I’ve concluded quite some time ago that those online petitions are a way for politicians to diffuse people’s indignance or anger whilst not actually having to adress their problems (they might, if it doesn’t affect their priviledges or the benefits of the elites, but there is zero real pressure for them to do so).
People sign the petition and get a feeling that they did something about that thing that was making them angry, thus spending their impulse for action without actually having done anything trully effective, and politicians now don’t have to deal with real pushes for them to fix things or even threaths to their position since people aren’t getting together and going on demonstrations or even activelly campaigning to stop them from being re-elected.
I wouldn’t at all be surprised if those things are propaganda ops devised for some mainstream party or other by some smart marketing types which then spread because they were so useful at keeping most people from actually acting in effective ways when they felt their elected representatives weren’t representing their interests.
Complaining on social media about political issues does the same thing, gives the feeling of action without actually changing anything.
Just go to the politicians or companies website and see if they’re breaking accessibility laws and tell one of those shady Lawyers that always sue.
My first job in high school was clerical work processing ID card applications for a large organization. I was paid to process ten applications per hour.
Hanging on the wall, we had a suggestion box with a pen dangling from one of those metal-bead strings along with a stack of feedback sheets.
My job duties included checking that box weekly and placing the forms directly into the trash.
good thing change.org petitions are visible to the public and not under censure of the organization in question. otherwise this would be a valid comparison and an argument against the efficacy of change.org petitions.
We have a similar setup, except it’s not a box hanging on the wall. Someone just slapped “suggestion box” with a label maker right on the office shredder.
It’s called direct action.
amen. The Spokane Free Speech Fights is why direct action will always be superior in my eyes
I wouldn’t wholly write off petitions though, they can be effective supporting tools in a larger campaign for change. Change.org petitions on their own though are completely worthless without further action.
Be the change.org petition you want to see in the world.
I don’t see how anyone can do this themselves but someone with a lot of money who wants to help could certainly start an organization that tries to use capitalism to crush capitalism and robin hood the ultra rich as much as possible. What we need for normal people to be able to be involved at all is a platform that can enable conversation and action that helps keep track of progress and ideas and ways to accomplish them while belittling misinformation so that it can’t gain purchase. I call it a consensus engine but there are many ideas of the same concept, none I’ve seen in real life though
How would that work?
Maybe better start with an introduction to the topic: https://www.quora.com/Who-invented-the-modern-computer-look-and-feel/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen
“Let’s give the rich more tax breaks, corporations the same rights as people and allow them to pollute and kill the environment as much as they want so the stock can rise 0.1%. That will solve everything”
situation one
politician/leader: i want to do XYZ
oponent: no one wants that
fact checkers: he’s right, there is no evidence anyone wants that
outcome: nothing changes
situation two
politician/leader: i want to do XYZ
opponent: no one wants that
fact checkers: yes they do, look at this change.org petition with 9999 votes
outcome: politician/leader has a public will-based platform from which to do XYZ
conclusion
petitions should not be the end of the story when it comes to making change. but they are an invaluable tool for starting it. don’t diss petitions.
