Last week, GamePolitics reported on Yahoo! Games' recap of where the major presidential candidates stand on video game issues.
Cnet's Declan McCullagh has now penned an insightful article which outlines how the top candidates view some critical technology issues. While not game-specific, some of these issues will certainly affect gamers in a significant way. Writes McCullagh:
Who would be the most tech-friendly president?
The short answer: it depends. Do you like the idea of Net neutrality so much that you'd hand the Federal Communications Commission the authority to levy open-ended Internet regulations? Do you support pro-fair use changes to copyright law, which many programmers and computer scientists do--but which practically all software and video game companies oppose?
McCullagh sought the candidates' positions on seven key tech issues: Net neutrality legislation; Telecom spying immunity; DMCA fair use reform; Supports Real ID Act; ISP data retention required; Permanent Net-tax ban; and Increased H1-B visas.
Of these, Net neutrality and DMCA fair use reform are probably of the most immediate interest to gamers, so we'll look at those.
On Net neutrality, the question posed to the candidates was:
Congress has considered Net neutrality legislation, but it never became law. Do you support the legislation that was re-introduced in 2007 (S 215), which gives the FCC the power to punish "discriminatory" conduct by broadband providers?
Those strongly in favor of Net neutrality: Clinton, Obama
Those opposed: McCain, Paul
"Maybe": Huckabee
Ducked question: Romney
On DMCA fair use reform, the question posed to the candidates was:
The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's section restricting the "circumvention" of copy protection measures is supported by many copyright holders but has been criticized by some technologists as hindering innovation. Would you support changing the DMCA to permit Americans to make a single backup copy of a DVD, Blu-ray Disc DVD, HD DVD, or video game disc they have legally purchased?
Those probably in favor: Obama, Paul
Ducked question: Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton
Read McCullagh's full article here...
Comments
There is no uniform answer, some just disagree with her policies and many left leaning people see her as a traitor to the cause ie voting for the war. In the end look at her issues and decide for yourself, you may end up liking her so then who cares what others think. Personally she is not my cup of tea, she comes across as cold, calculating, and approaches issues from the context of government is the answer, health care and so forth.
I just don't understand what people can possibly see in her besides a starched set of men's clothing.
I use this phrase not lightly. She's just like one of those mothers, the big question is would you let a Soccer Mom run your country.
Seriously America, use the muscle in your head.
Game Over.
well many people view her as a way of putting Bill back in the White House, others are voting for her for the simple reason that she's a woman and they want a female president (a very poor reason to choose a candidate in my opinion)
for the most part she has name recognition she is a Clinton, her running is akin in the states to someone with the last name Kennedy running
i agree with you entirely and would never vote for her (voted for Obama in the Primary here in CA), and i can't understand why anybody that was listening to her positions would vote for her, but the big problem i feel is a lot of people vote that don't listen to the candidates positions
The presidential race seems to be an IQ test for America. Too bad we are failing. How many times must the cheese on the right shock us before we learn to take the cheese on the left?
But oh....with my essay that I written last year I would love to go onto some popular news station in Obama's state and reveal allot of interesting facts about Hillary....
All we need is someone to do that and she is toast....if we can spread the word like butter and let others know they should not believe what they hear on TV.
Hilary may have convinced the older generation or the feminists all because she is a woman, but I have known to look closer at their language that they use and judge them on their speeches and not on what they look like....
Gld to see I'm not the only one who thinks of her as a Soccer Mom. That's exactly how she comes across to me, too. And like you, I don't want a mom for a president.
Tony Selby hit it on the head too. To some people, this is their way of putting Clinton back in. We've already had about 20 years of our country going back and forth between the Bushes and the Clintons now. That doesn't strike me as a presidency anymore; that's more like royal dynasties. We founded this country to get away from exactly that! And I don't want this country goign back to a quasi-royalty either.
People keep wondering exactly what Obama means when he says, "Change." But to me it's perfectly clear: Change the stagnation that's in our government. Change the way we've been dealing with our economy and our education and our healthcare and our poor and the way we've been dealing with other countries for over the last 20 years. Because IT NO LONGER WORKS!
It's encouraging to hear that even after yesterday Obama is still in this fight and that he's still politically viable. When the primaries come to my state next week, I'm voting for him (provided the super delegate in my state votes the same way). I'll support him to the bitter end. To me he's our last, best hope for our country if we're to move forward. So if he loses, I'll be extremely disappointed.
Well, among Democrats, Bill Clinton was pretty popular. And a lot was made of her involement in his politics back when he was in office. She has always been active in Bill's career (she had to have had some reason to stay with him). A hillary Clinton presidency also means much of the same supporting staff that Bill had. Truth be told, they are who do most of the work anyway. So a lot of people see this as a return of Bill Clinton.
Another reason is name recognition. If you are a loyal democrat, you want to vote for whoever has a good chance at beating the Republican in the general. Clinton comes with name recognition, money, and a top notch election staff.
Another reason is simply that she is not Republican. Republicans had complete control for 6 years and failed to deliver on any of their promises. They increased government, they increased spending by insane amounts, they got us into a costly and unpopular war, and they have had a substantial amount of high profile scandals. With the economy slowing, inflation increasing, and our debt rising, many people are simply ready for a change of parties in the White House, so to many, it wouldn't matter if it was Hillary or Barrack Obama on the ticket, the vote cast will essentially be anti-Republican.
Those are a few reasons someone would vote for her. Personally, I'll be voting Democrat, but prefer Obama because he has the least amount of past baggage. Neither of them get me too excited, though. But I will vote for either one in the general because I don't think Republicans have done a very good job these last 7 years. Theonly positive thing they have done is lower taxes, but failed to lower (or even keep a satus quo on) spending, which should come hand in hand with lowering taxes.
