[nick-dap]

Activism needs to be reinvented.

Legislators are already not paying attention to email, because so much of it is automated. At best, some legislators tally email, many of them don't pay attention to it at all.

Automating phone calls is an inevitable continuation. Right now, phone calls have _some_ impact. Unfortunately, technology will make calling less effective.

On one end we have software, on the other we have the poor Congressional staffers who have to pick up the phone every time it rings. Eventually the staff will become numb to phone calls, stop paying attention, and turn to people sitting in their offices for guidance (lobbyists, who get paid to be there, or, less likely, people like you and me who find the time to actually go and talk to them.)

We have a disconnect between taking the smallest step (sending an email, calling) and the next one, physically going somewhere. This is why we -- we the tech industry, in partnership with visionaries from the non-profit space -- have to reinvent activism. To make the transition from the online to the offline world smoother. And to make the time spent online more meaningful.

Increasingly, people look online first. The dozens of petition sites -- Change.org is a full social network type of deal -- are making it easy to confuse "doing something" with "doing something effective."

[stinkytaco]

>Activism needs to be reinvented.

No, activism is effective (see: GoDaddy, Arab Spring, Montgomery Bus Boycott), but it's hard and takes real work. It's the political system that needs to be fixed. Those lobbyists should not be out in the lobby. The fact that they have more clout because they are right there is the major problem. Saying we need to get boots on the ground so we can compete with lobbyists is to miss the core problem that we shouldn't need to compete with lobbyists. We should be able to email, call or walk into an office and have our voice heard. Our vote should matter more than money.

In the meantime, yes, we need to be active enough to change the political system, but changing activism should only lead to the larger goal of changing the fact that activism shouldn't need to be changed.

[nick-dap]

Activism can be effective, but certainly not by default. Non-profit campaigns fail about as well as startups.

When I say reinvented, I mean that we need innovative ways to use technology in the advocacy space. Like you said, activism takes real work. Clicking "Like" on FB is giving people the false impression that they have actually done something.

Where we agree is that the political system is broken and that it is a much more important issue.

I've been fighting for a particular bill for nearly a decade (see my profile, if you care to know) and the thing that I've heard consistently, regardless of what season or year it is, regardless of who controls Congress, regardless of who is the President, is this: "now is not a good time to make the push, because the election is coming up." If there is ANY election in the next two years, Congress simply STOPS. In other words they are in a perpetual election cycle.

We make the push anyway, we inch closer, but fail (always due to filibuster and votes splitting evenly along party lines, regardless of actual stance of specific legislators), then we spend YEARS in the election cycle. I've seen this happen too many times...

I'm starting to think that all progressive organizations should drop their pet issues and focus on campaign financing reform first.

[stinkytaco]

>I'm starting to think that all progressive organizations should drop their pet issues and focus on campaign financing reform first.

We certainly agree on that point. I believe publicly financed campaigns and term limits will bring the United States greater change than any other two policy changes can.

That said, I don't think slactivism is really a change per se. It's hard to believe that people who click the "Like" button on Facebook would be out picketing or writing their congressman on any issue. What you could argue is that it at least forces them to consider a position that they might again consider when they are standing in the ballot box.

[nandemo]

> No, activism is effective (see: GoDaddy, Arab Spring, Montgomery Bus Boycott), but it's hard and takes real work.

One of these things is not like the others.

[stinkytaco]

They are effective. They all forced someone, somewhere to change, or to at least reevaluate where they stand. The only difference is in degrees.

[nandemo]

Walking to work instead of taking a bus is hard. Facing arrest for breaking an immoral law is hard. Protesting and risking arrest (or much worse) by a thuggish police is hard.

Please don't tell me that changing your hosting is comparable. Besides, we don't know that the GoDaddy boycotting has had any effect on SOPA (as opposed to GoDaddy).