I don't want to prepetuate stereotypes of Ron Paul Supporters... so if you want to hear me pimp Ron paul go to http://merced2012.ning.com
I just mention him cause he's a good example of these old hoagies harnessing the power of web 2.0. Even though Ron Paul online success is due to having a tech-savey fan base and taking them seriously, I guess Obama would be second place in that race.
Huckabee is attempting to capitalize on the internet, the difference is that Ron Paul like FacebOok had a very organic growth. In many ways, I feel Ron Paul is the facebook for the US, ina sense empowering the user in his message.
Hope people enjoy political web 2.0 rhetoric
this is only a political comment cause it's a political post.
AlexMerced
· 2 years ago
although, maybe he's more like opensocial since that's more akin to free/open trade and facebook could be seen as isolationism... damn analogies.
Alan
· 2 years ago
I think a large part of this has to do with the group-think that can happen in a given society.
Look at the hotspots of tech - San Francisco, Seattle, Boston - all liberal bastions.
As a libertarian/conservative type, whenever I am dealing with people at tech companies in these areas, they unknowingly insult me in almost every conversation by injecting their liberal political views into conversations. To respond would be to (a) take the conversation away from the business at hand and (b) likely reduce chances for business.
As well, the global reach of the internet has introduced left leaning conversation (ie. most of the western world is left leaning) into what used to be US-only conversation.
I will stay away from the irony of the open source crowd being against freedom by leaning left and other delicious tidbits... suffice it to say that the self-proclaimed "freedom of speech" crowd is anything but.
Thank you for being brave and posting.
Stell
· 2 years ago
Why oh WHY did you wait until Troll Week was over to post this?
Web2NewYork
· 2 years ago
Dangerous post Mark, probably a career killer.
CountRob
· 2 years ago
Where is your podcast hosted at? I'm probably going to subscribe.
Yeah, there are alot of wackos on the net. I mean, even though I totally disagree with them, I still get along OK with liberals in Real Life. We can talk about non politics related things and not get into a word war.
But it's a whole different attitude on the internet. If you have even a hint of pro-constitution views, they're going to tear you to shreds.
I was talking to this one guy and he's like: "The problem with a Capitalist society is that it doesn't give you the option of not working." Ah, a typical neo-utopian Marxist. If we just had a communist society, we would never have to work anymore...
Fortunately, Ron Paul practically owns the internet. You look at Hillary or Obama's videos on YouTube, they have like 2000 views. Ron Paul's are in the hundreds of thousands. It's a shame he doesn't have that kind of popularity in RL, but hopefully the momentum from the internet will eventually carry over.
AlexMerced
· 2 years ago
I think he has the support he needs to win the primaries. He has won pretty much every RL straw poll except for a few, and the reason he does so bad in the national poll cause the pool is skewed (I've expalined this so many times today, just take my word for it)
But if worse comes to worse, I'll be running at the maverick Write in Cadidate in 2012, lol. Check out my campaign @ http://merced2012.ning.com
I'll be annoucing my candidacy on a radio show in a couple of weeks (and yes I know I'm too young to run (I'm 22 (yes I just put a parenthesis in a parentesis)))*noodle code!*
I love ning, I can't wait till they implement opensocial.
The funny thing is my platform is to run the country like OpenSocial/FB Apps.
This is an excellent post. I have often wondered myself why the left is so involved in tech and so vocal (despite becoming sometimes virulent as noted in your post). Democratic candidates do indeed seem to embrace web technologies (and particularly web2.0 technologies) and are commonly hailed for doing so.
Yet there seems to be almost a dark cloud hanging over anyone who isn't liberal-leaning in their political views in the tech arena. If you're involved in tech, you either steer clear of politics completely and are accepted or you put yourself at risk by showing a bent towards something other than liberalism.
As a conservative that shares many views with libertarians, I do find it quite annoying and borderline childish how conservatives in general are viewed in the tech world. I must state here that I do have some really great, VERY liberal friends that work in technology though so I want to be careful to not to paint with too broad a stroke. I'm merely speaking in general sense about how conservatives in particular are viewed.
I mean, I have had some very enriching discussions with some of my liberal techie friends - which is great. But why is it so taboo to be conservative and involved in technology? And why do conservative politicians avoid technology like the plague it seems?
It's almost like masochism every time I pull up Digg anymore because I have to be pummeled with all kinds of liberal banter just to find a few interesting tech nuggets buried in a sea of global warming posts and warnings about how Bush is personally watching your laptop and yadda yadda yadda. Regardless of where I stand on global warming, maybe I don't need to be beaten about the skull with it when I want to read some tech news ya know?
All in all the post poised some good questions. They are questions I often wonder about myself. Unfortunately, I don't really understand the mechanics of why things are the way they are with regards to technology and politics. It would be nice to find out though. At the very least it would be nice to be able to surf tech sites without reading about how people with my political views are aligned with satan or some other equivalent nonsense.
Peter Yared
· 2 years ago
I am a libertarian as well, but definitely not a conservative. A "conservative" approach, by its very definition, means "to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conser...).
