Reddit Founder Alexis Ohanian's Rosy Outlook On The Future of Politics

Ohanian feels the future is rosy because he imagines that internet activism will continue to be dominated by "our" kind. A few million people at best.

We are absolutely, utterly outnumbered by people unlike "us".

As the tools get better, the difficulty of mounting such campaigns will fall to the point where there will be massive campaigns to have Congress save soap operas, ban Brad and Angelina from divorcing and protecting us from mobile phone towers (the chosen-not-to-interact-with-water radiationz zomg!).

The following quote from Alexis resonated with me and cut through a lot of noise in the debate about social media's effect on politics:

“As the Internet continues to get more clout, we have a very different value proposition to politicians. Unfortunately, for many politicians running for office, money dictates so much. And what do they use it for? Advertising, campaigns, TV commercials. As that medium loses its value, and as things like YouTube, Reddit and Facebook gain value, you get this wonderful leveling of the playing field in the political world as well.”

I agree with the basic premise that social networking sites including those he mentioned are increasing in value (value being defined here as the ability to influence political opinions, and which candidates to support) relative to "advertising, campaigns, and TV commercials." He seems to imply (correct me if wrong) that money dictated access to and control over older media like TV commercials, whereas today, social networking sites are free for users to disseminate information, and influence opinion, so money doesn't play as significant of a role, and people are and will increasingly be influenced by these more 'democratized' forms of media (i.e. social networking sites).

I think this (i.e. a more democratized playing field for influencing public opinion) is an improvement to our political system, and I'm glad Alexis is using such a public platform for clarifying the real effect social media and the Internet can potentially have on politics.

I still wonder though, will money just shift media and still continue to shape the debate? Will it mean, in part, that the campaigns that have the best retargeting technology, most promoted Tweets, best sponsored stories on Facebook, and the best video ads and branded channels on YouTube will become the most likely candidates to win elections?

I wonder if Alexis has considered running for office himself? It's plausible he could be elected senator in California, though probably not on his first try.

Pressuring congress to do something (and actually achieving it) is great, but the odds will always be stacked against us as long as there are no people in congress actually representing us.

If the mob driven, self absorbed circle jerk of Reddit hints on the future of politics, I wouldn't call it rosy by any stretch.

Hopefully the internet can be the cure for Washington's addiction to lobbyists/ special interests. Money in politics is tantamount to bribery. This bribery is a force for economic inequality because with increased money comes increased power to keep said money. In a democracy people are what are in power, not special interests view's amplified with money. The internet is the great democratizer that will come along and raise the voice of the common people. I am a whole-harted believe in the theory of democracy, not the perverted idea of democracy, which is the current state of the United States. If everyone had an equal voice through the internet I'm sure more intelligent policy would be made that would benefit more people, not just the people at the top.

I think they missed the biggest thing - feedback loops.

The main thing social media has done is to democratize information so it's disseminated faster than ever and accessible to more people in more places than ever before.

So, when a like-minded group of people can agree on something, organize and instigate change whereas they wouldn't have 1) had the information 2) been able to organize 3) be effective, nearly as easily without the tools we currently have at our disposal.

It's the speed of information travel that lets us form and reform opinions as we get the latest up-to-date information. That factor, by itself, favors honesty and openness and makes things much, much more difficult to be shady and dishonest while keeping all your stories straight.

What most of these discussions overlook is that the Internet is like an amplifier--it boosts the signal and the noise. I'll have more to say on this analogy below.

NOTE: in the following, I am not saying or intending to imply that there was anything good about SOPA. I'm just talking about how people acquired their knowledge of SOPA.

Consider the recent SOPA events. As far as I could see, the vast majority of people participating in online activism on that issue were not actually informed. They were there because a few sites told them it was bad. They did not check up on that and independently verify before jumping on the bandwagon.

There was no qualitative difference here between them, and the people that were showing up at town halls to complain about "death panels" in the health care law because some talk radio host or Fox commentator told them that's what the law had.

You can see a similar thing starting with the EEA (Enemy Expatriation Act). Here's what it actually does. Right now, there is a law that says that if you commit any of seven enumerated acts with the intent of relinquishing your nationality, then you can, if it is proven you voluntarily did the act with that intent, lose your citizenship.

The EEA adds an eighth item to that list: "engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States", and it adds a definition: "For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war".

This bill is remarkably simple--about 1/2 of a page. The text is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166

It is modifying 8 USC 1481, which while longer (maybe two pages), is written in fairly plain language. It looks to me like it is basically closing some gaps--the existing law seems to have been written for a world where hostilities against nations came from other nations.

It does not provide a way for your citizenship to be taken, but rather adds another option by which you can renounce it. (I believe the Supreme Court has ruled that citizenship cannot be taken as a form of punishment, which is why, I suspect, the current law is written to have a clear intent requirement).

Yet I've seen at least a dozen posts, that got a lot of up votes, on Reddit about how this bill will make it so that the government can declare anyone (such as an OWS protestor) a "terrorist", immediately strip them of citizenship without trial, and then toss them into indefinite detention under NDAA.

I'm seeing similar noise about the PCIPA (Protecting Children Against Internet Pornography Act). If I were to believe the several calls to blackouts and protests I've seen over that, it requires ISPs to snoop all my web browsing and record a complete history of every site I visit, and to also spy on all e-commerce and record the credit card details of every purchase I make, and to store this information for 18 months, and cough it up to any government agent who asks without any questions asked or any warrant requirement or probable cause (and some even say they have to cough all this up to the RIAA and MPAA).

The PCIPA stuff is getting even more traction than the EEA stuff. I've seen articles in a couple of "real" papers and magazines repeating the stuff about tracking all the sites you visit and credit card purchases.

As I said at the opening of this comment, the internet is an amplifier, and it amplifies both the stupid and the smart. However, it is not a linear amplifier. I think it is more effective at amplifying the stupid. The reason is that smart people figured out how to communicate with distant smart people without the internet. The internet has made it more efficient, of course--I can now get information in minutes that used to require going to a good university library or finding a place that had free access to things like Lexis or Westlaw.

A lot of the stupid, however, was fairly isolated before the internet. Perhaps each town had its small circle of, say, conspiracy nuts, but they were surrounded by more sane people, and their interaction with outside conspiracy nuts was through inefficient means, like newsletters, vanity press books, and the like. This kept the stupid in check. Now, with the internet, no matter how far out and unlikely your belief, you can find a lot of other people who share it, and that provide reinforcement.

So, for smart people, the internet was like the jump from hand copied manuscripts to the printing press. It really boosted the efficiency of something we were already doing. For stupid, the internet was like the discovery of fire.

I suppose it would be inevitable that a site which promotes investment in Social Media companies would get so heavily involved in politics. If Reddit is a good example of the Vox populi, then the future we can look forward to is one of "VOTE UP IF YOU SUPPORT BILL 1780-1X". Mob rule, internet style, will be the future, given the proper backing by certain VC's and angel investors, of course.

Much, much better than SOPA.

Does anyone else experience the same awesomeness on Forbes:

#1 - Interstitial ad right away.

#2 - Click "skip ad" and redirected to a page that (a) doesn't contain the article and (b) starts playing an ad with sound.

If there's a major media site with a worse user experience than Forbes, I'd love to hear of it.