HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Lawrence Lessig's Republic, Lost directly addresses this.

His 2011 Google Tech Talk provides a condensed version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

Sorry to punt and give you homework, but Larry Lessig will expand on this better than me. Here's a link if you want to listen to something while you work. His book, Republic Lost, is a good read on this subject if you're interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

⬐ YuriNiyazov

Homework is fine, thanks!

When monopolies distort markets, the impact of those distortions have outsized impacts on the rest of the ecosystem.

Ask Google engineers how they feel about centralization of power in telecom or finance or politics & they will tell you it is the worst thing ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

Yet that same sort of centralization is fine when it is Google.

Those same engineers will admit that any algorithm has some level of false positives & false negatives. They may try to minimize these, but they can't make them zero.

The other thing which gets very little coverage, but is crucially important is that in spite of already having a monopoly market position Google keeps buying search marketshare with: their secret Android partner contracts, Firefox default search placement, iOS default search placement, Flash embedded into Chrome (so security updates happen in the background without sending you to a download site where trash can be bundled in with the update) & Flash security updates that hit all other web browsers coming bundled with Chrome bundleware which sets Chrome as your default browser, etc.

If Google decides they don't like you (for any reason), then you need searchers to use a different search engine in a browser which isn't paid off by Google for default placement. And you need to hope that users are savvy enough to repeatedly say "no thank you" to the automatically bundled Chrome install with their frequent Flash updates.

Google mentions how anything is only a click away or similar, but most people tend to use defaults.

When someone changes those defaults on Chrome users, that's a horrible user experience & the "hijacked" settings must be reset. http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/01/clean-up-your-hijacked-se... But when those defaults are paid for by Google or changed through Google bundleware it is "a great user experience."

If Google believes their marketshare is a reflection of their superior search offering, they are welcome to stop buying default search placement in other web browsers & stop bundling Chrome installs on Flash security updates. But currently they are spending north of a billion Dollars a year on these activities, which indicates they clearly feel there is significant value to them.

His 1h talk about the contents of the book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

I believe his Google Talk is FAR BETTER.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc&noredirect=1

"What are they supposed to do?"

For a starter, watch Lawerence Lessig @google talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

Get off your butts and vote independent. For those who claim that you're throwing your vote away reply with "No, you're throwing YOUR vote away."

⬐ ItendToDisagree

That's all well and good, but why do you think that an independent candidate can make a difference? Particularly in an entrenched 2 party system, that would likely marginalize them to the extreme, and can barely make progress on its own? If we could somehow vote to have more than 2 parties, I'd be all about that, but it seems highly unlikely given the current state of things.

I agree it would be a change but how can you be certain that independent 'party' person will be any better than the previous crop of Rs and Ds? Especially (and some may call this tin-foil hattery) if there is a massive surveillance regime in place that is digging up (or can dig up) dirt on any politician for blackmail?

⬐ masmullin

Most of the people I talk to say things like "I would vote for this independent candidate because I believe in his ideals and his statements. But I cant vote for him because it's like throwing my vote away."

IE People in my circles generally vote against democrats or against republicans (actually Im Canadian so it's more like vote against Liberals vs against Conservatives... but you get the idea). They dont care about the person their voting for, they are voting to keep someone out.

My concern is that the two major parties are basically the same, so the dichotomy isn't rep vs dem; it's voting for what you believe in vs voting for what you don't believe in. If you vote for what you dont believe in, you are truly throwing away your vote.

There is no proof that an indy would be better than mainstream, but politics is never about proof, and always about trust. You have to trust that the person you're voting for will do whats right for you. If you get your trust broken, that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

If you truly favour one politician in the mainstream, then by all means vote for them. But if you're just voting against someone, you are throwing your vote away.

⬐ ItendToDisagree

Agreed on all points really. :)

I personally believe the 2 party system in general is broken and without major reform it will continue to be garbage in, garbage out

Whose dollars? The dollars used in legislation have little to do with public good and a lot more to do with re-election funding. Lessig covers that topic really well in Republic Lost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

Any change in legislation will result in intense lobbying (ie politician funding) because so many vested interests benefit from the current structure.

