Basically, progressive bastion Change.org will now start offering its services to all and sundry – folks who oppose gun control, folks who wish to ban abortion and generally control women’s lives, folks who want to exploit the environment, folks who want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
This begs the question, why shouldn’t Change.org offer its services to anyone? And the answer is, change.org has succeeded because it has a cadre of skilled organizers who can help petitions succeed. They used to work strictly for progressive causes. They will now work for both progressive and conservative causes, i.e., conflict of interest. And with Change.org’s focus on bringing in more money, and conservatives being all about the money, guess who will get the short end of the stick?
Plus, it’s got to be grating to use change.org to promote your petition and see it also promoting one or more petitions that directly oppose yours.
Constructive suggestions:
If you are signed on with Change.org’s mailing list, unsubscribe immediately, that’s how they make their money.
To promote petitions through strictly progressive organizations, go through SignOn and Care2, which remain strictly progressive … for now …
You could claim that Change.org has not sold out, as it was a for-profit operation, legally, all along. You could claim that there is no conflict of interest between taking on opposing political viewpoints. I think it HAS sold out as it started out with progressives as its only customers, and now whatever claim they had to progressive values is vanished.
Well some progressives think environmental concerns should be the top priority, some think economic concerns should be the top priority, and some think social justice concerns should be the top priority. But I’d say there’s a broad general consensus on most issues. I doubt there would be a lot of progressives opposing each others’ campaigns the way conservatives oppose progressive causes.
And let’s not forget that…
(A) That would be far too late to change the movie, so they did nothing of consequence with regards to the actual film, and…
(B) The movie was a critical failure, commercial flop, and according to most had a heavy-handed and stupidly simplistic environmental message anyway.
So you are upset that they (whomever they might be) did not do what you wanted. Now you want people who didn’t care to defend the original basis that you won’t defend, to defend it? I’m not getting this. Could you please explain to me why I should care about your problem? Could you, maybe explain what your problem is?
Frankly, I’m not seeing a problem. Perhaps you could explain it?
I see petitions for things like “help Mary save her house from greedy bankers” or “sign this petition to help Susan force the insurance company to pay for her son’s cure”, seems like a great deal of milquetoasty feel-good crap on top of any real progressive agenda.
Well, OK, Vinny, if you really think a horse-whipping is called for, I’ll hold your coat. Just not really sure its the wisest course of action, is all.