The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence | Hacker News Reader

The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence

cryto.net

112 pointsTehnix77 comments

In the world of grand political change, three or four years is nothing. Don't give up hope yet. The Demand Progress folks are committed and have a good sense of what it takes to bring about political change in a democracy. Please support them.

And believe it or not, legislators do watch those calls and emails––especially calls. All of them of them will tell you that the perception of a groundswell of support or opposition to an issue is enough to start to sway minds on Capitol Hill. Don't give in to cynicism.

And by all means, back up those phone calls by voting.

And donating. And working campaigns. And getting out the vote.

That implies there's a non-trivial number of candidates who are legitimately against the NSA.

That's fair, but it's perfectly alright to vote against the incumbent as a purely punitive, as opposed to corrective, measure.

Tell me when that ever worked.

Obama.

Given your previous responses I fear you are serious. Ouch.

This is very well said - this kind of change happens slowly, little by little, without a bang.

“Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.” (Ghandi)

In the world of grand political change, three or four years is nothing.

It isn't even a full election cycle.

Talk about contrarian bullshit. I would ask joepie91 (the author) if he has even called his representatives. This kind of post isn't helping. It's hurting the cause. Everyone knows activism is difficult. Bitching about how everyone else practices their activism is easy.

> This kind of post isn't helping. It's hurting the cause.

So is this:

The Day We Fight Back

A bit of text at the top of the page. It is doing nothing but still feeling like you did. You were so moved that you did ... nothing. That is the message it sends. These people are too lazy to do anything except put a little banner up that in no way disrupts anything about their little lives.

One prerequisite for change here is public support. Public support requires people to know and be reminded about the issue, and it requires people to know that other people care deeply about the issue and that it's okay for them to care about it too.

So I don't buy the common complaint that raising awareness is valueless. It isn't something you'll be able to measure tomorrow morning but that does not actually imply it is not valuable, just that we don't know for sure if it is.

Awareness isn't valueless, look at what pink and a ribbon did for cancer.

This is just another cynical internet blogger trying to make himself feel enlightened ;) nothing more.

To add to the cynicism, I'd say "look at what pink and a ribbon" did for the Susan G. Komen foundation, rather than what it did for cancer...

> Awareness isn't valueless, look at what pink and a ribbon did for cancer.

Was that sarcastic?

What did it do for cancer? What does awareness actually bring in that situation?

That's how democracy works! People voice their opinions! And yes, when it happens all at once, they can create a debate by getting the attention of others.

Anyone who thinks change comes easily or quickly is wrong. That's the downside to a democracy. As Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

exactly....the problem is that if you look closely, there is no democracy at least not in the USA. Just like the tagline for the last of the Godfather movies: "Real power is not given,is taken", sadly I think History is just Mafias that get a hold of power until a new Mafia takes over, and once a century a good guy gets at the top, most of the time gets killed. When you open your mind to the possibility to see that there may be another level of power above of what the news tell us, it makes the picture easier to understand.

Oh good, the UPDATE brought some helpful advice to the original article.

> So if you're expecting me to tell you what to do, here you go: develop a strategy that is in line with your beliefs and goals, and share it with others.

If only The Day We Fight Back people were doing that. Like, if they had found a piece of legislation that worked toward their goals, come up with ways to improve it further, developed a strategy to support that legislation, and then embarked on a widescale sharing campaign, maybe they could get something done.

>Not only do these tactics not accomplish anything in reality, they also distract people from making a real effort to change the world.

You might say the same thing about a massive street protest. Those people are just standing in the street shouting, they're not physically acting to solve their complaints! And yet, from civil rights to overturning dictatorships, peaceful public protests have proven unsurpassed for effecting change. In a world where social networks are no longer local, people still need a way to coordinate and make a show of strength in support of their chosen causes.

I think the author was trying to say that these online campaigns make people feel like they've contributed and therefore don't need to participate in a street protest.

While I do see the parallel you are pointing out, I think "I care so much that I spent 5 seconds to type in my email address!" and "I care so much that I gave up a whole day of my life" might be a case of a quantitative differences large enough to be qualitative.

I don't expect this event alone to have much effect, but let's remember that similar efforts did put a stop to SOPA, and the NSA is facing a bit of pressure from Congress already.

Good point. The SOPA bill died a quick death on internet blackout day.

