that in Robert Heinlein. Stranger In A Strange Land ISTR).
As an aside, I would say that The Economist is almost the perfect Geek Newspaper. It is intelligent, never emotional, well informed, and has the view that politics is about fixing things rather than ideology. It favours ideas which are free market, "liberal" in the old sense, and meritocratic.
As for syndicalism, I've read the anarcho-syndicalism FAQ and not been impressed. There does not appear to be any real difference between A-S and pure lassaiz-faire capitalism.
Terry Pratchett put it very well in "Interesting Times": no matter how many revolutions you have, the Rulers are still in charge.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
We are not the kind of philosophers who write books about [social|economic|political] philosophy which then shape the course of debate and policy.
The only counter-example I can think of is Bill Gates, and his books were more of an ego trip than real philosophy: everyone agrees that they were pretty lightweight.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Ignore them - and let the "Internet is a haven for pedophiles" crowd buy their votes on censorship.
Ignore them - and let the "Internet is a haven for drug dealers and terrorists" crowd buy their votes on crypto.
Ignore them - and let the "Internet is a great way to track all customers and send them offers which will interest them" crowd buy their votes on privacy.
All those things happen - and will continue to happen - whether "we" ignore it or not.
Buy their votes ourselves.
That's only an option because a lot of "us" have money now. "They" used to do Bad Things (buying the favors of politicians is, IMHO, a Bad Thing) that "we" were unable to do. Now some of "us" are in a position to do those same Bad Things. That doesn't make it right.
Politicans are for sale. Deal with it.
Oh I do deal with it. But I don't have to like it, and I don't have to believe it's a Good Thing. It's not. It wasn't when The Opposition was buying all the votes, and it won't be when you and I are buying them. A Good Thing would be if politicians voted their conscience without regard for who was lining their pockets this week.
Surely it's better that it be our dollars doing the buying than those of our opponents.
It's not better. Just different.
From the article, you'd think that the only people who care about politics are "Tech Bosses" who have enough money to lobby politicians with. Perhaps its just that The Economist think its perfectly acceptable that politics is only who can buy which politicians and why... thats not democracy, its an indictment against the corruption in our political system.
The competing interests they talk about are the competing interests of corporations. How it could ever seriously talk about small nimble companies and the death of big business has got to be some kind of joke. Faster than the Federal government (with continually increasing powers and budget) can bust trusts and monopolies, are they not combining into larger and larger corporations.
About the only thing Big that they were right about getting small is Big Unions. This is largely their own damn fault, becaused they stopped being unions that fought on the job and became political machines, lobbying groups and pension/insurance plans. And, suprise, they never have the money to buy politicians like corporations can. Which is ultimately why efforts like Washtech are doomed as long as they try and compete with corporate money in electoral politics. Ofcourse, anti-democratic practices, corruption, organized crime, capital flight to the third world (GATT, NAFTA and the WTO), and being outmoded by new technology have heart Big Labor alot.
If unions are to ever work for geeks, they've got to be portable, decentralized, democratic, focus on direct action (instead of electoral lobbying), free (like in speech, not beer) and of a generally anti-authoritarian/libertarian culture. They've got to be willing to fight over issues like censorship (remember when the Web turned black against the CDC?), privacy, spam, standards, accessiblity, etc... I only know of couple humble attempts at that.
The complete cyberpunk fake book has a better hold on geek politics than the Economist. Fringe parties... if geeks are in parties are all... are like the Libertarians and the Greens. The number of out right anarchists growing in the industry is pretty astounding.
Most geeks don't identify themselves with any particularly ideology (and certainly not any party). They have a patchwork of issues they care about, if they vote registere independent or which ever party has dominance so they'll have a better choice during primaries. Political geeks would rather take action, or support their local communities, in the streets. If geeks want to get rid of propietary software, they out evolve it, they don't try and lobby it away; Anarchism Triumphant! If they think corporations have bought up to much radio spectrum, they help people take the airwaves back from FCC sellout. Or take out satellites.
But none of these things are politics, as far as The Economist is concerned. But then, civil disobedience is pretty hard to buy off.
When geeks start applying what they are already doing on other issues to work... then you'll really begin to see something. Syndicalism might get a rebirth for the new millenium yet.
Demand the Impossible!
Interesting article that doesn't say much..
:-)
Yay.. Politicians realize the internet is a big deal. Whooptie-friggin-doo! The rest of the world figured it out when every TV commercial started having a web address 3 years ago..
