The less dystopic version of my interpretation is that the site is just a way of keeping people happy, rather than "neutralized". Does that seem so implausible to you?
> The white house staff are people just like you and I
See, that realization is what enables me to believe they would make a petition site just to keep people happy. It is something rather frequently seen in the "real world" from "normal people" (see: suggestion boxes in the breakroom at work), and is exactly the sort of thing I could see myself doing. Hell, I have done it. Have someone that is mad at you? Let them vent for a while until they calm down, then tell them why they are wrong.
This sort of tactic isn't unique bizarre super-villian behavior. It is standard bullshit.
If the intent were completely pure, merely to educate, they wouldn't have people perform a meaningless action before they got their cookie. You don't get that far in politics by being clueless about how to gauge public interest in a topic without resorting to an online tally of interest. That is simply inconceivable.
Yeah, lets just go back to the days of hitting the streets with those paper petitions, and gathering signatures at bus stops and Phish concerts! Why get the internet involved in politics at all?
Because anonymous forums on the internet have proven for a decade sane discourse goes out the window due to the Internet Fuckwad Theorem. It is an entirely different dynamic to be in someones face and have to fear consequences beyond words from your behavior, and honestly, that is what almost any protest in history was for - to try to shake the boots of those who are gifted with power.
An internet petition is just a number and a paragraph that people clicked a thumbs up on. Nobody would ever care unless those people actually started voting differently, and by differently, that means something other than just going across the isle and shaking hands with their neighbor politician in the other camp.
It is the same reason you don't argue with businesses with petition letters, you argue with them with their bottom line. If you are in a state of demanding something, the other party has a power and influence you don't, and you need some pull in the relationship or else you will be walked all over.
After rereading your contribution, I realize you were agreeing. therefore, I had become for a moment the "Internet Fuckwad" you warned me of. Sorry. Dis acknowledge previous post. ... I've been drinking...
>Because anonymous forums on the internet have proven for a decade sane discourse goes out the window due to the Internet Fuckwad Theorem. It is an entirely different dynamic to be in someones face and have to fear consequences beyond words from your behavior
Heh. And here you are, in said forums! Somewhat perfecting the voice of righteous judgement! Bravo, but no. I see what you came to represent here, but if you think trumpeting loudly some bad-ass anti-establishment intellectual philosophy while standing on the tiny issue of "the right to cell-phone-unlocking-regardless-of-lender-contract" as a basis for your purist reasoning, then you sir/ma'am, live in a first world overrun with problems of the same degree! There is wisdom in "choosing your battles," and this, my dear zanny, is not the one. Trust me.
No, his sarcasm came across loud and clear. He was sarcastically "agreeing" with me in order to mock me... except the position he was mocking is not one I have endorsed. On the contrary, I embrace the role of the internet in protest and politics.
> The white house staff are people just like you and I
See, that realization is what enables me to believe they would make a petition site just to keep people happy. It is something rather frequently seen in the "real world" from "normal people" (see: suggestion boxes in the breakroom at work), and is exactly the sort of thing I could see myself doing. Hell, I have done it. Have someone that is mad at you? Let them vent for a while until they calm down, then tell them why they are wrong.
This sort of tactic isn't unique bizarre super-villian behavior. It is standard bullshit.
If the intent were completely pure, merely to educate, they wouldn't have people perform a meaningless action before they got their cookie. You don't get that far in politics by being clueless about how to gauge public interest in a topic without resorting to an online tally of interest. That is simply inconceivable.