negative campaigning?

[Alessandro Rubini]

> [...] let's consider the advantages of negative campaigning:
> + it increases the reach of a message (due to its emotional nature)

Or not. In Europe we are "shocked", "outraged", "indignados" every
day.  We've got enough of that. Negative messages have no effect at
all, in my opinion. Then we, (fs people) complain anyways for each and
every move to the worse (be it a law, a business model, a new damaging
technical achievement). So people *already* know us as the ones who
complain.

Negative campaigning doesn't work.  You may be self-confident you are
on the right side and you see (and shout) the evils of the world, but
at the same time you run fast into irrelevance.

> + it increases the reach of a message (because it's usually short and catch=
> y)

Bah. We should aim at short and catchy positive messages. "just say
no" or "fuck off" will not work. I love "hacking for freedom", and
"there is no cloud". The latter btwis not negative: it explains what
the cloud is, without saying "do not use it". Actually, not all
decentralized systems are bad evem in the strictest possible
attitude).

> + it puts the opponent into a defensive position

No. The opponent ignores us, just like everyone. Have we *ever* got a
reply from our direct attack to misbehaving companies? Worse, most
"negative" messages repeat (and thus reinforce) commercial names.
Make a cell phone that may, very rarely, explode, and you get free
advertisement of your brand in every airport for a few months.

And even if you are at a conference on the stage with your "opponent",
by attacking you usually shows you have no arguments.  It's what our
most unsuccessful politicians do all the time.

/alessandro, member of several associations but not represeting anyone