Can Apps Turn Us Into Unpaid Lobbyists? (msn.com) 73
"Today's most effective corporate lobbying no longer involves wooing members of Congress..." writes the Wall Street Journal. Instead the lobbying sector "now works in secret to influence lawmakers with the help of an unlikely ally: you."
[Lobbyists] teamed up with PR gurus, social-media experts, political pollsters, data analysts and grassroots organizers to foment seemingly organic public outcries designed to pressure lawmakers and compel them to take actions that would benefit the lobbyists' corporate clients...
By the middle of 2011, an army of lobbyists working for the pillars of the corporate lobbying establishment — the major movie studios, the music industry, pharmaceutical manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — were executing a nearly $100 million campaign to win approval for the internet bill [the PROTECT IP Act, or "PIPA"]. They pressured scores of lawmakers to co-sponsor the legislation. At one point, 99 of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate appeared ready to support it — an astounding number, given that most bills have just a handful of co-sponsors before they are called up for a vote. When lobbyists for Google and its allies went to Capitol Hill, they made little headway. Against such well-financed and influential opponents, the futility of the traditional lobbying approach became clear. If tech companies were going to turn back the anti-piracy bills, they would need to find another way.
It was around this time that one of Google's Washington strategists suggested an alternative strategy. "Let's rally our users," Adam Kovacevich, then 34 and a senior member of Google's Washington office, told colleagues. Kovacevich turned Google's opposition to the anti-piracy legislation into a coast-to-coast political influence effort with all the bells and whistles of a presidential campaign. The goal: to whip up enough opposition to the legislation among ordinary Americans that Congress would be forced to abandon the effort... The campaign slogan they settled on — "Don't Kill the Internet" — exaggerated the likely impact of the bill, but it succeeded in stirring apprehension among web users.
The coup de grace came on Jan. 18, 2012, when Google and its allies pulled off the mother of all outside influence campaigns. When users logged on to the web that day, they discovered, to their great frustration, that many of the sites they'd come to rely on — Wikipedia, Reddit, Craigslist — were either blacked out or displayed text outlining the detrimental impacts of the proposed legislation. For its part, Google inserted a black censorship bar over its multicolored logo and posted a tool that enabled users to contact their elected representatives. "Tell Congress: Please don't censor the web!" a message on Google's home page read. With some 115,000 websites taking part, the protest achieved a staggering reach. Tens of millions of people visited Wikipedia's blacked-out website, 4.5 million users signed a Google petition opposing the legislation, and more than 2.4 million people took to Twitter to express their views on the bills. "We must stop [these bills] to keep the web open & free," the reality TV star Kim Kardashian wrote in a tweet to her 10 million followers...
Within two days, the legislation was dead...
Over the following decade, outside influence tactics would become the cornerstone of Washington's lobbying industry — and they remain so today.
"The 2012 effort is considered the most successful consumer mobilization in the history of internet policy," writes the Washington Post — agreeing that it's since spawned more app-based, crowdsourced lobbying campaigns. Sites like Airbnb "have also repeatedly asked their users to oppose city government restrictions on the apps." Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other gig work companies also blitzed the apps' users with scenarios of higher prices or suspended service unless people voted for a 2020 California ballot measure on contract workers. Voters approved it."
The Wall Street Journal also details how lobbyists successfully killed higher taxes for tobacco products, the oil-and-gas industry, and even on private-equity investors — and note similar tactics were used against a bill targeting TikTok. "Some say the campaign backfired. Lawmakers complained that the effort showed how the Chinese government could co-opt internet users to do their bidding in the U.S., and the House of Representatives voted to ban the app if its owners did not agree to sell it.
"TikTok's lobbyists said they were pleased with the effort. They persuaded 65 members of the House to vote in favor of the company and are confident that the Senate will block the effort."
The Journal's article was adapted from an upcoming book titled "The Wolves of K Street: The Secret History of How Big Money Took Over Big Government." But the Washington Post argues the phenomenon raises two questions. "How much do you want technology companies to turn you into their lobbyists? And what's in it for you?"
