ONTD Political

Dear Congress, It's No Longer OK To Not Know How The Internet Works



I remember fondly the days when we were all tickled pink by our elected officials’ struggle to understand how the internet works. Whether it was George W. Bush referring to “the internets” or Senator Ted Stevens describing said internets as “a series of tubes,” we would sit back and chortle at our well-meaning but horribly uninformed representatives, confident that the right people would eventually steer them back on course. Well I have news for members of Congress: Those days are over.

We get it. You think you can be cute and old-fashioned by openly admitting that you don’t know what a DNS server is. You relish the opportunity to put on a half-cocked smile and ask to skip over the techno-jargon, conveniently masking your ignorance by making yourselves seem better aligned with the average American joe or jane — the “non-nerds” among us. But to anyone of moderate intelligence that tuned in to yesterday’s Congressional mark-up of SOPA, the legislation that seeks to fundamentally change how the internet works, you kind of just looked like a bunch of jack-asses.

Some background: Since its introduction, SOPA and its Senate twin PROTECT-IP have been staunchly condemned by countless engineers, technologists and lawyers intimately familiar with the inner functioning of the internet. Completely beside the fact that these bills as they currently stand would stifle free speech and potentially cripple legitimate businesses by giving corporations extrajudicial censorial powers, they have found an even more insidious threat: The method of DNS filtering proposed to block supposed infringing sites opens up enormous security holes that threaten the stability of the internet itself.

The only problem: Key members of the House Judiciary Committee still don’t understand how the internet works, and worse yet, it’s not clear whether they even want to.

It’s of course perfectly standard for members of Congress to not be exceptionally proficient in technological matters. But for some committee members, the issue did not stop at mere ignorance. Rather, it seemed there was in many cases an outright refusal to understand what is undoubtedly a complex issue dealing with highly-sensitive technologies.

When the security issue was brought up, Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina seemed particularly comfortable about his own lack of understanding. Grinningly admitting “I’m not a nerd” before the committee, he nevertheless went on to dismiss without facts or justification the very evidence he didn’t understand and then downplay the need for a panel of experts. Rep. Maxine Waters of California followed up by saying that any discussion of security concerns is “wasting time” and that the bill should move forward without question, busted internets be damned.




The fact that there was any debate over whether to call in experts on such a matter should tell you something about the integrity of Congress. It’d be one thing if legitimate technical questions directed at the bill’s supporters weren’t met with either silence or veiled accusations that the other side was sympathetic to piracy. Yet here we are with a group of elected officials openly supporting a bill they can’t explain, and having the temerity to suggest there’s no need to “bring in the nerds” to suss out what’s actually on it.

“No legislation is perfect,” Rep. Watt said at one point, continuing the insane notion that the goal of the House should be to pass anything, despite what consequences it may bring. Later, Iowa Representative Steve King tweeted, somewhat ironically, about surfing the internet on his phone because he was bored listening to his colleague Shiela Jackson speak about the bill. Then, even more ironically, another representative’s comments calling him out for it were asked to be stricken from the record.



So it was as proponents of the Hollywood-funded bill curmudgeonly shot down all but two amendments proposed by its opponents, who fought to dramatically alter the document to preserve security and free speech on the net. But the chilling takeaway of this whole debacle was the irrefutable air of anti-intellectualism; that inescapable absurdity that we have members of Congress voting on a technical bill who do not posses any technical knowledge on the subject and do not find it imperative to recognize those who do.

This used to be funny, but now it’s really just terrifying. We’re dealing with legislation that will completely change the face of the internet and free speech for years to come. Yet here we are, still at the mercy of underachieving Congressional know-nothings that have more in common with the slacker students sitting in the back of math class than elected representatives. The fact that some of the people charged with representing us must be dragged kicking and screaming out of their complacency on such matters is no longer endearing — it’s just pathetic and sad.

Fortunately, committee members like Zoe Lofgren, Jason Chaffetz and Jared Polis are attempting to keep some semblance of sanity and reason in these debates. You can follow them live as the mark-up continues today via live stream or Twitter [links at source].
chaya My mental image anytime I hear them try to talk about the innanet...19th-Dec-2011 03:39 pm (UTC)
oaktree89 Re: My mental image anytime I hear them try to talk about the innanet...19th-Dec-2011 03:44 pm (UTC)
I love you XD
jettakd Re: My mental image anytime I hear them try to talk about the innanet...19th-Dec-2011 05:19 pm (UTC)
While I definitely agree with the sentiment of this graph, the whole "hurr durr" thing is really really ableist to people to have intellectual disabilities (it came from Carlos Mencia and others making fun of people with Downs, etc.)
castalianspring 19th-Dec-2011 03:40 pm (UTC)
This is all just ridiculous. There really should be more qualifications necessary to holding this sort of office, beyond "has the money to run".
spaz_own_joo 20th-Dec-2011 02:11 am (UTC)
what are you, some kind of elitist?
headfights 19th-Dec-2011 03:40 pm (UTC)
world will be a better place once baby boomers die out, etc
cpip 19th-Dec-2011 04:31 pm (UTC)
Funny; the boomers said that about the WW2 generation.
evilgmbethy 19th-Dec-2011 03:52 pm (UTC)
yeah, this is nothing new. Most of congress lack a fundamental grasp of economics, yet they continue put together federal spending bills, so...
girly123 19th-Dec-2011 05:00 pm (UTC)
Yeah, this is the exact same song and dance that comes up whenever reproductive rights are being legislated. Who needs to listen to the testimony of doctors when you have feelings and a bible?
xyrisquint 19th-Dec-2011 04:03 pm (UTC)
Sometimes I wish we had more doctors, scientists, English majors, teachers, etc in congress. At least then they'd know what they're talking about. I might have forgotten most from my civics course but don't lobbyists basically serve as their (congresspeople's) research?
chaya 19th-Dec-2011 05:21 pm (UTC)
Or at least people willing to spend 20 minutes Googling something before deciding how to legislate it.
crossfire 19th-Dec-2011 04:40 pm (UTC)
I tweeted this and it exploded all over my feed. Lots of people are super-pissed about this.
fenris_lorsrai 19th-Dec-2011 05:28 pm (UTC)
If you don't understand something, consulting a panel of experts that DO understand is seems like the best method. But we can't be having THAT.