As with many things in American politics, the issue isn't so much about what the objectively best thing to do is, but rather how that could happen with the current political process. There is some light at the end of the tunnel in pushing things to individual states. There is no need to come up with perfection - let 50 states do their own thing and see what works best.

It would be far better if congress is representative of the people of the country and be composed of doctors, engineers, teachers, taxi drivers, farmers, candlestick makers etc.

The legislators do not actually write the laws. They have staff as well as there being a process to help improve the text before legislating (eg publishing drafts). For some legislation (eg covering the financial industry) often the law that is passed just requires a government agency (eg SEC) to come up with the rules.

One of Michael Moore's films had a clip of a congressman explaining that they don't even read the legislation they vote on. It is a common claim that much of the legislation is written by lobbyists. And if you actually read any of it, it would obviously not really be what you would expect (short, legible).

Here is an example of trying to solve the problem: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/

The representatives use legislation as a fund raising mechanism (contributions are well documented). For example there were several taxes added temporarily to see if they worked well. They did, but congress doesn't make them permanent. Instead they wait to be paid each time to renew them temporarily again. (This started in the Reagan administration.) See this excellent talk by Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc The whole tax provisions as fund raising is covered at 7m30s. And the corruption is obvious at 25m20s.

A big reason for why things are so screwed up is corrupt politicians who use their power as a fund raising mechanism. For example there were several taxes added temporarily to see if they worked well. They did, but congress doesn't make them permanent. Instead they wait to be paid each time to renew them temporarily again. (This started in the Reagan administration.)

See this excellent talk by Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc The whole tax provisions as fund raising is covered at 7m30s.

I congress were actually honourable and I was president I'd mandate that the tax code shrinks by 10% each year. If the politicians can't find 10% then at the end of year every 10th provision is automatically deleted.

Actually, They are right.

I really think you should take the time to watch this video, understand it, let it sink in and totally mold your brain around it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

We already have progressive tax rates which try to capture this.

The problem that is being struggled with is that HNWI don't have frequent taxable events, generally because they hold assets and make savings. However there is a perception they aren't providing value (which is mostly wrong).

Generally any scheme you come up with to get at them will also affect everyone else, and to a far greater degree since they have less money and diversity to start with. And the HNWI have far greater incentive to move their money and themselves, as well as pay people to work out how to retain their money. You can move to almost any country in the world by plonking down a lump sum as an "investment" or as savings. (eg see how Dotcom ended up living in New Zealand.)

The usual solution to this is to try tweaking the tax code, seeing what the effects are and repeating. However scumbag politicians and the people who vote for them distort that process, so it doesn't have the intended effect.

An actually representative democracy would be a good first step rather than tax rate changes. Watch this talk about the US - the UK pretty much follows behind a few years later https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

If I was ever elected president, I would direct congress to reduce the size of the tax code by 10% each year. If they fail to do so then 10% are automatically eliminated - eg all those whose last digit of the article number is 3.

The real reason for why things are so screwed up is corrupt politicians who use their power as a fund raising mechanism. For example there were several taxes added temporarily to see if they worked well. They did, but congress doesn't make them permanent. Instead they wait to be paid each time to renew them temporarily again. (This started in the Reagan administration.)

See this excellent talk by Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

The whole tax provisions as fund raising is covered at 7m30s.

If your really interested in doing something about it, I would suggest taking a look at http://rootstrikers.org/

And without a second lost, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

That video has changed my point of view on the entire subject and has allowed me to start striking at the root.

I haven't read his previous book, "Republic, Lost", but I saw the 1 hour speech at Google from last year, that was based on it, and it was great. He explains how the Government ended up having a relationship with corporations instead of "the people", and what is needed to solve this (almost unsolvable) problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

I'm going to crib from my own post from two days ago:

Donations don't literally buy votes, but what they do literally buy is face time. That is, people in Congress will hold fundraisers, and lobbyists pay to attend those fundraisers. The understanding is that the lobbyists who attend those fundraisers will have time to talk to the politician about the issues their clients care about.