>Demand Progress, if after four years you are still talking about the same problems, don't you think your strategy might not be working out?

It's pretty common for any movement seeking significant change to take considerably longer than 4 years.

That's only 2 terms of a House representative, one presidential term, or 2/3 of a senator's term.

OK, so what do you propose we do instead?

crickets

To avoid becoming part of the problem myself, here's my suggestion:

Find one Member of Congress who's been vocally supportive of these programs, and run them out of their job. Throw down a challenge -- "we're coming for Representative X" -- then form a PAC (or piggyback on the PAC of a supportive org, like EFF or the ACLU) dedicated specifically to turning that person out of office, raise money, and use it to nail their scalp to the wall.

Once you've demonstrated that you have enough support and money to do that, I guarantee the rest of Congress will start paying close attention to you. Most Members of Congress care a lot more about their next election than they do about issues in the abstract. And if one isn't enough, you'll have built infrastructure that you can use the next election cycle to go after two, or five, or ten more.

In other words, be the Wayne Wheeler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler) of individual privacy. He used these exact tactics to pass Prohibition. Prohibition! Imagine what you can do if you harness them to something that's actually worth passing.

Someone like Dianne Feinstein, California Senator, who has emerged as vocal defender of the spying programs?

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/18/nation/la-na-adv-fei...

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Sure, why not? You could raise lots of CA tech money, I'm sure.

One of the hallmarks of an effective issue advocacy group is that it cares more about performance on its issue than it does about party affiliation. So you might want to take on one Democrat and one Republican (preferably from different states, to head off criticism that your movement is geographically limited) to make the point.

One note, though: there is a lot more money sloshing around in a Senate race then there is in a House race. You might want your first targets to by House members, therefore, to make the most of what will at first be limited resources.

"why not?"

Because she's not up for re-election until 2018.

>You could raise lots of CA tech money, I'm sure.

To throw out Feinstein?

lol

And now you have evidence for how much tech's corporate overlords really care about the surveillance programs.

Or how scared they are.

Perhaps someone a little more vulnerable in general might be a good idea. I think I remember reading somewhere that she basically has that seat for life.

Everyone in US congress has the seat for life. The reelection rate is never below 80% for congress and hardly ever below that for the senate.

Indeed, unfortunately while I am quite disappointed in Sen. Feinstein, to lead a revolt against her would require finding someone from within SF progressive circles who is willing to vote similarly to her in so many other areas, and I can't imagine anyone with such juice - Barbara Boxer poses the same problem. Neither of them is likely to lose their seats anytime soon.

Fighting back isn't about getting what we want today, it's about being on a road for it. In your community, wherever you live, there are probably a handful of issues that overwhelmingly drive each election. This is true most places. It's important to make sure that Internet Freedom ranks alongisde things like Worker's rights, Women's rights, Immigration Reform, etc..

It's important that the next generation of politicians have no choice but to address this as part of their platform.

While I really like the fiery call to action another commenter made about "nailing their scalp to the wall" with anyone who supports this, it's very clearly a generational problem. I think a lot of damage could be done to unseat someone like Feinstein or Boxer who do good jobs of standing up for other issues and are simply ignorant on this one, and probably always will be. Hopefully they will staff up, listen to the EFF and ACLU, and I can tell you from having been involved in activism from the jail cell to the armchair that when you call your representative you are helping to DEMAND that they meet with the experts who are on our side. When we choose a day to call them, that means that everyone in congress will be talking about this issue today, whether they like it or not, even if every time their chief of staff speaks to them they mention, "and lots more people called about the internet."

This tells them that a bunch of people are upset, and even if they can't or won't each individually give us exactly what we want - votes for and against, depending on the situation, it registers that to preserve their career they need to engage this concern somehow.

Generationally, we will win this. We will undo whatever damage the current generation of power brokers do, but undoing fucked up legislation is REALLY FUCKING HARD, so if we can even round some of the corners for the discussion we'll be having in ten years, if we can even slow each lost battle by a year, by a term, by a decade, the tide will turn, some of today's ignorant voters and legislators will die, and we will inherit a world that has far more flaws than flawed internet regulations, like dying oceans.