By the middle of 2011, an army of lobbyists working for the pillars of the corporate lobbying establishment — the major movie studios, the music industry, pharmaceutical manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — were executing a nearly $100 million campaign to win approval for the internet bill [the PROTECT IP Act, or "PIPA"]. They pressured scores of lawmakers to co-sponsor the legislation. At one point, 99 of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate appeared ready to support it — an astounding number, given that most bills have just a handful of co-sponsors before they are called up for a vote. When lobbyists for Google and its allies went to Capitol Hill, they made little headway. Against such well-financed and influential opponents, the futility of the traditional lobbying approach became clear. If tech companies were going to turn back the anti-piracy bills, they would need to find another way.
It was around this time that one of Google's Washington strategists suggested an alternative strategy. "Let's rally our users," Adam Kovacevich, then 34 and a senior member of Google's Washington office, told colleagues. Kovacevich turned Google's opposition to the anti-piracy legislation into a coast-to-coast political influence effort with all the bells and whistles of a presidential campaign. The goal: to whip up enough opposition to the legislation among ordinary Americans that Congress would be forced to abandon the effort... The campaign slogan they settled on — "Don't Kill the Internet" — exaggerated the likely impact of the bill, but it succeeded in stirring apprehension among web users.
The coup de grace came on Jan. 18, 2012, when Google and its allies pulled off the mother of all outside influence campaigns. When users logged on to the web that day, they discovered, to their great frustration, that many of the sites they'd come to rely on — Wikipedia, Reddit, Craigslist — were either blacked out or displayed text outlining the detrimental impacts of the proposed legislation. For its part, Google inserted a black censorship bar over its multicolored logo and posted a tool that enabled users to contact their elected representatives. "Tell Congress: Please don't censor the web!" a message on Google's home page read. With some 115,000 websites taking part, the protest achieved a staggering reach. Tens of millions of people visited Wikipedia's blacked-out website, 4.5 million users signed a Google petition opposing the legislation, and more than 2.4 million people took to Twitter to express their views on the bills. "We must stop [these bills] to keep the web open & free," the reality TV star Kim Kardashian wrote in a tweet to her 10 million followers...
Within two days, the legislation was dead...
Over the following decade, outside influence tactics would become the cornerstone of Washington's lobbying industry — and they remain so today.
"The 2012 effort is considered the most successful consumer mobilization in the history of internet policy," writes the Washington Post — agreeing that it's since spawned more app-based, crowdsourced lobbying campaigns. Sites like Airbnb "have also repeatedly asked their users to oppose city government restrictions on the apps." Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other gig work companies also blitzed the apps' users with scenarios of higher prices or suspended service unless people voted for a 2020 California ballot measure on contract workers. Voters approved it."
The Wall Street Journal also details how lobbyists successfully killed higher taxes for tobacco products, the oil-and-gas industry, and even on private-equity investors — and note similar tactics were used against a bill targeting TikTok. "Some say the campaign backfired. Lawmakers complained that the effort showed how the Chinese government could co-opt internet users to do their bidding in the U.S., and the House of Representatives voted to ban the app if its owners did not agree to sell it.
"TikTok's lobbyists said they were pleased with the effort. They persuaded 65 members of the House to vote in favor of the company and are confident that the Senate will block the effort."
The Journal's article was adapted from an upcoming book titled "The Wolves of K Street: The Secret History of How Big Money Took Over Big Government." But the Washington Post argues the phenomenon raises two questions. "How much do you want technology companies to turn you into their lobbyists? And what's in it for you?"
Teach critical thinking in schools (Score:5, Interesting)
We should also be doing nonpartisan public service announcements about misinformation and to teach basic critical thinking skills. Again pay special attention to anyone who opposes this policy.
Re:Teach critical thinking in schools (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the headline, it appears that schools should place a stronger emphasis on teaching English.
A humanities class?!!!! (Score:3)
Fun fact when you see somebody with a Masters or a doctorate in some sort of a humanities 99% of the time they paid for it with a fellowship or a scholarship rather than loans and their loans are likely to be from their undergraduate degree. I found this out looking into my kid's grad school (which in their cas
Re: (Score:1)
We have waaaaaay too many people getting useless degrees. Not only should there be far fewer humanities masters/phds, there are too many bachelors. Just how many English, history, polisci, women's studies, and so on degrees does society need?
