Wirehead Studios

I'm kinda surprised this hasn't been brought up here.


It seems that this will show what senators are easily bought.

Discuss

Can you provide a link to the entire content of the source article?

... dammit I forgot that

http://www.savetheinternet.com/ (http://www.savetheinternet.com/)

it's more or less a protest/petition site

Petitions never work. Sorry, but they don't.

Petitions CAN work, but not the electronic kind.  An electronic list of names can be generated randomly by a computer.  If you approach a politician with half a million real signatures, it says to them "these are real people who are pretty likely to cast a vote in an election since they bothered to sign this."  It takes a lot of hard work and logistical organization to do that, but there are documented cases of ballot referendums being initiated by petition and passing.  The downside is usually these are more local issues, not national ones.

That's where your "special interest groups" come into play, you know, the ones that get demonized by politicians who don't like them?  Let's say you like firearm rights.  You'll want an organization like the NRA that can speak for you.  Say you're on the other side of the firearm debate and don't think people should own them.  You'd probably want to associate with the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center.  When a special interest is a membership organization it can help the people have more a voice in lobbying the government since it's hard for individual citizens to do so.  Where they're bad is when they are small, non-member driven and funded by "rich philanthropists", corporations, or other people with questionable motives who want to shout down certain segments of the population by throwing money around.  It does get even more complicated than this since you have some political action groups that raise money and membership through deceiving their members while advancing a political agenda - scare tactics and fearmongering are commonplace, but you've got a better shot at being heard by linking up with the right kind.

The easiest way to advance your concerns is to vote for representatives that, well, represent what you want.  Just showing up at the ballot box anymore seems to be a chore for a lot of people.  It seems that in established democracies people become apathetic and complacent toward voting, so by voting you're actually giving yourself an edge, hedging against the idiots who are content to just let everything go however it goes and do nothing except complain that things aren't how they want them to be.  Your voice is individually louder when fewer people show up, but if you can bring a friend or two who share your ideals, that's where it starts to domino.  You have to do your homework and understand the issues, who has what position, who is more likely to keep their word (since politicians lie and break promises), and who has a better track record of doing what they say.  Bombarding candidates with phone calls and letters can get their attention, but only if you can overwhelm them.  A good recent example of public pressure having an effect on government was the Terri Schaivo case.  Regardless of how you may have felt about the issue, the fact is public pressure made the government do something, for good or for ill.  It can work, you just have to make the idiots in charge feel threatened with losing their election seat to get any results.

Of course, some people will say elections are rigged and that none of it works, I can't help it if some people think that way.  They may be right, who knows, but I'm all for trying regardless.  Sitting on one's ass never changed much of anything.

Here's an update to the net neutrality issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5063072.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5063072.stm)

Wow... that sucks ass actually.  I really wish I would have been more proactive in opposing such a law.  Hopefully, it'll be overturned by the senate.  I very much do not like the idea of my internet access being regulated, and I really fail to see how this could save me money.

I'm agreeing with Kain here.  Come on, a 30-40 dollar less internet service that controls what you see? Sounds much worse then paying the whole damn price to do whatever you want on the 'net.

And like Kain said, I hope the Senate declines something like this. If this were to pass, then the internet wouldn't be as expansive as it is now. Sometimes I wish I could strangle the authorites myself and get away with it...

This is really the standard for any information exchange medium. Larger ads cost more money, longer tv spots cost more money, long distance telephone calls cost more money.  Im not saying im in favor of it but these are private companys not goverment institutions you cant expect them to charge everyone the same amount no matter how much bandwidth they use. Im really surprized this didnt happen long ago.

Ask A Ninja: Net Neutrality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69eCYcDcuQ)

:D

"A big wall made out of the shreds of the First Amendment ..."

Genius.

It's mad, it's sort of like what the Chinese Government is doing, only for money.

What somebody needs to do is convince the service providers that it somehow makes them more money by not putting up walls.  If they thought it would make them billions by allowing unrestricted content access you know they'd do it.  Greedy people are predictable.  How to manipulate that predictability... ahh, that's the key, isn't it?