In 2014, Ben and James were talking about the system being “rigged”, anticipating political developments slightly more than 1 year later.
Are the recent debates on net neutrality, the protests of Google buses, even SOPA a sign of things to come? Building on Ben’s article The Net Neutrality Wake-up Call Ben and James discuss the intersection of technology and politics.
- Why do people in technology tend to dislike politics?
- Is net neutrality really that important and understanding open loop unbundling
- The tech industry and creative destruction: is it good for society when companies go out of business?
- The impact of money on politics
- Why tech and politics are on a collision course
- What we can do to effect change on an individual basis
- The Net Neutrality Wake-up Call – Stratechery
- Net Neutrality Podcast – Stratechery.FM
- We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim – Lawrence Lessig at TED
- Lawrence Lessig’s PAC – MayOne
Lawrence Lessig, “They Don’t Represent Us”
Lawrence Lessig discusses his book, “They Don’t Represent Us”, at Politics and Prose.
In this non-partisan analysis of today’s political divisiveness, Lessig identifies unrepresentativeness as the one problem that underlies the others. He sees it both in institutions—such as the media’s response to narrow interests rather than to those of the wider citizenry—and in the people, who are uninformed about the issues. Lessig, host of the podcast Another Way, co-founder of Creative Commons, and Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, proposes a number of solutions to fix both the “them” and the “us,” ranging from Electoral College reforms to new forums that offer citizens the chance to speak in an informed and deliberative way.
Lawrence Lessig Explains the Unique Evil of Mitch McConnell
Taken from JRE #1214: https://youtu.be/Igc_1TPfK9YMcCain responded it is not specific individuals that make the corruption by a system.
What happened: Hillary’s view
The more serious, systemically, is the Russians. Clinton pulls together the most complete account of what we know or should believe, and the story is truly terrifying. Terrifying, not just for what the Russians did — which is terrible enough—but more for how pathetically the public, meaning journalism, reacted.
.. the most terrifying bit of the Clinton account is just how pathetic journalism in America has become.
.. Had this been the Bush administration warning about Russians trying to flip the election against Obama, that would have been heard and believed. The Obama Administration was probably right that its fears would have rendered political.
.. it all ties to the weakness of relying on commercial media to provide America with what America needs to perform its democratic function.
.. No producer is passing the list of stories to be covered on the evening news by the advertising department. But in the discipline of ratings reporting, and the judgments executives make, it is clear to everyone what stories should be covered because it is clear to everyone what stories will sell.
.. It’s not clear American democracy can survive commercial media
.. When you know why you’re doing something and you know there’s nothing more to it and certainly nothing sinister, it’s easy to assume that others will see it the same way. That was a mistake.
This is a perfect account of her — or anyone’s—own psyche. Yet if true, it is a perfect indictment of a campaign. Because of course, no one could have “assum[ed] that others” saw Clinton in the way Clinton and her staff saw Clinton. Everyone in that campaign must have known that way too many in America were incredibly suspicious of her. That suspicion was partly her fault, partly not
.. the consequence of the never-ending attack on her integrity by Sanders, and then Trump was completely predictable. What Clinton faced was an enormous trust gap. And the fundamental question for the campaign should have been, how do we address that gap?
.. How do we convince America that we — certainly more than Trump—want to remake the corruption of DC? How do we become the reformers, at a time when Americans desperately wanted reform?
.. This fact — that Americans desperately wanted reform — is the single most denied fact of DC insiders in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
.. found Americans (both Democrats and Republicans) more dissatisfied with their government than at any time in polling history.
.. Even though her platform on this issue was the most progressive of any major candidate, including Sanders, the fact that she could never make it central to her message convinced me she either didn’t see it or didn’t care about it.
.. Even her book lists reform nowhere on the top issues the Democrats should pursue.
.. This is the core mistake — not just of Clinton, but of too many in the Democratic Party. America is with Reagan—“Government is not the solution. Government is the problem”—not because they believe, like Reagan, that the private market can solve every public problem, but because they believe their government is fundamentally corrupt.
.. They see taxes as a waste — not because the poor don’t deserve help, but because they believe the government is not helping anyone except itself.
.. That blindness leaves the field wide open for the party of no — no taxes, no immigration, no health care, no (more) social security, no protection for privacy, no network neutrality, no family planning, no dreamers.
.. we need to give America a reason to believe there is good in yes. And we will only do that when we convince them that their government works for them—and not the funders, and the lobbyists, and the corporations