DMB

Thanks for the support, guys. We cannot know how much signing an internet petition will help. Personally, I feel that doing so under the auspices of Amnesty International gives a much better chance of influencing governments than the usual ad hoc arrangements.

An international stink has often had helpful effects for victims, so what is needed is for continued media attention and as many people as possible registering their disgust, plus, if possible, pressure from other governments. So it is also helpful to lobby one's government representatives.

winterwooskie

i agree that it helps with getting people to know more about things that are happening and it helps get more media exposure. part of the reason there is alot of censorship in many places is because it is beneficial to not have any awareness about some things.

i just read the snopes article. most of the criticism was against people being lazy and only signing petitions and using examples of petitions that are not helpful. and they were only using examples mostly with the exception of the one about afghanistan women that were showing the stupidity of e-petitions and left out other things.

yes the thing about people being lazy and believing they are doing a lot of good is accurate but he does not take into account how there are organizations attached to these petitions who get members and money to support them so they can lobby for change. and these do work well, especially when there is alot of support, which is how petitions get many people to become aware of an organization.

the criticism of petitions that are not sent to the right people and are designed effectively was also true that they are not very beneficial. but there are many more that are sent to the right people and are not vague in correcting something that is wrong. assuming that many petitions are like the ("Let's solve the problem of poverty in the USA" or when acts taking place on foreign soil are the subject of the angst "Let's end child rape in South Africa") is ridiculous. these are short-sighted and are usually one's made by individuals rather than organizations with a clear goal. but the writer of the article does not give any examples of any good one's.

it is obvious that there is bias by the writer of the article against e-petitions and he is slanting it not in their favor. why not ask why this person is spinning it this way?