Those people are unemployable because they are in fact unemployable. Or only under employable given their alleged education.
Society would be just fine if those degrees were rare and the people getting them were the top folks who are worthy of a scholarship or academi
Re: (Score:2)
Fortune 50 CEO material right out of school. Every single one.
We need more of 'em (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Modded down by some dumbass with worthless degree from small liberal arts college and 6 figures of loan debt they'll never repay.
Lmao@you
This is factually false (Score:2)
Somebody told you there were a lot of useless degree. They lied to you. What else have they lied to you about?
Re: (Score:2)
15% is obviously too many useless degrees. If you think we need more you've been lied to. What are tens of thousands of people with history, polisci, sociology, and history degrees going to do every year? Go into law and business? Yawn. The ones too stupid for the very low standards of law school will serve fries which is where they belong.
1% of racist degrees is 1% too many. Again, you're been deceived if you think a degree in "hate whitey" is important to society. What do these racists do? Stir up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dude...you don't even think for yourself...I mean shit, you yourself buy into misinformation about Nordic countries that you hear from a guy known to have FASD. Watch the video in my signature and you'll know what I'm talking about. That said, I have to reply to the shitty headline with this: Can rsilvergun ever critical thinking?
Re:Teach critical thinking in schools (Score:5, Interesting)
I largely blame sci-fi. A lot of it painted a very overly optimistic view of the future. Flying cars, fusion, colonies in space, holodeck sex, robots that do all your household chores, pressing a button and then taking the rest of the day off, etc. If you believed any of that was really going to happen, the present must seem pretty disappointing.
Instead, we got wirelessly networked pocket computers that allow us to argue with each other about politics (and let's face it, everything is political now). Then for some odd reason we started giving these devices to children, and have recently begun to question if that was really such a great idea.
The future is actually kind of a drag. News at 11.
You're the one who gave up on the future (Score:2, Funny)
I guess it would give somebody some sort of sense of order in the universe and maybe a we
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just because it's an election year, or have you gotten weirder?
Yeah, I fail some of the left-wing purity tests. I like suburban living and private vehicle ownership. I think fossil fuels still play a crucial role in our economy until they can be carefully phased-out. I wholeheartedly believe consenting adults have the right to love who they choose to love, regardless of their gender. I strongly support the rights of LGBTQ+ youth but draw the line at trans surgery for anyone who isn't yet an adult. I
Re: (Score:2)
>"Where's that put me on the political spectrum?"
That entirely depends on what spectrum. And as long as everyone believes there is one dimension- only left and right, we are screwed. Even the two dimensional one (left/right, authoritarian/libertarian) isn't nearly robust enough. I certainly don't fit easily into any of the typical definitions either. In fact, tons of people don't.
https://www.politicalcompass.o... [politicalcompass.org]
Again, lots of overly simple questions without definitions and no option for "neither agr
Re: (Score:2)
I get so annoyed with this left vs right shit. People who follow it can't even figure out what the hell it means other than "if you're not like me, you're on the opposite side". I've had some asshole on reddit say, based on the opinions I expressed, that I'm a "right libertarian" which he says is -- get this, no fucking joke -- conservative in all but name. So why not just fucking say conservative to begin with if the only difference is the name? Problem is he can't reconcile every belief I have with that,
Dude the FrontRunner for the GOP (Score:2)
I don't know if you're American or not but if you aren't you need to understand that we have the most powerful military on the planet and tons of nuclear weapons and we're about to give that over to an incompetent buffoon and his cadre of religious lunatics.
American or not that w
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like I'm a damn famous influencer or anything, so I wouldn't expect you to remember that I'm some middle-aged gay man who lives with his also middle-aged partner in Florida. *shrug*
At any rate, the damage Trump can do has already been done. The SCOTUS has been pushed far to the right, and policy wise regarding China, Biden isn't much different. Getting any progressive agendas through the House and Senate still requires more votes than there are Democrats, so that's not happening regardless of wh
Re: (Score:2)
>"You're not the one who gets to tell everybody what to do. I never understood why that's so important to people on the right wing but I do understand that it's the only thing that matters to them."
