8 ms·

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with colleagues in chamber, communicating with their own office/staff, the list is fairly long and reasonably legitimate.

itishappy 2y ago
Nobody loves this, and I suspect that's the point. I expect this same tech is about to be rolled out en masse to surveil workers everywhere (if it hasn't already been). I further suspect that by applying this to the people in charge of creating regulations, the artist is trying to drive new regulations.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- amelius 2y ago
  New regulation: AI-based tagging forbidden for use on politicians.
  - dmoy 2y ago
    Is insider trading still legal for politicians? Pretty much, right? They just have to disclose it weeks after the fact? Certainly I haven't heard of any news of the STOCK act from 2012 actually being enforced, e.g. no insider trading convictions or anything.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      As far as I can tell, most of the politicians aren't doing insider trading. They are trading on public knowledge (laws being introduced) but that people don't really pay attention to. Maybe I am wrong?
      - infogulch 2y ago
        Insider trading laws are formulated around prosecuting persons that have a contractual duty to the company that act on company-internal information before its published to stockholders. Politicians do have unpublished information about laws and regulations that will affect companies in the future, but they don't have any specific duty to the company, and the information is not exactly company-internal, so it doesn't count as insider trading by technical definition. I've ever seen a proposed reformulation of these laws that would redraw the lines clearly enough to prevent abuse by politicians but not impede legitimate cases. Maybe the best solution is to ban politicians from trading individual stocks, only broad market indexes / mutual funds.
        ImJamal 2y ago
        > Maybe the best solution is to ban politicians from trading individual stocks, only broad market indexes / mutual funds. I think that still has issues. Requiring blind trusts seems safer. There is another problem, which is family members. If you ban the politician, but allow their spouse, kids, etc to trade freely then you didn't actual solve any problems.
    - handedness 2y ago
      The STOCK Act mostly only had the effect of creating some inconveniences for lawmakers (e.g., their families could still trade based on their guidance), and even that was only the case for a year as Senator Reid's House bill S.716 effectively gutted the STOCK Act and restored the status quo, was passed by unanimous consent after 14 seconds of discussion, and was signed into law by President Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/716 https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/716
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
plagiarist 2y ago
No need to worry, politicians will make it illegal to monitor politicians in this way. Only workers will ever need to deal with always-on surveillance like this.
skeeter2020 2y ago
How do you think people NOT paid by the population feel about the idea of continuous surveillance, the potential for misinterpretation and huge impact on their lives? I suspect your discomfort and that of others in positions that create these types of environments is a feature, not a bug.
- CitrusFruits 2y ago
  A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered. I think it's an unfair assumption to assume the parent comment is for surveillance legislation, especially if they're someone who frequents HN and are therefore more likely to be technically literate.
  - aucisson_masque 2y ago
    > A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered Well, politicians do vote and make laws. if the majority of them are for privacy, there is absolutely no reason for them to vote against it each time they are asked to. Usually a law is passed when the majority of politicians vote for it...
    - dagw 2y ago
      if the majority of them are for privacy, there is absolutely no reason for them to vote against it That's not how politics works. Most politicians belong to political parties, and sometimes you have to vote against your personal conviction and with your party, especially if you actually want to get stuff done long term. Compromising by voting with your party and against your convictions on one issue to ensure that you get their support on another issue you consider more important is what politics is all about.
  - skeeter2020 2y ago
    I'm not saying this person is FOR surveillance, I'm saying a visceral example of its impact - especially on those who make decisions around it that impact everyone - is a powerful piece of art. I suspect most surveillance debates are theoretical and making politicians feel potential impacts is a very valuable experience.
ryandrake 2y ago
Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty clear indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this out. If I'm in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice people glued to their phones during it, I'm not going to call them out on the spot, but I'll probably do something afterwards: Either 1. tighten up my invite list next time so as to only include people who really need to be there, or 2. politely ask the person what I could have done in my presentation to make it more engaging. I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone. I really don't like how society has just normalized whipping your phone out in the middle of human interactions.
- LocalH 2y ago
  Some people use bits of time on their phone to ironically help them focus on the person they're talking to. If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said. There's a difference between "eyes glued to phone" and "eyes looking at phone occasionally and then returning to the room". Too often, people see the latter, and it's like looking at a second hand on a clock. They take the initial glance, it looks longer than it really is, and so "eyes glued to phone" is their takeaway. > I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone. That manager would be flabbergasted when I answer the question. Unfortunately her takeaway would probably be "he could answer that while still not paying full attention? how can I make him pay full attention!" despite the fact that what she would call "full attention" would make my brain more likely to drift.
  - skeeter2020 2y ago
    > If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said. This really makes no sense to me. It's well known that human cannot multitask beyond system 1 / system 2 in parallel, so you must be much better at micro time-sharing than pretty much everybody.
rpmisms 2y ago
Since you're on HN, I'll assume you're pretty cool, but most people take what politicians like as an inverse signal. If they don't like it, it's probably good.
- noelrock 2y ago
  Yeah, I weighed up the possibility that people would perceive it that way. That also speaks to the negative perception of politics/politicians too of course...
  - rpmisms 2y ago
    Well, when most of your job is perception, this is part of the job.
- Sophira 2y ago
  They said "former politician", though. Also, this is a form of surveillance - I think most people on HN would be against that as well.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mmooss 2y ago
Honestly, how much such of hearings, etc. are a waste of time, and you could better serve your constituents and country/community by doing some work? Do you have time to pay full attention in all these situations?

