Round two of change.gov’s Open for Questions is up. Not a lot of details … last time, it was open for about three days, and there were brief answers to the top five questions, and a more detailed post and video on at least one topic (bailout transparency).
Dan McSwain, on the change.gov blog, describes one change:
In this round, you can still view all of the questions that have been submitted—or you can break down the questions by category for easier navigation. For instance, you can read the top-ranking question regarding Energy and the Environment and browse through other questions on the same topic by clicking on that issue.
Also it seems that there’s a subtle difference in how URLs are handled that makes it harder to send out a link to an individual question. This change cuts down people’s ability to promote their ideas in email and blog posts, which fits in well with Open for Questions’ role of routing around different kinds of "gatekeepers": making it harder to link to a question cuts down the influence of bloggers and organizations with large email lists.
There were only about 500 questions when I submitted mine (45 minutes later, there are now over 3000) so it was an interesting snapshot for what the quickest people to react are most concerned about. Eight of the top 10 were about the economy, with JGP of Seattle WA’s "What strategies other than bailouts can we employ to keep jobs in America?" leading.
As usual there isn’t a category for civil liberties but these issues dominate the National Defense category with Dave D of Santa Clara leading with the twofer:
Will President Obama eliminate domestic warrantless wiretapping of US citizens by modifying the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP)? Is the Fourth Amendment going to be restored, or weakened further by the Obama Administration?
Good questions! Overall the quality of questions is impressively high, with a few duds but most well-worded and on important topics. They’re mostly more specific than last time; it’s obviously sunk in that the Obama campaign is going to respond to the question as asked.
Disappointingly, there hasn’t been any improvement on the privacy front. The change.gov front page still points off to Google’s misleadingly benign Google Moderator on Change.gov Privacy Notice and you still have to follow a few more links until you get to the stuff about Google selling the aggregate information and potentially sending personal information overseas. (More here.) It would have been easy enough to have a clearer disclaimer — or to require more transparency from Google. Ah well, it’s a pilot; still, it’s hard to shake the impression that the Obama administration really doesn’t care about privacy.
Other than that, though, it continues to be a fascinating experiment in cognitive diversity — particularly in combination with change.org’s Ideas for Change. Check it out, vote questions up or down, and submit your own. The best way to understand democracy 2.0 is to participate in it!
http://change.gov/openforquestions
jon
PS: Speaking of participation, here’s my question, from Jon P in Seattle WA:
What concrete actions will you take to disclose and reduce government surveillance of Americans (bulk wiretapping, etc.) in your first hundred days?
It’s got about 100 votes so far in its first hour, which puts it in the top 10 of national security questions and probably the top 100 overall. Encouragingly there are several other civil liberties questions doing better than mine; while not at the urgency or intensity of questions about the economy, it’s clearly one of the major issues on people’s minds.





3 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
It should be one of the major issues. Enforce the Constitution and you have your liberties back. Or, at least the ones you thought you had. Scroll down to document #16. It is a phone conversation, Dec. 23/74, in regards to Seymour Hersh’s story on spying on Americans. This is between Kissinger and Rumsfeld. Heavily excised..one can assume from that fact that heavy spying on Americans has been going on for at least 35 years.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N…../index.htm
Thanks for stying on top of this, Jon.
Thanks for the details Jon! I also found about it early and went over to check it out. I didn’t write any questions, but I voted a lot.
One potentially concerning thing I noticed while checking it out is the high number of questions there are about legalizing marijuana. I actually think it might be extremely important if the government would legalize it and then tax it, but I fear that making Obama answer it now could be a problem it considering the right wing has already started predicting that a president who just happens to be black would “legalize narcotics”.
Then again, Chris Bowers wrote a post that both explains why this question is so pervasive as well as why he thinks it is important for it to be answered. I just worry considering how eager Obama was to spur the activist base in his engagement with Rick Warren that he would run to the right on this kind of issue to assuage the bigots. The mainstream media would certainly be no help on this matter either, and I’m not sure if its the kind of thing prominent bloggers would feel worth committing major amounts of time to right now either.
As a matter of fact, this kind of storyline that falls right within the beltway accepted narrative that liberal bloggers are just pot smoking freaks could be immensely harmful to the credibility of progressive bloggers. I’d certainly help them push back against it, but considering the need for major collective action on foreign policy and warrantless wiretapping I just don’t know if this is what we should be focusing on even aside from the potential hit to perceived “seriousness” within the beltway.