

Dear Tech Community, We Have A Communication Problem - untog
http://blog.untogether.co.uk/post/16070447348/dear-tech-community-we-have-a-communication-problem

======
gfodor
The problem is the tech community is largely full of hyper-logical people, for
better or worse. The average American, however, responds best to logical
fallacies like appeals to emotion, authority, and the clever use of language
to frame issues in a dishonest way. I firmly believe there will not be much
progress in American democracy until the "good guys" realize it's time to
embrace the 'if you can't beat em, join em' philosophy and start creating
controlled, disciplined messaging that, while carefully navigating the line
between truth and fiction, manages to stand toe-to-toe with the spin masters
over at Fox News et al.

~~~
ellyagg
Wow. I do not agree with this at all. When I've heard this sentiment before
it's from people who, despite the fact that they think they are hyperlogical
and despite the fact that I think I'm hyperlogical, don't in fact agree with
me on all public policy issues.

Moreover, at least when it comes to the two dominant parties, carefully
controlled and dishonest messaging is already the order of the day.

Logic is not the only, or even the most important, factor which undermines
productive debate. It's the failure to recognize that a lot of what people
believe about public policy is rooted in unprovable assumptions. If two people
start with separate premises (e.g., different vision of what an ideal world
looks like), all the logic in the world won't make them meet.

I don't believe the answer is more dishonesty. I believe the answer is new
tools that are somehow captivating while simultaneously inoculating against
the well-known human mental frailties. I sometimes idly imagine a new type of
news show with built-in checks and balances to root out logical fallacies,
explain assumptions, and guard against cognitive biases. I'm not yet sure how
to make people watch it though. ;)

The state of public debate sucks, but I think we've made progress. Just
because we have further to go doesn't mean we should start going backwards.
Also, when you're so certain your "side" is right that you start wanting to
cheat, it's time to check your own premises and cognitive biases and see if
there's any way you may be giving your policy opponents shorter shrift than
they deserve.

~~~
gfodor
You'll notice I didn't say we have to be dishonest. The problem is that in the
quest to be unequivocally, unquestionably correct, the message ends up getting
diluted and ultimately destroyed.

The reasons the Republicans control the debate is because they come to a
decision on an issue, and focus on getting their message and viewpoint across
in the simplest way possible. They do not play devil's advocate, do not focus
on arguments against their point, because it's an ineffective use of their
time when being listened to. They frame issues in a way that people can
understand them, and, in their own perverse way, respect their audience for
the fact they often are not very interested in the details and would like
someone to sum up their views succinctly and in a way that makes a value
judgement possible quickly.

Where they cross the line is where they outright lie. But it's not their
responsibility to point out the flaws in their own argument, nor is it their
responsibility to avoid logical fallacies in making their case if those
appeals to emotion make the issue more 'real' for their audience.

Meanwhile, Democrats trying to do the right thing end up in-fighting over the
most minute detail of how to frame their argument in a way that is both pure
and honest. They acknowledge the argument of the other side, and always posit
themselves as a refutation to the primary mover, the Republicans (or in this
case, the big media industry.) They do not frame the argument. They do not set
the grounds for discussion. They do not assert their power.

A lot can be learned by watching the way the right-wing spin machine works. It
is a tool that can be used for good or evil, and used in a way that is
ethically sound. Of course, it is important to avoid the trap of going too
far, and we can see clearly the result of doing so. But this doesn't mean that
we can't channel the power of messaging, framing, and so on in order to bring
about progress.

For example, we've already lost this debate in so many ways. The response to
this shouldn't just be "block this bill" it should be "block this bill", and:

\- Here is a concise message that summarizes our position: "Don't break our
Internet," "Get your hands off our Internet", "Leave the Internet alone,"
"Stop trying to break the Internet" (Edit: Right now, Google's position is
"Please don't censor the web!" Say that in the voice of a little girl and you
might understand why this messaging sucks. Don't say please. Don't use the
word censor. Tell them to fuck off without using profanity.)

\- Here is a pledge that you as a representative must sign about passing
Internet legislation or else you will not receive any votes from this
consitutency.

\- Here is a bill we would like you to pass (pushed by lobbyists from
Google/Facebook/etc) that prevents future legislation from tampering with the
free flow of information on the Internet.

\- We now refer to the companies pushing SOPA as the "Old Media", "Content
Monopolies", "Pre-Internet Media", "Legacy Content Providers", "Anti-Artist
Media", or "Copyright Law Abusers". We refer to sites like Spotify and Youtube
as "Modern Media", "Open Media", "Pro-Artist Media", or "Modern Content
Providers."

\- "Copyright infringement" is not "piracy" but is "missharing." "Net
Neutrality" is "Free Internet" or "Web Freedom". DRM is on "Chained Content"
or "Locked Content". Etc.

