artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene





Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye


IRC Channels



Comment Feed:


12 September 2006

Net Democracy Guide I've been working on this site for about a month now in the context of my job. It's a guide for American citizens who are politically active online, or who think they might want to be.[More:]It covers most of the activities that average Internet users might engage in surrounding political speech and details the obligations each type of speech places on the speaker.
I think it's a useful resource, and thought some of my fellow bunnies might find it interesting.
Cool. Could you add a list of activities that might make your reguable?
posted by orthogonality 12 September | 17:33
I notice under blogs, you did not include such sites as FreeRepublic or DemocraticUnderground. They are both blog-ish and forum-ish. To me, they are the bookends of political thought online. Did you purposely decide not to cite them, or just overlook them, or do you just see them as two among many?

For the record, I was punted off FreeRepublic after one post. Twice. Not very open-minded people there. I've also been chastised on DU, which I considered a friendly audience. They're not so keen on exploring alternative views either. Such is the nature of politics, I guess. Idealogues are not comfortable with those whom they cannot pidgeonhole.
posted by Doohickie 12 September | 21:17
A lot of great food for thought on that site, no matter what your political stripes.
posted by Doohickie 12 September | 21:21
ortho: Sorry, I've been trying to parse what you meant to write, but I just can't figure out reguable... can we try again in English? :)

Doohickie: Glad you like the site. Regarding Freep and DU, I don't think there was any one reason to exclude them from the blog list. We already had Kos and RedState on there, so I think we felt like we had covered the partisan blog arena. Anyone who's interested in more can probably find their way from those two on to whatever interests them.
posted by Inkoate 12 September | 21:25
Sounds cool.
posted by Doohickie 12 September | 21:29
Did you already put this on MeFi Projects? Put it on Projects.
posted by jessamyn 12 September | 21:30
Jess, I put it on projects this afternoon, hasn't been approved yet, I guess.
posted by Inkoate 12 September | 21:35
I FPP'ed it. I thought it was worth it.
posted by Doohickie 12 September | 21:39
Wow, so you did. Thanks for the publicity, Doohickie.

Jess, I guess there's no reason to approve the "project" now, unless you really want to.
posted by Inkoate 12 September | 21:48
I'd vote for posting it as a project. As I type, there is one comment and it's snarky. An FPP perceived to be political (even though it actually isn't) can attract a lot of noise. Projects will get feedback, but not the other crap that "PoliticsFilter" seems to attract.

posted by GeckoDundee 12 September | 22:03
Yeah... in retrospect, I maybe did you a disservice, even though I did it out of admiration.
posted by Doohickie 12 September | 22:08
I wouldn't say you did Inkoate a disservice, Doohickie. Nobody's going to be complaining about Inkoate's web site; they're going to be arguing over LGF v DU.

What could you have done though? If you'd just put the one link then the usual suspects would've rioted. (I hate the way "single-link op-ed" got transformed into "single-link FPP").
posted by GeckoDundee 12 September | 22:25
Yeah, I'm not sure that just this site was really FPP material in the first place, but hey, if it gets more eyeballs this way, that's ok too.
posted by Inkoate 12 September | 22:26
Just to be clear, I'm not saying it isn't worth an FPP, just that some people these days will lambast any FPP that only has one link, no matter how good that link might be. I believe this is because one link op-ed pieces have always been frowned on, and some (ok, I'll say it) $5 n00bs in particular have misunderstood the "rule".

BTW, I too wondered what Ortho was on about, but now I think I understand and it was something I was curious about too. The site's very good on what won't get you covered by the new laws (i.e. what won't make you regulable), but not so good on what will. In other words, "what would I have to be doing on my blog to be covered by these new rules?" would make for a better FAQ than "would doing x mean my site is covered?".
posted by GeckoDundee 12 September | 23:06
A VERY HAPPY UN-BIRTHDAY TO YOU!!! || Have you ever wondered...?