Well for instance I clicked "join" on the PG and my request got ignored basically, even after PM'ing a mod still got no response. It took weeks to get in. It wasn't until I actually asked another mod from a different board over AIM before I was in, and THAT only took 5 minutes, literally. One shouldn't expect this to be the trend, but if it is... that's bad, we don't all have moderator friends. If the DH mods are either too busy or don't care enough to keep up with requests to join, etc, then there's no doubt it'll have an effect on membership.
Also I would wager Riddle (thanks, Vrael I knew I remembered it from somewhere) is onto something... the PG has a tendency to be a playground more than a proving ground. Perhaps this would help folks feel more comfortable participating.
anything, pick it. Social, Fiscal, Foreign I'm bored and I want to debate policy with someone.
*spins the wheel*
Ok, foreign policy it is.
Source:
China Ups the Ante in Internet Row With U.S.
Source:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech on Internet Freedom
Source:
The future of “Public Diplomacy 2.0"
U.S. foreign policy on the freedom of information exchange is working towards "a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas" (Clinton). This, however is a polar opposite to policies maintained in Communist nations like China, who rely on the strict control of information, and especially over the Internet. What has started out as unfriendly banter seems to be escalating into strong political and business decisions which may ultimately lead to serious and unfavorable changes in foreign relations.
"The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al Qaeda to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent" (Clinton). China rebuts"it was America that initiated Internet warfare, using YouTube videos and Twitter micro-blog misinformation to split, incite, and sow discord between the conservative and reform factions…to bring about large-scale bloodshed in Iran" (WSJ).
Both ideas are only somewhat true. Clinton's assertion that terrorists use the internet for the spreading of hate is not inaccurate, but her placing of this fact in her speech is not without ramifications, subtly pointing a finger at nations who control the freedom of information for their own purposes. China strikes back with a "you did it first" mentality, which is not accurate, and yet holds some weight. The riots in Iran did get leaked out of the country by means of the Internet, and it was popularized by citizens of the United States. But our interest, at heart, was purely informational, and on the side of the citizens of Iran who got screwed out of a valid election. China would attempt to spin this somehow, but they fail to do so.
My point, however, is that the Chinese government has obviously taken Clinton's words as a direct attack on their ideology. To make things more difficult, Google, a fortune 500 company based in the United States, is now threatening to pull the plug on their operation in China, because of the censorship that goes on there. This will further be construed by China as a sign of retaliation for their ways. Clinton has basically used the Internet as a new mode of transportation in which to travel the globe and spread Americanism, from which the "freedom of information" ideology is strongly based. China and possibly other nations who exact measures of information suppression may band together against this new colonialism. It isn't too dissimilar to so-called coca-cola diplomacy. "It's easy to hate American companies like Coca Cola, often associated with the endless expansion of American businesses and the overall Americanization of the world [but] whatever framework the State Department adopts to execute their new public diplomacy initiatives, it has to make space for completely unexplored diplomatic treasures like Google." (Morozov). As we can see, it's not so much a treasure as it is another reason to get under China's skin. And worse, they may have a revolution on their hands. (It's about time!) is it? Can we afford to aid them if China turns their guns on its own citizens, like at Tienanmen Square? Not right now, we're too busy fighting in Afghanistan and -trying- to get out of Iraq. This is not the time to be poking China in the eye with a stick. Google is acting irresponsibly, and Clinton though doing her job to a "T" should review the U.S.'s ambitious political socialization techniques and avoid moving ahead too quickly.
), I can give you a few pointers on how you can make the place a little better. Of course, if you need more, my IM info is readily available for you to ask questions:
