Negative campaigning: Difference between revisions

From WikiDotMako
(text from jorge castros blog post)
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
I read a lot of comments from free and open source software supporters
and antagonists about advocacy strategies and tactics.  One comment I've
read several times is a broad argument against "negative campaiging."
This rejection of negative campaigning draws a strong analogy to
negative political campaigning or [[:w:smear campaign|smear campaigns]].
Some people in the free and open source software communities seem to
take the position that any negative campaigning, on any issue, is to be
avoided in free and open source software advocacy.


My first response is simple. I believe that there is a fundemental
difference between speaking against policies or actions and "smear
campaigns" the employ untrue or suspect claims, ad hominem attacks, and
that attempt to avoid a real conversation about issues. I have no
reservations categorically condemning the latter form of smear
campaigning in campaigns for software freedom or for anything else.


I didn’t take anything personally. I’m not personally offended. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. When I called for a little more respect, I was referring to the second half of your post:
Defending a position on other types of negative campaigning is more
complicated. It's true: the free software movement doesn't only talk
about the benefits of software freedom. It speaks out against threats to
software freedom as well. The targets of this negativity include
government policies like software patents, technologies like DRM and
centralized network services, and firms promoting proprietary software
and the policies and practices listed here. Even if paired with more
positive messages about software freedom and its benefits, these
messages are decidedly negative.  I have supported and participated in
campaigns speaking against all of the issues listed here and others.
I've done so because I believe that if one is taking an ethical position
and trying to increase people’s freedom, it is justified to not only
speak about the benefits of the freedom but also against dispossession
and disenfranchisement.


    Like say, harassing people at malls and walking around in HAZMAT suits. I, for one, am expecting a bag of manure light on fire on my front porch.
The strongest argument for these campaigns can be described through
analogy. A prohibition on negativity in advocacy might be like saying
that a campaign for abolishing child labor should only talk about how
great a value adult workers are to their employers are or that a
campaign trying to abolish land mines should talk about the benefits of
bomb-free fields or two lower limbs. Or that a free speech organization
should only speak out about the benefits of a free press and not speak
out against censorship. These may seem like outlandish comparisons but
you can find people writing a couple hundred years ago about how slavery
should be abolished because they slavery is economically inefficient
compared to wage labor. Maybe these economic arguments were right, but
the argument seems today to be somewhere between irrelevant and
offensive.  Whether slavery is more or less efficient is moot; we reject
slavery because it is wrong.


I think that’s both an incorrect and a insulting characterization of Defective By Design. In any case, however, I appreciate your follow-up. I think I see what you meant.
Now I’m not trying suggesting that these causes have equal ethical
weight with software freedom. They don't. But I do believe that the free
software mission is similar in kind, if not in ethical clarity and
importance. As a a result, I feel that it is both justified and
essential to not only speak out about the benefits of software freedom
but also against those who are systematically disempowering others.


In terms of your comments on negative campaigning, I think it’s worth approaching the concept of negative campaigns with a little more nuance. Their is often a blurry line between opposing negative policies and the type of smear campaigns common in politics which I think we both categorically oppose.
Now you may not support my position that user control over technology is
 
an ethical issue. If you don’t, you might come to different conclusions
However, if one is taking an ethical position and trying to increase people’s freedom, it seems justified to not only speak about the benefits of the freedom but also against dispossession and disenfranchisement. The alternative is like saying that a campaign for abolishing child labor should only talk about how great a value adult workers are to their employers are or that a campaign trying to abolish land mines should talk about the benefits of two lower limbs. Or that a free speech organization should only speak out about the benefits of a free press and not try to organize opposition to censors.
about what are appropriate tactics and strategies for free software’s
 
promotion. But if `
You can find people writing a couple hundred years ago about how slavery should be abolished because they are economically inferior to low-wage labor. Maybe they were right, but the ethical arguments are what have taken hold. Whether it’s more or less efficient is moot; we as a society have abolished slavery because we believe it is wrong.
 
Now I’m not trying suggesting that these issues have equal ethical weight with software freedom, but I do believe that the FSF’s mission is similar in kind, if not in ethical clarity and importance. The FSF has always taken the position that software freedom is an ethical issue. As a a result, the FSF believes that it is both justified and essential to not only speak out about the benefits of software freedom but against people who are systematically disempowering people. And, in fact, it is useful to do so. Ask any civil liberties organization and they will tell you that they do better as things get worse. Like it or not, it is this type of “negative campaigning” against bad policies that sustains all of these organizations. And I think that in cases where it’s about taking strong ethical positions, that’s OK.
 
You may not support the FSF’s position that user control over technology is an ethical issue. If you don’t, you will almost certainly come to different conclusions about what are appropriate tactics and strategies for free software’s promotion. I think it’s in the interest of the productive dialog to attempt to wrap our heads around these differences and to try to view the situations from other perspectives before we turn to what can sometimes be nasty and unproductive criticism.

Revision as of 17:29, 29 January 2009

I read a lot of comments from free and open source software supporters and antagonists about advocacy strategies and tactics. One comment I've read several times is a broad argument against "negative campaiging." This rejection of negative campaigning draws a strong analogy to negative political campaigning or smear campaigns. Some people in the free and open source software communities seem to take the position that any negative campaigning, on any issue, is to be avoided in free and open source software advocacy.

My first response is simple. I believe that there is a fundemental difference between speaking against policies or actions and "smear campaigns" the employ untrue or suspect claims, ad hominem attacks, and that attempt to avoid a real conversation about issues. I have no reservations categorically condemning the latter form of smear campaigning in campaigns for software freedom or for anything else.

Defending a position on other types of negative campaigning is more complicated. It's true: the free software movement doesn't only talk about the benefits of software freedom. It speaks out against threats to software freedom as well. The targets of this negativity include government policies like software patents, technologies like DRM and centralized network services, and firms promoting proprietary software and the policies and practices listed here. Even if paired with more positive messages about software freedom and its benefits, these messages are decidedly negative. I have supported and participated in campaigns speaking against all of the issues listed here and others. I've done so because I believe that if one is taking an ethical position and trying to increase people’s freedom, it is justified to not only speak about the benefits of the freedom but also against dispossession and disenfranchisement.

The strongest argument for these campaigns can be described through analogy. A prohibition on negativity in advocacy might be like saying that a campaign for abolishing child labor should only talk about how great a value adult workers are to their employers are or that a campaign trying to abolish land mines should talk about the benefits of bomb-free fields or two lower limbs. Or that a free speech organization should only speak out about the benefits of a free press and not speak out against censorship. These may seem like outlandish comparisons but you can find people writing a couple hundred years ago about how slavery should be abolished because they slavery is economically inefficient compared to wage labor. Maybe these economic arguments were right, but the argument seems today to be somewhere between irrelevant and offensive. Whether slavery is more or less efficient is moot; we reject slavery because it is wrong.

Now I’m not trying suggesting that these causes have equal ethical weight with software freedom. They don't. But I do believe that the free software mission is similar in kind, if not in ethical clarity and importance. As a a result, I feel that it is both justified and essential to not only speak out about the benefits of software freedom but also against those who are systematically disempowering others.

Now you may not support my position that user control over technology is an ethical issue. If you don’t, you might come to different conclusions about what are appropriate tactics and strategies for free software’s promotion. But if `