I do like the comment that says they should "start acting on Internet Time rather than Washington Time".. Struck me as supremely true.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure they can. The whole government is setup to be slow from the start. It's almost intentional. The whole system of checks and balances is not there just to keep it fair, it's there to prevent government from doing things. Any things. I simply don't think the government can cope with any speedy processes.
The internet (and the computer world in general) moves in exponential time. Witness Moore's Law. Governments seem to move in inverse linear time. The more important a thing is, the longer it will take to do.
Oh well. It'll all come crashing down anyway.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I am convinced that 99% of politicians are totally clueless... however the article is better than a lot of other ones I've seen.
"The average computer geek is convinced that the rise of clever machines and interlinked networks is inexorably shifting power from organisations to individuals, decentralising authority and accelerating innovation."
I don't know about shifting power; but it certainly allows a pretty big soapbox for individuals; and a wider array of opinions for others to read.
Politicians will also find it more difficult to sweep the dirt under the rug; and passing idiotic legislation like that recent Uniform Copycrap Act can not totally avoid public scrunity and outcry anymore.
--------- Webmaster, http://www.cpureview.com and
When they start using phrases like "the culture of real virtuality", "the space of flows" and "timeless time", my eyes begin to roll over. I think we are getting inundated by shovelfuls of vague mish-mash from futurologists, philosophers, sociologists and other assorted "academic experts" analysing the internet phenomenon. Just read some stories from 4 yrs ago, and these kinds of philosophical musings about "identity in the chat room" start looking incredibly corny and stupid. Internet time doesn't spare journalists and academics, anymore than it does politicians.
OTOH, the mix of silicon valley and politics is something new, and a lot of it was spurred on by the MS trial. (Did you know Bob Dole was hired by Netscape and Sun to lobby against MS?) I don't think it's a good idea that govt. is getting so fascinated by the smell of new money that hi-tech companies are forced to do political lobbying (because their competitors are). Sure, we may cheer the focus against MS because Novell, Sun, etc. bankrolled some senators to twist the screws on Redmond, but ultimately, this is a bad thing. Some day MS will be gone, but the necessity of lobbying will be there.
w/m.
-- I'm not a freak show, I'm a mammal. --
But the march was a slow but inevitable one. Let's see. First, there were the intellectuals and the perverts. Next, the businessmen walked in. Then, normal people with barely a clue on computer use (thank you AOL!). After that, lawyers.
Politicians joining the Internet are a logical conclusion.
Is the Internet and the geek community empowered by all the legal, commercial and political interest vested in their playground? I think not. It's a simple fact that all political parties are self-serving, and I don't think the big companies will find much solace in the political game. If anything, they'll get burned.
But personally, I think if we leave the politicians alone, they'll just use the Web for self-promotion without doing much harm. From Isaac Plutonium to that "TIME IS INERTIA" dude, wackos trying to promote their ideas are nothing new to the seasoned Internet veteran.
I hardly see the Internet matter yet. It matters as a promotional tool, a publicity stunt. To me, this further points to the crumbling of the Internet as a tool of societal transformation, and its transformation into an interactive TV.
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
Silicon Valley has a very, very strange demographic.
Like the traditionally liberal university cities (Berkeley, Boston), SV is highly educated and intelligent. Unlike those cities, SV is not an ivory tower.
Like the conservative cities based on a military economy (San Diego, Norfolk), SV has Moffet, NASA, Lockheed, etc. Unlike those cities, it is not a "soldier town".
Unlike any other location, SV is the current center of entepreneurism. There may be a lot of rich corps and financiers around, but it's still the little guy with the big idea that gets things done.
In short, you can't characterize Silicon Valley. If you try to do so, you'll be wrong. SV is quasi-libertarian with smatterings of socialism; compassionate conservatives and hard-nosed liberals; extremist moderates.
None of the current crop of presidential candidates fit this mold.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
- Ignore them - and let the "Internet is a haven for pedophiles" crowd buy their votes on censorship.
- Ignore them - and let the "Internet is a haven for drug dealers and terrorists" crowd buy their votes on crypto.
- Ignore them - and let the "Internet is a great way to track all customers and send them offers which will interest them" crowd buy their votes on privacy.
- Buy their votes ourselves.
Politicans are for sale. Deal with it. Surely it's better that it be our dollars doing the buying than those of our opponents.I just want to be left alone.