It's not dishonest. It's controlling the debate from a position of power and
righteousness.

~~~
lhnz
> It's not dishonest. It's controlling the debate from a position of power and
> righteousness.

Thank you for writing this. I've really been feeling the same way. Not very
many people understand group psychology and they argue and fight in ways which
are self-defeating.

We are not even fighting deeply irrational people, mostly they are smart
rational people employed by big industry and taught the simple fact: appealing
to people's emotions and unconscious mind is the foremost way democratic
decisions are won.

It might be an awful truth but it is reality and a rational person must
therefore accept it or face defeat over and over again.

I hope you and others do something great with this insight.

------
chernevik
You're right, but I think the better tl;dr would be:

1\. Free communication, not filtered. You shouldn't need permission, of any
kind, from anybody, to get on the Internet. No one should have license to kick
you off. Translation of a domain name to a dotted quad is free speech
activity.

2\. Don't create liability by association. You cannot justify encroachment of
my rights by preventing the abuses of others. If I make reasonable efforts to
enforce your copyright, why shouldn't I have safe harbor against further
liability? Why is it my job to do your policing for you?

3\. Don't make your problem my problem. Copyright violation is a problem, but
that doesn't justify adding costs and risks and complications to millions of
people who have nothing to do with the problems of the MPAA.

4\. Copyright does not justify compromised rights. Copyright is important, but
not so important that we should compromise a person's right to speak. A
business model built on compromised rights is not ultimately beneficial to
society, no matter what the short or medium term costs may be.

~~~
untog
_Why is it my job to do your policing for you? [...] Don't make your problem
my problem._

I'd be wary of using that kind of argument because why does Mr. Average Joe
care who polices piracy online? Maybe I'm too cynical about people but I think
that they respond better when you angle it to how it'll affect them
personally. The fact that the MPAA's problem has become our problem is of
little consequence to the end user.

 _If I make reasonable efforts to enforce your copyright, why shouldn't I have
safe harbor against further liability?_

Again, maybe my cynicism, but I think this is already too complicated (i.e.
not soundbite-y). "We don't want the government in control of what you can
look at on the internet" is definitely vaguer, but it's more memorable.

------
elliottcarlson
These points were covered though.

 _We are a success_

When the audience was polled for how many people worked in a NY start-up, a
massive amount of hands were raised. When asked how many of these start-ups
were hiring, a majority of hands were raised again. The point was shown and
explained that we are a striving tech scene and are bring job opportunities to
NY.

 _We- the job creators- are fighting against intrusive government regulation_

It's been mentioned, most notably in the reddit blog post by alienth, that
there will be a burden on the tech community, and especially the smaller
start-ups, in keeping up with these legal requirements of censorship.

 _We are anti-piracy_

One of the speakers at todays NYTM protest (I believe it was Alexis Ohanian,
but I could be wrong) mentioned they are a copyright holder. They don't want
to see piracy, nor copyright infringement - but they also don't want to
oppress innovation.

 _Innovation is better_

Pretty much the same counter argument as above, and it was also mentioned that
the MPAA was scared of the VHS back when it was introduced; citing that it
would ruin them - but instead it became a large part of the movie industries
revenue model. The point was made that they should be embracing the internet
and that with those innovations they can make boatloads more money without
having to censor us.

~~~
untog
I assumed that the points would be covered- that's why I prefaced my comments
with "my experience is anecdotal". But the guy who walked past asking about
the protest would have had the same experience that I did, and may well have
gone away with a negative impression.

Don't get me wrong, I'm genuinely excited that the protest happened and had
the level of support that it did. I think that _overall_ it was great, but
that there is definite room for improvement in terms of getting everyone on
the same page.

~~~
elliottcarlson
Oh I agree, but I also want to make those points for people who weren't there
so they have an understanding of what was spoken about. There is a need of
making it easier for your average person to understand what is at stake -
something that they can understand.

------
lucisferre
Does the DMCA really work well or have we just been browbeaten into accepting
and even embracing it so as not to appear as if we support all out piracy when
we oppose SOPA and PIPA? This is the second time I've seen someone speak in
favor of the DMCA as an example of the law done right when opposing SOPA.

~~~
wvenable
The failure of the DMCA is that there is no consequences for filing an
incorrect takedown request. The entertainment industry has, on many occasions,
taken down content that doesn't belong to them. In one instance, with the
megaupload video, it appears the DMCA was used maliciously.

This is, in fact, the main reason to oppose SOPA and PIPA. It gives the
entertainment industry even more takedown powers (ads, financial instutions,
domain names) and even less oversight.

You could argue that SOPA/PIPA isn't unreasonable if there were added
protections of due process and significant penalties for abusing the system.
But there isn't. If the DMCA is currently being abused, it stands to reason
that SOPA/PIPA will be as well.

~~~
coffeeaddicted
I see the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA as another really bad part
of that law. Bascially the reason why watching legally DVD's on a pure
opensource system is no longer possible in the US.