Also I wouldn't be too hard on the OP, activism is hard, and it's fucking frustrating, and it sounds like he or she engages with a lot of activists and doesn't hear the greater conversation they're trying to influence, but hears the DEAFENING BLAH FUCKING BLAH which I totally sympathize with, but that DEAFENING BLAH FUCKING BLAH is a whimper to some people and sometimes we just need to mostly agree on a message and execute it and come back tomorrow to do it some more.

If the alternative is shutting up and watching the wrong shit happen and complaining next week that noone wants to help with my awesome activism plan, I'll be calling my representative today.

Something that can be even more effective is to target congressmen who are a little on your side, but not reliably so. Those are the people you can swing to your side with the least effort. Hammer them hard.

Source: a couple long-time political operatives teaching a weekend seminar I attended a couple years ago.

I absolutely agree. I don't get why the tech industry is so afraid of throwing some more of their weight around to bring political change in ways that are more aggressive than what your average joe could do.

Politicians care about one thing - getting reelected and we all know the effects of money in politics. Let's put together a list of politicians we want to get out of office, fund their opponents aggressively and find leverage. By leverage, I mean find what makes these politicians uncomfortable, what they really don't want you to make a fuss about and do some convincing to get them to see the light.

We need an insider, a Frank Underwood to take care of things inside the beltway.

Donate actual cash to a lobbying group that puts experienced lobbying muscle and cash into changing current policy. Cash is a more effective than whining to a local representative over the phone. It's also what you're up against because you're essentially fighting the military contractors.

Do you know where can I donate for this specific issue?

The EFF is a good place (unless I'm wrong, if so, someone let me know).

https://www.eff.org/work

As someone who doesn't live in the States: organize a rally right in front of Congress (it wouldn't be the first time something like that is done[1]), march, organize protests. Things like the Civil Rights Movement, the protests against Vietnam and Gay Pride Parades are great examples of the kind of effort it takes to get real change.

Signing an internet petition, though? That didn't even bring Firefly back on TV.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or...

While not simply a petition (nb. this isn't either), the anti-SOPA blackout - particularly the calls and media it prompted - accomplished a whole heck of a lot more than the Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear.

You can criticize the article about no making any proposals itself, but I don't think that's the point of the article. I think the following bit, talking about the effect of such events as "The Day We Fight Back", sums it up pretty well,

> They make people feel like they've "done their part", effectively killing their willingness to get involved in any more constructive future efforts.

Overall, I agree with the sentiment of the author. That said, I can't say that I have any solutions either.

Reminds me of Slavoj Žižek, who is fond of inverting the slogan ‘Don’t just talk, do something!’ to remind activists that sometimes it is more important to analyze a situation than chase after the instant gratification that comes from doing something, whether it is charity, protest, or consumer environmentalism.

I would have loved to see an Occupy 2.0 like movement with marches or protests on the Mall, at NSA HQ, on the streets in front of their parking lot, at their freeway offramps, and at the AT&T building in San Francisco.

(Hey! There is an event at the AT&T building. Good! https://www.facebook.com/events/614121478661276/)

Protests in front of the White House.

Protests on the steps of Capitol Hill.

Protests wherever President Obama speaks for the next 30 days.

Local protests in front of Federal Courthouses.

Local protests at your Senator and Representative's office.

I sadly believe all these banners are mockable and worse than useless. The day we fight back? There wasn't even an intentional Internet blackout today!

Protests in front of your local federal court house does nothing. It annoys the residents when FPS brings out the dogs to sniff trash cans and the college newpaper camerman is blocking your front door, and the real news media couldn't give a crap. Voting is the only thing that actually matters.

Ironically, while deriding "The Day We Fight Back" as having no strategy, this post offers none either. But I do agree it's important to assess our strategy to see if it's actually accomplishing anything.

What do you want him to say that won't get him arrested?

This makes no sense. Let's imagine that he does have some strategy proposals, but that stating such proposals would get him arrested. Well, if the fear of arrest is the reason he's not doing it, then maybe that's exactly why the "The Day We Fight Back" isn't as forceful as he thinks it ought to be. In which case he's no better than the activism he's criticizing.

I don't understand the assertion that, in order to criticize, one must always solve whatever problem is in question. It's the same kind of logical strangeness as "if you can't do it, you can't criticize it."

Criticism isn't always about "you're wrong and I'm right." Pointing out a deficiency can encourage discussion. There's no necessity to be an authority or have a foolproof solution ready in order to make relevant statements; convincing people this should be some kind of requirement stifles ideas and prevents the advancement and improvement that "hey, there's something wrong here" can put in motion.