This article seems to blur the difference between geeks, and the technology industry. Let's be honest: these are NOT the same thing. The companies mentioned (3COM, for example) certainly employ geeks. But I seriously doubt these are the people behind the lobbying efforts.
I can't speak for every coder, or even most of them. But for myself: I just want the government to stay out of my hair. Let me do my job, which I enjoy. Tax me fairly. Give me a channel to voice my opinion to my representative. And just be straight up about policy and don't lie to me.
Hmm I guess there ARE some things that need work eh? However, for those things, I trust grass roots efforts and non-profit organizations more than any Silicon Valley corporation trying to lobby the government. Lend support to groups like the EFF (or whichever ones you feel best represent your interests).
Large corporations, on the other hand, are only looking out for #1. If you think for a moment that they are lobbying for the greater-good, geek-rights, or any "noble" cause, you're fooling yourself. Their lobbying dollars are usually spent only when it will increase their profit.
Best regards,
SEAL
("...Say ya want a rev-o-luu-uu-tion....")
Consider:
Ergo, at the voting booth we have the political clout of fuck-all. There's not a politician alive who doesn't grok this reality deeply. That's reality, boys and girls.
Buying politicians with political donations is stupid. It's the brute-force solution. Everyone and his mom has a PAC. Our money would just compete on an even footing with everyone else's money. That's pathetic. Not an elegant way to fight, and not sufficiently reliable.
There's an elegant way to fight: we buy our politicians in kind. We pay for them in services they could not possible afford - services they wouldn't have dreamed to ask for - without us. We buy them with hours, we buy them with resources.
We host their web sites. We design their web sites. We set up the kind of informational infrastructure for coordinating volunteers which are a campaign manager's wet dream. We take over their internet presence so they don't do anything idiotic.
Whatever you may think of his politics, Ventura has proved that the net can have quite an impact on politics.
Are we wizards or aren't we? If we aren't kingmakers, we're pretty lame wizards, aren't we?
Once upon a time (turn of the last century, actually) Boston was taken over by a new political force consisting entirely of immigrants. This was done via a form of social engineering called a political machine.
We know about machines, don't we boys and girls?
A political machine is an organization which gets large number of votes out (and pointed in the same direction) when it matters, and it does so (hence the analogy to a machine) reliably and pretty much regardless of who the candidate is.
The political machines of the last century were not scalable, because - get this - networking limitations. The resource cost (mostly volunteers, time, and money) grew linearly with the size of the constituency being influenced. National elections were really beyond the serious influence of political machines.
But we could fix that, couldn't we? If there's any kind of problem we can solve, it's how to route large amounts of information correctly.
One big difference, oft lamented by geeks, between then and now is the extent to which our elections have become a media game. But that's to our favor . We control a medium! We rule in this medium, we can make it do things no one else can.
I'm not even talking about compromising the enemy's services. I'm talking about putting up web sites 1000% better than the opponents:
I'm talking about political coordinating through:
What if our candidate were to challenge opponents to an "on-line debate" - NOT in real-time, but in a series of posts, which the public can comment on, a la the way /. collectively interviews interesting people. "On-line" has such cache right now, we could probably pull it off. We geeks may be few, but we're hardly the only literate people. If we can get the newpapers to pick it up and report on it, we'll own that debate, simply because any candidate we advise will look about a hundred times less stupid on-line.
And once we nail them down in print, we have have fun with them. Twenty+ years of flaming on Usenet has taught us nothing if not how to discredit fools in print.
If we control the medium (and we do) we can force the campaign onto whatever rhetorical ground we want. We can make it "issues centered" if we like.
In summary: if we wielded our real power for those politicians we choose to support, we could own them. Money be damned; if we can hand them elections on a silver platter, they'd do anything for us. And our real power is finessing systems.
If we want the world run our way (for any definition of "we"), we need to bring our considerable intellectual prowess to bear on the problem. We understand FUD. We understand networking. We understand image. We understand manipulating media via manipulating the medium. We have the technology. :)
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
A pretty generalizing piece, I think. I mean, so some tech companies are lobbying DC, and some techie PAC's are forming to whisper sweet nothings in the the whor^^^^politicians ears. But I think there's a gap here in exactly WHO is doing this kind of stuff. Hard-core geeks - coders, sys admins network gurus, hardware hackers, and so on, typically don't have the time to keep up with the miasma that wafts out of DC.
