Computer People for Peace | Hacker News Reader

Computer People for Peace

eli.naeher.name

58 pointsehudla21 comments

Interesting to see point 3 of the "Resolution' in 1969. "We oppose the establishment of mass data banks which pose a threat to our privacy and concentrate power in the hands of a few."

Super interesting to see the 1973 issue featured a database of concentrations of power. From what I can tell, successive projects like Sunlight Foundation came on with such vigour, but these projects have such little mainstream impact, instead all these tools get turned against individuals.

Sunlight foundation got the laws passed so GPO could provide legislative data to the public. AFAIK they are the reason GPO/govinfo.gov bill data exists. Congress having an API is their doing.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/press/success/

Many people use this data, from consumer non-profits to lobbyists. OpenStates is a spin-off of a Sunlight Foundation project as well.

OpenStates is a godsend if you're doing any kind of multi-state action with state legislatures, as each legislature's website is different (obviously), most are horribly broken (obviously), and many are outdated (only slightly less obviously).

given the overtly marxist ideological bent and direct, targeted calls to specific actions wouldn't be surprised if this were related

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_...

https://medium.com/@JSlate__/how-the-soviet-union-helped-sha...

queue the downvotes!

> the group originated as “Computer Professionals for Peace”; in October 1970 “Professionals” was replaced with “People” because members “felt that the ‘Professional’ label limited the potential scope of the group and smacked of elitism.”

What?

I think the following interview will give you useful context for understanding these publications.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18938917

Seems clear enough. They wanted to include students, hobbyists, and general nerds, not just people who made a living with computers. (A small group, at the time.)

I agree with what you quoted completely. What part don't you understand?

Why is elitism implied to be a bad thing in this context? Professional standards and ethics are something we should strive for, right? For those to work, you have to discern between people who uphold those standards and people who don't.

There are places where egalitarianism is most appropriate, e.g. in tallying political interests, and where elitism is most appropriate, e.g. no one wants an amateur surgeon.

Even if they want to open the group to hobbyists, as a professional I have more in common with a hobbyist who actively maintains a software project than one who doesn't actively contribute; specifically, if you're having a discussion about software you're largely on the same page with the former. That's ultimately the point of association, it's to improve conversation by gathering people who have a shared understanding.

> Why is elitism implied to be a bad thing in this context?

because, judging by the left-fist logo and focus on control of the means of production / classes / etc. this organization probably has a left/populist ideological basis

> Professional standards and ethics are something we should strive for, right?

The argument in issue #5 seems to be against ACM's position which they say is that professionalism implies professional detachment. In other words being agnostic to the use to which computers are put.

The ambiguity of the English language may be at fault here. "Professional" can mean either or both of "upholds high standards of behavior" or "gets paid for this." I think the group intended #1, but was worried people would think they only wanted #2.

Shockingly few of #2 actually fit #1, in my experience, so it's important to distinguish.

One can understand something yet not agree with it. For instance, I understand how the "Professional" label potentially limited the scope of the group, but I disagree that it smacked of elitism.

I think every reasonable person should be "for Peace". But not for peace at any cost.

It’s just hypocritical anyway, just telling people to be peaceful doesn’t address the underlying causes at all and the same people aren’t “peaceful” in their personal live either. They’re confused and in fact reject any clear understandings of what actually causes peace to begin with.

This group would have been founded specifically against the Vietnam War, which America entered on the flimsiest of pretexts[1] with no clear national interest beyond "fuck Communists", and which killed tens of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians. I don't see how it could possibly be clearer.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

Did they solve peace? AFAIK there have been wars since, and having grown up with these people I know first hand they’re anything but peaceful.

> Did they solve peace?

Nobody claimed they did.

You seem to be arguing with anecdotal figures from your childhood. I'm sorry the people you grew up with were hypocrites, but if you want to claim that reflects on either Computer People for Peace or the peace movement in general, you'll need to give us more details.

The problem is that the core issue is the mind and these “peace” type arguments date back thousands of years, even in 340s AD in China’s Annals of Lu Buwei you find these same people not addressing their own minds and preaching “peace” or passivsem. The reality is if you bring up reasonable things they can do, such as not promoting egotism or having a materialistic views of everything which directly lead to a lack of what they feel is “peace”, it just goes over their head and they get angry. Again this is has been going on with these people for thousands of years now. So rather than some fake form of peace that doesn’t work, how about addressing the underlying causes of suffering for everyone instead and stop rejecting them?

Do you have a clear understanding of the "causes of peace" that you'd like to share with us? Regardless, did you read any of the newsletters to give you a basis for your claims?

> It’s just hypocritical anyway...

Yeah, we're all hypocrites--get over it. It's true that almost nobody can be completely peaceful in all areas of their lives, but it shouldn't stop people from trying. You gotta start where you are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com