Lessons from today:
- Pro-Art11/Art13 MEPs do not know how copyright law works (no surprises there, the copyright law is a mess!)
- Wikimedia Commons is a very good example of a service that could suffer very much.
- As during #ACTA, MEPs are not entirely against sitting down and discussing the issues.
@webmind that's true, but Wikimedia, EDRi and others were working behind the scenes all of this time. The information was there. Look at Julia Reda's blog and the dates of blogposts about this.
It's just that people seem to start caring when it's very close to a very bad outcome. It's hard to galvanize people unless shit is *looming*.
@rysiek @webmind bad shit is being planned all the time. Everyone can't work on all of it. Effective organizing requires presenting the most crucial information in the simplest and clearest possible way, so you can galvanize enough people, at the critical times when it will make a difference to the outcome.
Yeah, I know it wouldn't work long-term. But so often it seems that every time someone proposes a change to the law, someone takes it as an opportunity to inject their shitty article into it.
And they're usually the worst. Blocking marriage equality, gender equality regulations, environmental regulations, etc etc.
@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey yes, but *by definition* this preserves old regulation. Like marriage inequality, like freedom to polute. There is literally no good reason to have a party like that. This will no achieve anything.
What we need are parties that vote sane. Not obstructionists.
It will change the game.
The basic idea behind democracy is that to rule, a party needs support of the society.
Currently there's an anomaly that if the society doesn't support any party, then some party still gets to rule, even though the society doesn't support it.
What I propose is that if the society doesn't support any party, then NOBODY gets to rule.
This will change the incentives for parties, because they'll have to be better than nothing.
@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey what will change the incentives is changing the electoral system to Single Transferrable Vote:
Instead of coming up with hare-brained schemes involving obstructionism and blockchain, perhaps we should first do some research into actually viable solutions?..
I wasn't serious with the blockchain part. Sorry if that made you angry.
I know about STV, but it's pretty complicated, It'd be a big change to the electorial system, and would the whole thing harder to understand. OTOH, a "NO" party is simple, and doesn't require changes in the electorial system.
I'm not saying it'd solve all problems, or most of the problems. I'm just saying it's an idea worth investigating.
@Wolf480pl @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente the *huge* advantage though, is that I can vote for the green candidates, which still giving my vote to the safer social democrat candidates if the green candidates don't get it. If I was a right-libertarian, I could do the same but giving highest preference to any right-lib candidates, to make sure I wasn't splitting the vote and helping the socially conservative candidates get in.