To McCains credit, he has said nearly the same thing, the only real problem I have with him is that he doesn't have a problem with keeping the Iraq war going another decade.
If you go on TV and tell people they can't believe anything they hear on TV, won't that cause a pardox that would rip a hole in the fabric of the universe?
On topic:
I can't believe that the majority of Oklahoma Dems are idots and voted for Hillary. I do not want to see her in power, or even in a position where power is an option.
there is this awesome website that tracks candidate activity on YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, various blogs.. awesome stuff with charts and stuff
its eh... www. techpresident . dot com.
check it!
the republican run is another mater, after yesterdays primaries Romney is pretty much dead in the water, while Huckabee gained ground he's still a very long way away from Mccain who has all but one the nomination
so it strongly looks like it will be Mccain vs either Barack or Clinton, if it's Barack i'll vote for him, if Clinton, i'm voting for Mccain as i feel that Mccain is the better candidate (or at least the lesser of 2 evils) over Hillary
I am kind of amused that Rommey ducked these sort of questions. Anything that would pin him to one of many positions on a given topic....he ducks. That's not a presidental thing to do.
If Obama had more experience, he'd be a good asset to the country. I dont really like Hillary, but, having her in office means 1) no more Republican screw ups, and 2) Bill will be the First Man.....now that's worth the price of admission.
For those considering Ron Paul, please realize that he has no opinion as to whether corporate power should be allowed to dominate technology issues. While many here may be supportive of gaming corporations especially in fighting for gaming free speech, overall corporate power is very destructive to free speech and anything that gets in the way of profit motive. There is no bigger backer of DCMA, the RIAA, and the MPAA than corporations and their lobbyists.
This country has been run by two families the past two decades. Are we turning into some kind of monarchy now?
I want to see Obama and McCain fight it out in November
Anyway, not really a surprise... Personally my big hang up with Net Neutrality too is that it would mean government intervention which typically makes things worse than better. There needs to be a balance to make it truly neutral. I oppose "immunity" for any company that'll be used to spy on citizens and data retention without a warrant. At least Obama and Paul answered all the questions.
Over all the choices this year are rather "meh".
Did you choose your wife off of the short bus? j/k
The commercials for those foot pads are hilarious. Next thing you know we'll have spray-on hair... oh wait we already have that.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
Why not Mario?
Same here. I'm tired of the two-party wool pulled over our eyes, hiding the same authoritarian elite that has been controlling our country for decades.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
Mario is a naturalized citizen, who emigrated here from Japan, so he can't be President.
No, just VERY gulible. I've been working on that and she can catch somethings now, but she still believes everything a poitician says, because they HAVE to be honest!
If I can't vote for Mario, then forget Hillary '08,
I'm voting Duke Nukem...
FOREVER!
Actually I'm leaning heavily towards Obama.
And I don't give two shits about her stance on video games (as far as the presidency goes; there are more important issues) so don't point that out.
She also strikes me as absolutely and completely insincere. I'm not saying I like Obama either, but you have to at least admit when you listen to him talk that he's a guy who really cares about all the problems in this country and that unity and hard work can help us get past them. Hillary... I don't feel like she wants the presidency because she really wants to make things better, she just wants another promotion and more prestige. I may not agree with all Obama's ideas, but at least he has conviction behind them, and I've never sensed any conviction or passion at all from Hillary.
The reason I don't like her are as follows:
1. Political dynasties are bad for leadership positions.
2. Her political opportunism- i.e. the Don Imus condemnation followed by visiting the rutgers team 'to help the healing process' political BULLSHIT at its ripest
3. Her complicit role in WhiteWater
4. Her support of a nanny state. Don't tell me what is and what is not appropriate for MY children. I know you said don't point that out, but it is one of my reasons.
5. Her tendency to vote what will make her more popular versus what she actually believes. (i.e. voted for the war in Iraq)
I could go on and on. On top of all this I get a seriously twisted vibe from her whenever I see her.
Besides Obama is the first candidate I actually LIKE. I'm so cynical of the whole government that if I actually feel positive about a candidate they have my vote despite how ineffective our system of government is and how little my vote actually counts.
I feel sad that Ron Paul might not be around to say "I told you so." But at least his son Rand will.
Without network neutrality, your ISP would be allowed to slow down websites that don't pay them for speed, or outright censor sites that say negative things about them. Or, they could block you from accessing email services such as GMail, Yahoo, or Hotmail to handcuff you to their service.
The FCC would have the power to fine, not to censor. I know, they're mostly a worthless government department made up of idiots, but companies who try stuff like the above should be fined.
For myself, I'm against her primarily due to her being a Nanny State-ist. Or as my mom puts it, communist. She heavily favors big government, with the state having it's hand in nearly everything, often whether it needs it that far in or not. All payed for by my tax dollars. Following that I'm unfond of the political dynasties we've got going lately, and want some of the younger crowd to start getting into power. Following that I don't like her personality, nor do I think she knows how to compromise and work with people to the extent that's needed by a president.
@Terrible Tom
Umm, ever look at this website about Net Neutrality?
http://savetheinternet.com/=faq
It gives a great run done of why people would support it. Particularly as it means not the FCC regulating the internet, it means the FCC regulating people like Comcast and forbidding them from interfering with traffic on their network.
I think you should introduce your wife to Penn and Teller's show (it's appropriately titled Bullshit!). Perhaps she'll be more skeptical of stuff on TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUtd0HV2amk
http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=IllParadox