>This whole "Day We Fight Back" thing is an utterly pointless waste of time and efforts, and nothing more than feel-good armchair activism.

Actually, there is a ton of AFK non-armchair events going on for "Day We Fight Back": https://thedaywefightback.org/events/

The author has some good points. Ultimately, it is a kind of slacktivism. And a mass effort of one day won't fully counter the efforts of a few who are paid very well to advance the contrary agenda, the other 364 days of the year. And I speak as someone who was intimately involved in the anti-SOPA efforts.

But I disagree that it's completely futile. I often meet people who've never even heard of Snowden. So awareness raising can be important. Ultimately I think we're going to need new organizations and institutions, and new relationships with elected representatives. But until that day, it's worth doing what we can to delay the worst aspects of the surveillance state.

Everyone is talking about calling Congress or signing a petition, this is pointless.

Congress is completely broke.

We don't need Congress. Why can't we vote on budgets ourselves?

We have the internet. We can devise a way to vote online a few times a year, once a quarter.

You login, you look at the proposals, you vote on what you think is good for the country.

Congress is the middleman that is poisoning our system.

The three branches of government should be: the people, the court, the executive.

And we could do away with the excesses of the President's power. No more NSA. No more pointless wars. No more TSA.

Gone. Well, if that's what people want.

True democracy with the protections of the court and a true executive, not a power hungry executive branch.

> Congress is completely broke.

I think you meant "broken" – they have plenty of money.

Specialization. I don't have time to research these things as deeply as someone we're paying full time. Which isn't to say that this concern should dominate - clearly, there are issues which this would ameliorate; any proposal has costs and benefits. Just pointing out a (potentially significant) cost.

I know more about the internet and web than the congressman who are regulating it, so why should they get to pass rules they know nothing about?

The answer? They shouldn't. Congress is less than useless. They are harming us. They are not governing, they are parasites living off the work of others.

You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. I'd wager a little that we can put a tighter bound. With direct popular vote, we'd be regulated by people around the median. This is not to say nothing else could be made to work, or mightn't work better, but your sophistry is unbecoming.

>You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical.

You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?

It's a joke. A subversion of proper governance and democratic principles.

Because like you said

>I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on.

So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors.

"You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?"

... because they are also in charge of regulating workplace behavior and taxation and immigration policy and forestry and environmental protection and on and on... One individual cannot know more about everything than does a specialist in the field - that's why we have specialists! You're specializing in (I'm guessing) software and networking. They're specializing in legislating and management. If they're communicating well and properly doing their job, this is a better system than asking you to regulate the internet and treaties regarding overfishing off the Aleutians.

"So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors."

They are not themselves elected, but they are hired and managed by an elected official whose performance is - in large part - a proxy for the performance of the staffers. There is nothing inherently wrong with delegation and specialization - that's how we get shit done. Corruption - overt and otherwise - is certainly an issue. It is an issue whether it involves staffers or the politician directly, and it is probably a strong argument for a more democratized approach, but is unrelated to the question of domain knowledge.

California allows direct democracy by referendum and ballot measure. The results have largely been terrible.

I've found that writing concise and effectively worded personal letters, in my own words, and faxing them to my representatives in Congress, does seem to have some effect.

I lay out my case, demonstrate that I am knowledgeable on the topic and obviously paying personal attention to it, and that I can think and reason rationally including when I vote.

That, they -- and/or their staff -- seem to notice.

Of course, now my Congressional representatives seem to be beginning to hide their fax numbers. So far, my Google-fu has remained sufficiently strong...

There was a guy once, in India, that freed its own country from its greedy colonizers, just by walking alone, 240 miles to the sea for 24 days, just to produce salt without paying taxes to the imperialists that seized its country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March

If you dont want to do nothing, it's your right to do so.. but keep your cynical pessimism to yourself, by doing that, you will give a real contribution to the world.

This is how you change the world: be a better person yourself. All the awareness-raising in the world is futile if the populace are too indebted to see beyond their next meal. So don't be that guy. Live within your means. Know your neighbors. Keep yourself fit and healthy. And try to increase your viral coefficient.

EDIT: And yes, I did call.

The only hope that we have of containing mass surveillance technologies is to establish a moral norm against using these technologies as unchecked tools of power.