:)
So, does the real SV care for politicos and DC? I don't think so. Just the CEO's CFO's and political management types from tech companies that either dig that kind of thing anyway, or are heading companies that are big enough to get hassled by tax, export or other silly legislation that often comes from our elected representatives.
The fine folks in Washington don't get the 'net - or technology for that matter - they just want to regulate it: makes 'em feel like they're doing something
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
intentional. The whole system of checks and balances is not there just to keep it fair, it's there to prevent
government from doing things. Any things. I simply don't think the government can cope with any speedy
processes.
It's not just almost intentional - it's intentional. The government is supposed to be slow, for a couple reasone: To give individuals time to work out their own problems and only act when that isn't effective, and to keep a tyrant from warping it into a monster before the citizens can react.
It was a good idea then, and an even better idea now - when information technology can give the government tools to accomplish oppressive survailence and interventions that were impractical before, due to excessive manpower and paper-shuffling requirements or the gross nature of the weapons of the time.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I got a warm fuzzy feeling reading that article. It's nice that I'm seeing signs of trend back towards getting back some liberties and that the gov't is having a hard time infringing on them. Somebody sent a link to
a related article
out across my office and its worth taking a look at. It has this same kind of theme. And there are people in congress that actually (believe it or not) seem to be intent on supporting this kind of decentralization... Actually, I can't tell you how reliable that news network is (anyone know?), but its still comforting to see that I'm not the only one who just wants big brother to leave me alone!
The natural state of mankind is freedom. Laissez faire is thus the natural economic system. Managed economies can only occur if the government steps in and curtails the rights of certain economic participants. Whether this is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. But it is mistaken to call it freedom. Utopia is not an option.
If Free Software is the natural state of software development, then the government is not needed to curtail anyone's rights to ensure that Free Software prevails. If certain rights are already held hostage by existing laws (patents as an example), then we should demand their repeal, but anything beyond this in the name of freedom is hypocracy. Specifically, mandating the distribution of source code (for sharing can only be done voluntarily) and calling it freedom is hypocritical and orwellian.
This is why I am confused that you call the GPL "important politics". Politics is about laws. Are not the authors of BSD, AL, or other free software entitled to exactly the same rights and laws as all others? Can you really call a law fair that promotes only one license out of dozens? Are not even proprietary software authors entitled to equal justics?
So what would you do with software "inequality"? Send the cops over to the Gate's mansion and force him under penalty of imprisonment to hand over the Windows source code? Will there be citizens spying on citizens, and turning neighbors in to the committee for hoarding their own code? Will the teenager who unwittingly mixed GPL and QPL code together and "shared it with his friend" be fined by the magistrate?
Freedom is the absence of coercion. As long as the GPL remains voluntary I can live with it. But the instant it gains the power to coerce is the first day in an era of unparalleled injustice.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Does it really make any sense to paint 'internet politics' as if it was some sort of libertarian populist outburst, when the reality of the matter is that those voluble, libertarian technogeeks are basically all _employees_ and don't vote?
I'm not claiming this is 100%, but I am suggesting this is a mere smokescreen for a power grab by corporate influence. Suggesting that this in any way represents libertarian geeks, or is at all likely to increase their influence, is absurd...
We're looking at same-old same-old with a new mask. The mask is US. We're the lie. We look very inspiring, but we aren't the ones in control. The reality is the ever-increasing influence of large commercial interests, and this is largely incompatible with small business and with the success of individuals. It's a zero-sum game unless the corporations can invent not only a process for producing more consumers, but also a way for them to have jobs.
Frankly we're better off _not_ having 'The Internet Era' take political control. It's not us, it's big business as usual only with even less responsibility than usual, less honesty than usual... the last people you'd want bribing senators. It's all very well when (for self interest) they want to open crypto, or fight net-content restrictions, but what are you gonna do when they boost IP law to give patents even more teeth, get government rules for software development which corporations could trivially pass (paperwork and fees for being allowed to code) but which would be a barrier for individuals, or ban or restrict Linux on trumped-up grounds? Personally, I'd like to see those concepts _stay_ paranoid fantasies. This is the Internet Era and paranoid fantasies seem to have a nasty tendency of turning quietly real when tech corporations are involved. I'd prefer that we don't have a government variation of the RealNetworks espionage story, or of Microsoft's insane business practices and accounting fantasies. The government does enough of that nonsense all by itself and does not need help...