What you don't understand is that "people on the left wing" do the exact same thing, often even worse. But you are utterly blinded to it, and are certainly not alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Not me. It's not that you blame science fiction it's that your upset that you're not the protagonist. You're not the one who gets to tell everybody what to do. I never understood why that's so important to people on the right wing but I do understand that it's the only thing that matters to them. Obedience. You obey every command and you want above you gives you and anyone below you obeys every command you give them.
What the fuck...seriously? You're the one always talking about how the government needs to take everything you don't like away from everybody. How is that not obedience? The reason you think you're not obedient to anything is because you're yet another one of those idiots who wants the world to go to shit (probably with some kind of tard revolution) so that everybody will see the light of your fucked up ideology (which by the way, history has repeatedly shown to be non-viable and indeed quite broken.)
In oth
Re: (Score:2)
That completely ignores the huge volume of dystopian science fiction.
Dude I can literally look up (Score:2)
I can also look at multiple peer-reviewed scientific papers that show we have had enough housing food and medicine to take care of everyone on the planet let alone everyone in America for the last about 40 years (it's actually closer to 60 years but if
Re: (Score:1)
How much a McDonald's worker in those countries is paid and how much vacation time and health care they have and compared to what I get in America. I can also look up the price of a Big Mac over there and find it the same or honestly lately a bit cheaper.
It looks like the pay is about 120 kronor per hour in Stockholm -- which translates to about $11/hour, basically the same as the US.
I can also look at multiple peer-reviewed scientific papers that show we have had enough housing food and medicine to take care of everyone on the planet let alone everyone in America for the last about 40 years (it's actually closer to 60 years but if you go back that far it gets a little debatable). We've been living in a post scarcity world that creates artificial scarcity for the protecting the ruling class for ages.
Why don't you cite them? Perhaps because they're not scientific? Food I can possibly believe because we're a net exporter, but at the same time nobody actually goes hungry here except in cases of some variant of neglect. Let's suppose this was the case for housing though -- if it was, I guarantee you that you're talking about e.g. Detroit or New Orleans where people simply aban
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a two minute video from them, tell me whether you agree with it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the basic concept that literacy and logic and civics and a bunch of other things should be taught.
The problem is who will teach these things and what will they teach exactly?
For example we don't need Ebonics or "math is white supremacy" or "the Founders loved pure democracy" or a bunch of other nonsense that would only make things worse but get said everyday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Teach critical thinking in schools
You wouldn't like that, that would destroy socialism.
Can slashdot editors proofread? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Can slashdot editors proofread? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can slashdot editors proofread? (Score:5, Funny)
I can haz politician?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in the USA and you have enough money, yes, you can haz politician.
Re: Can slashdot editors proofread? (Score:2)
Rarely is the question asked: "Is our children learning?"
-- George W. Bush
Re: (Score:3)
Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?
But few word can tricking our waste time!
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously not. Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously not. Next question?
Notting! Obviously Notting. Next Question.
Re: (Score:2)
Can Apps Turning Us Into Unpaid Lobbyists? (Score:5, Funny)
Is our children learning?
Re: (Score:2)
Is our children learning?
Only if school have apps.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't that cat-speak?
Re: Can Apps Turning Us Into Unpaid Lobbyists? (Score:2)
That was actually dubyah (though I didn't post that quote to shade him (there are better reasons to do so)):
"Seldom the question asked: Is our children learning?"
Re: Can Apps Turning Us Into Unpaid Lobbyists? (Score:2)
Ok, he actually said "Rarely is...", not "Seldom". Sorry for the misquote.
Can Apps Turning Us Into Unpaid Lobbyists? (Score:2)
commentsubject (Score:1)
>"SOPA opposition wasn't organic"
>people opposing SOPA = "unlikely allies"
lol. lmao.
I don't disagree with the concept here, I don't doubt uber and airbnb and all are brainwashing plebs and septembers but this? This is nothing new. All you've ever needed for a TV commercial is elderly actors looking scared and a "Vote no on Proposition #69." In a broader sense, our ancestors have long convinced the slightly-less-poors with tiny six-figure incomes that their money would be taken away in a redistribution
No, politicians weigh contact by medium (Score:2)
Can Apps Turn Us Into Unpaid Lobbyists?
No, politicians weigh contacts by medium. The more effort put into the contact the more heavily weighted. Generated contacts, emails, texts, are considered to have near zero value. Now a handwritten letter sent via postal mail, that's an important contact.
Faxing is better (Score:4, Interesting)
Can Apps Turn Us Into Unpaid Lobbyists?
No, politicians weigh contacts by medium. The more effort put into the contact the more heavily weighted. Generated contacts, emails, texts, are considered to have near zero value. Now a handwritten letter sent via postal mail, that's an important contact.
Faxing is better. Powders and simple devices can be sent by letter, and politicians have to watch out for that.
Faxing means you're likely to be in a place that has a fax, ie a business, and if you put your thoughts on a letter with corporate logo then that's even better.
And yeah, faxing is very old school, but it's still used in a lot of down-to-earth places, the kind of grass-roots companies that politicians like to cultivate.
Re: (Score:2)
Also to be better the fax has to be unique, personal. If everyone is faxing the same thing then these faxes are of little value, little impact.
Let me get this straight (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt! I for one supported the anti-censorship campaign led by Wikipedia and Google, described in the summary. Copyright law is out of control. The original term was 14 years, then 28, then 70+ years. We need to go back to our roots and understand the value of the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
This article is about a group of lobbyists complaining that their lobbying didn't work because actual people called their representatives. And they blame this on "apps are lobbying against us".
Of course it's possible that companies deceive the public and get them to advocate against their interests.
But on the whole, companies having to persuade the public to persuade politicians, instead of persuading the politicians directly, sounds like the system working as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
No. This article is about the unprecedented ability to mobilise a SHITTONNE (that's 1.1 US imperial SHITTONS) of people through apps.
There's a big difference between lobbying, telling a bunch of friends to be angry and call their reps, and telling some hundred million people to call their reps.
Anybody Happy (Score:2)
With a huge corporation throwing its weight around via spending $ that none of us could ever afford. Before you say yes because you agree with the outcome be aware the next corporation doing this, perhaps Musk, Inc., might not push things in the direction you desire.
This started our war against the Cardassians (Score:2)
They insisted that their race is spelt with a 'K' (You know, K is for Kanye and all that
Gig-employers are deceitful (Score:2)
"... what's in it for you?"
Cheap stuff: People want information for free so giving US corporations more rights than the already-generous DMCA, wasn't going to be tolerated once voters knew Congress was removing their freedoms.
Same for gig-workers: Americans like people who don't have the discipline to charge for training, uniforms, insurance, holiday and pension allowance, tools, or to form a guild with other self-employed people. It's not all bad: The absence of those things means gig-work is most-times a second-job. But it
Canadian Apps? (Score:2)
I know WE THE NORTH Y'ALL
Who wrote the headline? (Score:2)
The term is "useful idiot".... (Score:2)
You are not a lobbyist unless you are paid for it. Least you can ask for selling your soul.
Is paid lobbyists better? (Score:2)
So the choice for Americans is between paid lobbyists and unpaid lobbyists?
How about no lobbyists at all and taking money out of politics? E.g. start by putting back a limit on how much money politicians can take?
Time for a new pejorative. (Score:2)
Anyone using apps this way to illicitly bend or harm society for nefarious self-serving purpose,
they are Appsholes.
Freedom (Score:2)
It seems to be simply a continuation of the same mechanisms via other media presented by the book, "Manufacturing Consent": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
R-r-ng r-r-ng (Score:2)
-breathing- Hhh-h-h-apps.
What?
-breathing hitches- Apps, baby, you know apps h-h -h.
Fucking sicko
But APPS!
-click-