------
kabuks
Explaining SOPA/PIPA to a non-techy:

Imagine you owned a small, boutique t-shirt store. Your business depends on
local artists bringing you t-shirts that they designed, you display them, and
sell them. Taking your cut, to pay your bills and send your kids to school.

On a cloudy Tuesday afternoon, the Feds show up. They take your merchandise,
close down your shop, and shut down your bank account. Nobody tells you why.
There is no court case and no due process. Nobody you can talk to about this.

You are confused by this and depressed. No idea what happened. You go to the
movies to take your mind off of things. And then it hits you, you now know who
came after you...

You remember that one of the artists supplying you with t-shirts designed a
t-shirt that had a girl, with a dragon tattoo on it.

------
rubinelli
One point I haven't seen made is that these laws will _actively harm_
independent creators that depend on the Internet to reach their audience. How
many indie musicians would no longer be able to host their music and videos on
Soundcloud or YouTube? How many film and game makers depend on sites like
Megaupload and Mediafire for distribution? Sure, some of these solutions
aren't ideal, but they are surely _accessible_. Anyone with a minimum of
familiarity with computers can upload files for free and go back to what they
do best.

------
haldean
I think I know which speaker most of these points are targeted at, and I agree
in reference to that specific speaker. However, the majority of people who
went up to the microphone emphasized the first two points here. One of the
best moments was when Alexis Ohanian asked for a show of hands if their
company was hiring, and maybe 70, 80% of the people in the crowd raised their
hand. Speaker after speaker made the point that the tech startup scene in NYC
is a huge economic powerhouse and some of the only real job creators in the
city. My favorite speaker (sadly, I can't remember who it was -- perhaps it
was the former White House staffer?) talked about how what we need to do is
have the tech industry work with media producers to come up with creative
solutions to combat piracy. I think you may have just been there for one of
the few speakers that didn't emphasize that point.

------
dmor
This good feedback, there is a definite risk of muddling up messages. The #1
takeaway is that we need to speak in terms of what this act WOULD do if
passed, not what it was INTENDED to do. Because the road hell (you know the
rest)...

------
lukeschlather
Why are we even talking about piracy? This bill provides mechanisms that give
large corporations extreme tools to censor content. We should be talking about
the Internet censorship acts SOPA and PIPA - we shouldn't even use the word
piracy, except to say that they won't do anything to combat copyright
infringement.

------
alain94040
Here's a very simple soundbite that will get anyone's attention: "the
government is trying to seize the Internet"

It need not be technically accurate. What matters is that you want the
listener to think: "stop - say what? How is that possible?"

Then you can explain what is really going on.

------
billpatrianakos
The reason for this is because a lot of the tech community _are_ pro-piracy
and tend to talk more about how they should be able to freely download and
distribute copyrighted material because traditional distribution channels are
outdated in light of current technology. That's certainly something worth
discussing but now isn't the right time and the protests aren't the right
place at least when talking to the public. A lot of the discussions I've read
focus on piracy and throw in web censorship as an afterthought.

We need to leave torrents, file sharing, the Pirate Bay, and the others out of
this and focus in on domain seizures, the cutting of funding, the lack of due
process.

 _Most importantly we need to Explain it in a way that they can relate to!!!_.
Don't talk about Google and other sites being censored, search result
censorship, and all of that as much as you _should_ be saying things like:

"The government is giving media companies the power to:

\- take down your Facebook post, your YouTube video of your cute baby son
singing along to a copyrighted song...

\- shut down your mom and pop shop website because you used a logo you
shouldn't have by accident, mentioned a wrong name, or even slightly
threatened to take away a single customer from a larger company

\- etc. etc. etc. _all without due process!_ All it takes is some company
making a single complaint and you can be lose money, business, sources of
funding, your domain name"

That's the kind of conversation that we, who know about this stuff, need to
tell the public. Remember, a lot of these people think Internet Explorer is
the Internet. They think you have to type in a URL in Google _then_ click a
link to get where you want to go (I've even seen someone type in
www.google.com in Google's own search box!). We need to talk to them in a
language they understand. It's not their fault they aren't tech savvy but it's
still our responsibility to make sure they understand what we're talking
about.

No jargon. No big words. Make it relatable. Don't talk down to them but do
educate them on the issues, not technology.

~~~
robertskmiles
I totally disagree that we should leave piracy out of it completely. The bill
is _called_ the Stop Online Piracy Act, if we don't mention piracy at all it
will look like dodging the issue. We need to say something like

"It _claims_ to be about piracy, but it won't have any effect on piracy
because tech-savvy people like pirates can easily get around the restrictions,
it will only harm legitimate internet users like you."

From then on the person is inoculated against the "but piracy!" argument.

~~~
billpatrianakos
That's one way to do it. That's fair. If it were me I'd only bring up piracy
if they did and I wouldn't repeat the word piracy, I'd call it file sharing
but I wouldn't go into it more than what's absolutely necessary. We have to do
like the Republicans. Pick a slogan and hammer it hard.