itishappy 2y ago

Nobody loves this, and I suspect that's the point. I expect this same tech is about to be rolled out en masse to surveil workers everywhere (if it hasn't already been). I further suspect that by applying this to the people in charge of creating regulations, the artist is trying to drive new regulations.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
amelius 2y ago
New regulation: AI-based tagging forbidden for use on politicians.
- dmoy 2y ago
  Is insider trading still legal for politicians? Pretty much, right? They just have to disclose it weeks after the fact? Certainly I haven't heard of any news of the STOCK act from 2012 actually being enforced, e.g. no insider trading convictions or anything.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    As far as I can tell, most of the politicians aren't doing insider trading. They are trading on public knowledge (laws being introduced) but that people don't really pay attention to. Maybe I am wrong?
    - infogulch 2y ago
      Insider trading laws are formulated around prosecuting persons that have a contractual duty to the company that act on company-internal information before its published to stockholders. Politicians do have unpublished information about laws and regulations that will affect companies in the future, but they don't have any specific duty to the company, and the information is not exactly company-internal, so it doesn't count as insider trading by technical definition. I've ever seen a proposed reformulation of these laws that would redraw the lines clearly enough to prevent abuse by politicians but not impede legitimate cases. Maybe the best solution is to ban politicians from trading individual stocks, only broad market indexes / mutual funds.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        > Maybe the best solution is to ban politicians from trading individual stocks, only broad market indexes / mutual funds. I think that still has issues. Requiring blind trusts seems safer. There is another problem, which is family members. If you ban the politician, but allow their spouse, kids, etc to trade freely then you didn't actual solve any problems.
  - handedness 2y ago
    The STOCK Act mostly only had the effect of creating some inconveniences for lawmakers (e.g., their families could still trade based on their guidance), and even that was only the case for a year as Senator Reid's House bill S.716 effectively gutted the STOCK Act and restored the status quo, was passed by unanimous consent after 14 seconds of discussion, and was signed into law by President Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/716 https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/716

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

plagiarist 2y ago

No need to worry, politicians will make it illegal to monitor politicians in this way. Only workers will ever need to deal with always-on surveillance like this.

skeeter2020 2y ago

How do you think people NOT paid by the population feel about the idea of continuous surveillance, the potential for misinterpretation and huge impact on their lives? I suspect your discomfort and that of others in positions that create these types of environments is a feature, not a bug.

CitrusFruits 2y ago
A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered. I think it's an unfair assumption to assume the parent comment is for surveillance legislation, especially if they're someone who frequents HN and are therefore more likely to be technically literate.
- aucisson_masque 2y ago
  > A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered Well, politicians do vote and make laws. if the majority of them are for privacy, there is absolutely no reason for them to vote against it each time they are asked to. Usually a law is passed when the majority of politicians vote for it...
  - dagw 2y ago
    if the majority of them are for privacy, there is absolutely no reason for them to vote against it That's not how politics works. Most politicians belong to political parties, and sometimes you have to vote against your personal conviction and with your party, especially if you actually want to get stuff done long term. Compromising by voting with your party and against your convictions on one issue to ensure that you get their support on another issue you consider more important is what politics is all about.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  I'm not saying this person is FOR surveillance, I'm saying a visceral example of its impact - especially on those who make decisions around it that impact everyone - is a powerful piece of art. I suspect most surveillance debates are theoretical and making politicians feel potential impacts is a very valuable experience.

ryandrake 2y ago

Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty clear indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this out. If I'm in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice people glued to their phones during it, I'm not going to call them out on the spot, but I'll probably do something afterwards: Either 1. tighten up my invite list next time so as to only include people who really need to be there, or 2. politely ask the person what I could have done in my presentation to make it more engaging. I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone. I really don't like how society has just normalized whipping your phone out in the middle of human interactions.

LocalH 2y ago
Some people use bits of time on their phone to ironically help them focus on the person they're talking to. If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said. There's a difference between "eyes glued to phone" and "eyes looking at phone occasionally and then returning to the room". Too often, people see the latter, and it's like looking at a second hand on a clock. They take the initial glance, it looks longer than it really is, and so "eyes glued to phone" is their takeaway. > I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone. That manager would be flabbergasted when I answer the question. Unfortunately her takeaway would probably be "he could answer that while still not paying full attention? how can I make him pay full attention!" despite the fact that what she would call "full attention" would make my brain more likely to drift.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  > If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said. This really makes no sense to me. It's well known that human cannot multitask beyond system 1 / system 2 in parallel, so you must be much better at micro time-sharing than pretty much everybody.

rpmisms 2y ago

Since you're on HN, I'll assume you're pretty cool, but most people take what politicians like as an inverse signal. If they don't like it, it's probably good.

noelrock 2y ago
Yeah, I weighed up the possibility that people would perceive it that way. That also speaks to the negative perception of politics/politicians too of course...
- rpmisms 2y ago
  Well, when most of your job is perception, this is part of the job.
Sophira 2y ago
They said "former politician", though. Also, this is a form of surveillance - I think most people on HN would be against that as well.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mmooss 2y ago

Honestly, how much such of hearings, etc. are a waste of time, and you could better serve your constituents and country/community by doing some work? Do you have time to pay full attention in all these situations?