This episode of Planet Money clearly demonstrates this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/11/01/141913370/the-tues...

Edit: I remove the SOPA specific stuff, and didn't realize that in doing so, I removed the punchline. The implication of the above is that politicians' agenda becomes set by those who have the money to pay lobbyists. When you spend a lot of time talking to a bunch of people with an agenda, you will start to think about that agenda a lot. It's a natural consequence of the circumstances and the incentives.

I've harped on this point several times in the last few days. My reason is simple: we must understand the real problem before we can fix it. And the real problem is not "Vote for x and I'll give you money." That is illegal. What I described above is legal, and while it is not illegal corruption, it is a corruption of how we want the system to work.

And I stole that last sentiment from Lawrence Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc Someone else here linked to that a few days ago, and it's worth watching.

⬐ rgarcia

I don't understand your point--wouldn't public financing of elections remove the need to hold fundraisers?

The problem as I see it is that representatives are forced (due to the exorbitant cost of campaigning) to win over wealthy interests. This manifests itself as what we've seen with the whole SOPA debacle: representatives who are completely out of touch with their constituents.

⬐ nimblegorilla

How would public financing solve anything? If we gave each candidate a billion dollars it seems like there would still be an incentive to raise even more money from rich corporations.

⬐ rgarcia

By definition public financing precludes corporate financing.

⬐ nimblegorilla

Thanks for an incorrect non-answer. The definition of public financing does not by itself preclude corporate financing.

Even if you adopted additional restrictions on corporate financing I'm pretty sure there would be all kinds of ways to shadow-fund a candidate. This creates a situation where honest candidates are unfairly penalized against candidates that still play the money game.

⬐ rgarcia

I guess I meant the de facto definition. Literally every attempt at a public financing bill/amendment I've seen in Congress has the express purpose of precluding direct corporate financing[1].

Also, I was not arguing whether or not any of these proposals can be 100% effective (like you clearly deny). This is a straw man, but it is definitely worth debate on a case-by-case basis.

[1] most recent (and probably most ambitious) example: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hjres100/report. An intriguing proposal from L. Lessig: http://www.plainsite.org/issues/index.html?id=29

⬐ scott_s

Public financing is one way, yes.

My point is that the site itself, and many people here, present a caricature of the problem. If you talk too much abou the caricature, someone may say "Oh, yes, I see, so let's do a better job of investigating and prosecuting people who buy and sell votes." The real problem is more sublte, and it is inherent in how the system works.

Great google talk on the subject for those interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

>This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations: it's wrong, and not supported by the data. The vast majority of political donations are made by people who are not lobbyists.

You make a very bold statement without backing it with any line of reasoning or pointing to any supporting material. I am no expert in this matter so I can not know if you are wrong.

But in an older thread someone posted this excellent talk by Lawrence Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc. It's well worth watching and counters your statement. His arguments are very well presented and reasoned. He also shows some supporting data.

Given that, I cannot attribute much weight to your statement.

⬐ rd108

I just watched the video. Thanks for adding that link.

You might find Lawrence Lessig's talk at Google interesting: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

However, the article suggests that if some terrible legislation passed it would ignite people into real action. That clearly failed to happen when the Patriot Act was passed. I'm sure there are many more examples. If the discourse surrounding legislation convinces enough people not to care (or fails to make it into wider public awareness), then there doesn't seem to be much standing in its way.

I think you'll enjoy Lawrence Lessig's talk about the exact issue you brought up. It's call Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It [Link] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I...

⬐ teresko

A really good lecture. My recommendation.

+ favorite

⬐ sp332

If you can't watch videos, or if you like being able to skim, Lessig makes his case in text: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3353324

⬐ zlotty

thx for the link

This is exactly the point of the Rootstrikers campaign[1], supported by Larry Lessig[2]. I encourage all of you who live in the US to take action.

[1] http://www.rootstrikers.org/

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc