8 ms·

Save the Internet - the pressure is working

77 points by mruocco 15y ago

indecisive1 15y ago
Lets all sign please!
- fjarlq 15y ago
  I agree. Signed.
jasondavies 15y ago
Even at a rate of 1 name per second, this would take almost 11.5 days to read out all the names non-stop. Is there some kind of time limit for this kind of thing?
- dfreidin 15y ago
  There's no time limit, but a 60% vote can force him to stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States... Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there.
  - younata 15y ago
    Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there. Also known as 60 Senators are required to vote to force him to stop.
- lmkg 15y ago
  Nope. That's the point. It's called a filibuster. The goal of the Senate is to be the worlds most deliberate deliberative body, which means that the voting doesn't happen until the discussion is well and truly done. Imposing a time limit would allow discussion to be quashed prematurely by manipulating the process. Naturally, this open-ended system can also be gamed, by not letting a bill get to vote. This lets a determined minority prevent a measure from being passed even when that measure's support is technically in the majority. Some consider this a feature rather than a bug, as it prevents the minority stance from being completely disenfranchised. This tactic was originally a weapon of last resort, but then its use increased. At some point, a new rule was enacted where discussion could be quashed by 60% (supermajority) vote. This effectively causes a two-tiered system to achieving a mandate, although senators were hesitant of setting the precedent of stopping the filibuster in case they needed to use it themselves later on. Recently it has come into vogue again, with the number of filibusters and threats of filibusters rising considerably.
peterhunt 15y ago
While it's awesome that it works against SOPA, this is an illustration of the type of thing that is wrong with our political system.
- marshray 15y ago
  It's a feature, not a bug. The founders of the USA when they wrote the constitution intentionally put in a fair amount of paralysis because they preferred a weak Federal government. For things truly needing quick action, there's the office of the President.
  - jodrellblank 15y ago
    Its a stupid feature. It should not take 11 days of all available senators time to register an objection. It is an unjustifiable waste of expensive people's time and effort/opportunity cost. Put aside "its always been this way" and work out something better - shorter, and to similar effect. As important as SOPA is, its not as important as many other things going on in the world right now, wasting senator time in this way is so daft.
    - JadeNB 15y ago
      > It is an unjustifiable waste of expensive people's time and effort/opportunity cost. I guess you mean (expensive (people's time)) rather than ((expensive people)'s time), but it still doesn't make much sense to me. Why is their time expensive? Because they've got so many other valuable things to do? I read (though I can't remember the source) a report from one congressman who said that most representatives simply don't have time to read all the bills on which they have to vote. This means that a lot of votes are passed not based on the representative's understanding of them, but based on what the loudest voices tell him or her—an understandable but frightening lacuna, when considering whose the loudest voices are. Isn't anything, even political theatre, valuable if it allows those of us with less political clout nonetheless to wield a louder voice?
      - jodrellblank 15y ago
portentint 15y ago
Just curious: Who's going to read them?
- mruocco 15y ago
  Ron Wyden, senator of Oregon.
  - mahmud 15y ago
    Yep! And when he's done with it, he will read The Great Gatsby.
wesleyd 15y ago
The filibuster: it's a feature, not a bug.
Brajeshwar 15y ago
Is it just me but the website title aptly means "voice" in Hindi (an Indian language).
- kaybe 15y ago
  "About us: Avaaz - meaning "voice" in several European, Middle Eastern and Asian languages - ..."
inconditus 15y ago
On a semi-related note, has anyone signed up for them? They don't comply with the CAN-SPAM act by not giving an unsubscribe link in the emails they send out.
- willyt 15y ago
  I just checked and the last few emails I have do have an unsubscribe link. It's right at the bottom in 8 or 9 pt text.

77 points by mruocco 15y ago

indecisive1 15y ago

Lets all sign please!

fjarlq 15y ago
I agree. Signed.

jasondavies 15y ago

Even at a rate of 1 name per second, this would take almost 11.5 days to read out all the names non-stop. Is there some kind of time limit for this kind of thing?

dfreidin 15y ago
There's no time limit, but a 60% vote can force him to stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States... Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there.
- younata 15y ago
  Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there. Also known as 60 Senators are required to vote to force him to stop.
lmkg 15y ago
Nope. That's the point. It's called a filibuster. The goal of the Senate is to be the worlds most deliberate deliberative body, which means that the voting doesn't happen until the discussion is well and truly done. Imposing a time limit would allow discussion to be quashed prematurely by manipulating the process. Naturally, this open-ended system can also be gamed, by not letting a bill get to vote. This lets a determined minority prevent a measure from being passed even when that measure's support is technically in the majority. Some consider this a feature rather than a bug, as it prevents the minority stance from being completely disenfranchised. This tactic was originally a weapon of last resort, but then its use increased. At some point, a new rule was enacted where discussion could be quashed by 60% (supermajority) vote. This effectively causes a two-tiered system to achieving a mandate, although senators were hesitant of setting the precedent of stopping the filibuster in case they needed to use it themselves later on. Recently it has come into vogue again, with the number of filibusters and threats of filibusters rising considerably.

peterhunt 15y ago

While it's awesome that it works against SOPA, this is an illustration of the type of thing that is wrong with our political system.

marshray 15y ago
It's a feature, not a bug. The founders of the USA when they wrote the constitution intentionally put in a fair amount of paralysis because they preferred a weak Federal government. For things truly needing quick action, there's the office of the President.
- jodrellblank 15y ago
  Its a stupid feature. It should not take 11 days of all available senators time to register an objection. It is an unjustifiable waste of expensive people's time and effort/opportunity cost. Put aside "its always been this way" and work out something better - shorter, and to similar effect. As important as SOPA is, its not as important as many other things going on in the world right now, wasting senator time in this way is so daft.
  - JadeNB 15y ago
    > It is an unjustifiable waste of expensive people's time and effort/opportunity cost. I guess you mean (expensive (people's time)) rather than ((expensive people)'s time), but it still doesn't make much sense to me. Why is their time expensive? Because they've got so many other valuable things to do? I read (though I can't remember the source) a report from one congressman who said that most representatives simply don't have time to read all the bills on which they have to vote. This means that a lot of votes are passed not based on the representative's understanding of them, but based on what the loudest voices tell him or her—an understandable but frightening lacuna, when considering whose the loudest voices are. Isn't anything, even political theatre, valuable if it allows those of us with less political clout nonetheless to wield a louder voice?
    - jodrellblank 15y ago

portentint 15y ago

Just curious: Who's going to read them?

mruocco 15y ago
Ron Wyden, senator of Oregon.
- mahmud 15y ago
  Yep! And when he's done with it, he will read The Great Gatsby.

wesleyd 15y ago

The filibuster: it's a feature, not a bug.

Brajeshwar 15y ago

Is it just me but the website title aptly means "voice" in Hindi (an Indian language).

kaybe 15y ago
"About us: Avaaz - meaning "voice" in several European, Middle Eastern and Asian languages - ..."

inconditus 15y ago

On a semi-related note, has anyone signed up for them? They don't comply with the CAN-SPAM act by not giving an unsubscribe link in the emails they send out.

willyt 15y ago
I just checked and the last few emails I have do have an unsubscribe link. It's right at the bottom in 8 or 9 pt text.