That you've got people in the general assembly that don't understand the details, that's okay. Everybody can't be an expert on everything. But when people on the committee that oversees a specific area don't know jackall about the subject (Ted Stevens) you want to smack the lot of them.


I'd LOVE if Congress had to pass their own civil service exam upon entry or re-election to get a committee assignment. sorry you don't know jack-all about internet or technology, or know jackall about agriculture, you aren't getting the chairmanship of that committee, I don't care how old you are. (you could toss some congressman onto committees that were having trouble filling slots with competent folks as the JUNIOR member. I don't care you've been here six terms. you don't know jack. you aren't going to be chairman. you're here to learn)
skellington1 19th-Dec-2011 06:46 pm (UTC)
Hmmm... there are always issues with any kind of test-for-office, because it's so ripe for abuse, but I am intrigued by the idea of basic quals for specific committees. *think think think*

Also, I truly do not understand this defence of ignorance. I have, at times, been called on to do a task I was ignorant of as part of my job. I've found that without fail, the absolute best way to approach it is to go to the people who know and say "I am absolutely ignorant of this, but very willing to learn." Take that attitude with your experts and they will fall over themselves trying to teach you. How can people not figure that out?

Note to congress: We KNOW you don't know everything. No one does. That's what the experts in specific fields are for.
tabaqui 19th-Dec-2011 06:05 pm (UTC)
It's quite terrifying how being 'anti intellectual' - and, sometimes, downright *stupid*, has become the de rigueur for out 'elected' officials.

It's like having the country run by self-absorbed dogs or something.
cpip 19th-Dec-2011 06:07 pm (UTC)
We've culturally encouraged anti-intellectualism for decades. It's no surprise it's ingrained as part of the desirable "American ideal" now that sells to the electorate.
sephystabbity 19th-Dec-2011 07:28 pm (UTC)
Ugh.
Groce.
mswyrr 19th-Dec-2011 07:30 pm (UTC)
Not just pathetic and sad, but a reflection of the fact that the ones avoiding *actual debate* and information are owned by the corporations that want SOPA to go through. Why bother listening to information when they know how they will be voting based on $$ and that isn’t going to change, regardless of what they hear? Hearing information in that situation is nothing more than a nuisance. The only “speech” that matters has already been heard.

Fie upon them all. They deserve their 9% approval rating. They deserve to lose their fucking jobs.
elobelia 19th-Dec-2011 07:55 pm (UTC)
Just say it. This isn't even anti-intellectualism. These people are being paid by corporations to pass this bill, and it will be passed, and they will pretend that they don't understand or don't care to being their pockets are being lined. It's disgusting and these people should be ashamed of themselves. I am embarrassed for them. What a sad display.
mswyrr 19th-Dec-2011 08:06 pm (UTC)
ITA. Only instead of being embarrassed, I want to throttle them within and inch of their despicable scum-sucking lives.

There should be malpractice suits for representatives. Every one of these fuckers would owe the people who voted for them damages.
kyra_neko_rei 19th-Dec-2011 08:40 pm (UTC)
If you're too bored to listen, maybe you should consider being too bored to vote.
simplefaith08 19th-Dec-2011 08:41 pm (UTC)
But if they knew how the internet worked, how would they continue to accidentally out themselves as huge tools (y'know, the racist joke sent to colleagues, the facebook posts about gay suicides, the inappropriate texts)?

On a serious note, it's pretty disgusting how none of these people even pretend to give a damn. As long as they're getting paid, solid. Politics seems kind of like the police force; it doesn't require you to be an awful person, but it seems to attract a lot of them anyway.
carolpent 20th-Dec-2011 12:53 am (UTC)
You know what I think? So long as we have that indefinite detention law, let's round up every politician and lobbyist in Washington (good or bad, there aren't enough babies in this bathwater to justify letting it stay) and put them somewhere where they have nothing to read but books on the Internet and...I dunno, MyITLab depending on how much we want to punish them. Then we can let them out when they're ready to be functioning, productive members of society.
dragonhawker 20th-Dec-2011 11:12 pm (UTC)
You mean never?
This page was loaded Jun 19th 2013, 8:49 pm GMT.