The point of the Day We Fight Back is not that effect that we have in Congress but the effect calling Congress has on us as a society.

> for people who want to feel like they are "changing the world", regardless of whether they actually are changing the world.

Is that really why people share/sign up for it though? I don't think so. Sharing the message to the nontechnical community is important.

Well buddy you just made me feel stupid but you do speak the truth. Point noted and lesson learned.

The armchair activist is the person who thinks that the world's problems can be solved in but 3 years, by doing nothing in particular whatsoever, and such that you'll never again have to lift a finger to make the world a better place.

Thanks for saying what nobody else dared to say.

When I saw "The Day We Fight Back" in the header and in the #1 spot, I just ignored it and click on the #2 article. The day we fight back? Please don't waste my time.

So, what would you have us do? Shouting slogans in the streets and throwing molotovs like a bunch of thugs? Democracies only work via citizens voicing their preference and then participating in the civil structure as such.

Admittedly, democracy itself has been on life support for quite some time now, but that's a separate issue.

Author here. Had to register a new account, as I lost the password to my original account a while ago.

Addressing a few of the points made in the comments here...

> You're hypocritical because you just wasted time writing that post

This is false. That post took approximately 30-45 minutes to write, and this comment will take me some 15 minutes to write. That's an hour at most. I work on many things related to activism in various shapes (to the point where I barely have any real free time), and this is just a tiny drop in the bucket. Comparing that to the fact that the bulk of people participating in the "Day We Fight Back" stuff have that as their only contribution to 'activism', this is absolutely not a valid comparison. And no, I'm not trying to pat myself on the back here - I'm just trying to show how this post is a result of genuine frustration, and not some random hypocritical rant from somebody lacking self-reflection.

> Representatives do listen to calls

This is entirely besides the point, and a part of the post actually addresses this. It doesn't matter whether representatives are listening to you or not. Even if it might be a theoretical win, in practice you're not going to see any results from it. The system that these representatives operate in is inherently flawed in many ways, and for every "theoretical win", the situation gets worse in ten other ways. I tried to subtly hint at the framework itself needing change, but it doesn't seem like people picked this up.

> Why are you criticizing when you don't even have a solution

As said by one (!) commenter below, having a solution is not a prerequisite to criticism - no matter the topic. I understand that some people will want to bring this up as an argument, since it provides a way for them to wave away the bulk of criticism coming their way (after all, criticism usually lacks a solution), but it's absolutely vital that you recognize that criticism can and should stand on its own.

Yes, I do have some things that I believe are the solution to many of the problems we currently face. No, I do not think they belong in this blog post. No, I definitely don't want people to blindly follow those solutions, without thinking through the issues themselves first.

> It takes much longer than 4 years to change the world

Yes, yes it does. The problem isn't that the problems haven't been solved yet, the problem is that we're still stuck at the exact same stage, with no sign of progress. It's like a toy robot whirring against the stairs - you could argue that eventually he'll arrive at the top, but in practice that's never going to happen, no matter how long you wait. Four years is more than enough to evaluate whether a strategy is going to have an effect, and it's the evaluation (and subsequent conclusion) that's lacking here.

> An event like this also killed SOPA

It didn't. All it did was cause an outrage, and push it ahead a bit. If anything, it gave rise to even worse proposals. I've also partly addressed that in another post: http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/04/20/im-tired-of-this-...

Wow. Glass houses much? A whole post of nothing but "You're all wasting your time and not accomplishing anything."

In order to not be just 100% hypocritical he would need to offer some actual solutions.

You don't need to know how to cure cancer to know that poking me in the eye won't cure cancer. You don't always need the right answer to recognize a wrong answer.

I didn't ask for the right answer. I said how about any kind of suggestion.

He's not being helpful, he's just being a douche.

"I didn't ask for the right answer. I said how about any kind of suggestion."

What? If the suggestion isn't a good one, it's worse than no suggestion at all, which at least won't mislead people into spending resources. Saying "I don't know the answer" is better than pretending you know the answer, if you don't.

So if you had cancer and it was suggested that to cure it you should poke yourself in the eye... you would prefer for people (who don't know how to cure cancer) to just walk on by rather than letting you know that poking yourself in the eye isn't going to help?

Sometimes the best (only) suggestion a person can give is to suggest that what you are doing is not going to work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com