Given that definition, it is no surprise that conservative candidates are not adopting new grassroots technologies and that most of the people who are in startups in the vanguard of a new technology wave are not "conservative." As has been noted in the comments here, most of the innovation in this country comes from the bluest of the blue states.
Most startup and technology people are libertarian in my experience, which when framed around social issues can be labeled liberal. A conservative does not want to work with gays, etc. A libertarian will hire Martians if they are the best qualified, and yes, will do whatever is reasonable to keep them happy and productive at work, even if it means training all of the other employees to not make fun of Martians because they are stinky and green.
On the other hand, startup people that compete against the likes of big lumbering giants like IBM and Yahoo definitely know that a big federal government is not exactly agile in its response to issues. :)
In short, I agree with your post, but consider the reason: people who want "to preserve existing conditions" generally are not going to get along very well with people who thrive in changing conditions.
Incognito
· 2 years ago
Speaking as a member of another traditionally liberal industry : entertainment.... I find it pathetic that, in a free and democratic country, we are afraid to admit we are not liberals.
Admitting one's conservative leanings can be, as WEb2New York states, it *can* be a career killer.
jamdude
· 2 years ago
Excellent post. It's something I've also questioned.
Why would tech/scientific inclined thinkers so readily give up their thoughts to groupthink?
An example of this is Global Warming. Is Global Warming as dire as Al Gore and friends insist? Does hard science really back up the hysteria foisted upon us? Or is the hysteria a by-product of liberal/pc propaganda?
This is the bewilderment: tech people should be on the front lines insisting hard data speaks. The reality though is the opposite. And that reality is this: wimpy geeks neutered by liberal groupthink. It's as "zombie" as it gets.
kapalaran
· 2 years ago
As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal/progressive and quasi-neo-Marxist (who ironically was born and raised as a Catholic and as a Reaganite Republican), it seems pretty obvious to me why technology should align itself with the Left. I've tended to identify conservative philosophies with either the maintenance of the status quo or of trying to return to some lost era when things seemed better. In other words, conservatism seems to be concerned only with the immediate present, and sometimes more so with some mythical past. It seems common-sense to me that you have to be liberal/progressive to be forward-thinking and interested in the future.
With regards to libertarianism, I view it as a philosophy that elevates the individual above all other things. Which is, unfortunately, antagonistic to how the development of technology works, at least certainly in the present era. Almost all of the technology we (the people) currently benefit from is rooted in science that was created/discovered in universities and/or at the behest of the federal government. (Think about the Internet, wireless communication, UNIX, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, agribusiness, etc., etc.) No one can really turn a profit with pursuing pure research and development, but without it, there's no way technology can advance.
Sure, you can wax philosophical about the mythic individualistic inventor, but on closer examination, everyone got help from somewhere, somehow. Like Isaac Newton noted, all scientists and inventors are "standing on the shoulder of giants." Moreover, the progress of science and the scientific method requires putting the community and the scientific method above the individual. Scientists have to be able to share their results with each other freely in order for ideas to progress.
Another thing that contributes to the negative representations of conservatives in technologic and scientific circles is the fact that they are often lumped together with the religious conservatives, many of whom are vehemently anti-science. Their worldview is so out of step with the present day reality that it's easy to (perhaps unjustly) equate them with idiots and morons. Unfortunately, liberals tend to generalize this perception of lack of intelligence to all conservatives.
Web2NewYork
· 2 years ago
Part of the problem is that "liberals", "progressives" and "libertarians" are usually pretty clueless about politics and the world in general. They just go with the label that sounds coolest and it's inconceivable to them any sane, non-evil person could be a "conservative" or a "capitalist".
Not saying I'm any of those labels mentioned. Just for the record. I have rent to pay.
Ben Regenspan
· 2 years ago
Non-partisan does not mean "not advocating a particular political philosophy". It means that the organization in question is not affiliated with a particular political party. There is no shortage of conservative organizations staffed heavily by Republicans who also claim non-partisanship, which is necessary to be incorporated as a 501(c)3 non-profit. Saying you're "nonpartisan" is more legal-speak than PR speak, because advocating for a given candidate or party's electoral victory would result in having to give up tax-exempt status.
Is this also good for PR? Maybe, but I'm inclined to trust people to figure out for themselves whether they agree with the view(s) of a particular organization.
uf911
· 2 years ago
Interesting commentary. In general I agree that when there is a presumptive 'correct' political position implied in a tech conversation, that position is towards the left. This can be a little annoying, but in my experience it's not a brick wall, just a small stumbling block.
There's a related 'disclosure bias' that sometimes shows up in the industry, a bias that can sometimes become a credibility killer in conversations with tech folks.
God. Or rather, the lack of God.
Anyone else noticed a disclosure bias in the tech community, particularly in startups, towards agnosticism and atheism?
spreadneck
· 2 years ago
Amen!
I am a co-founder of http://gophub.com, which is essentially a Digg or Reddit alternative.
I fear that GOP HUB is too polarizing, but it has grown steadily and with the election now exactly one year away I want to polish the site with new technologies and potentially a new identity. I would love to hear your thoughts, as a libertarian. I would also like to know what you think about Ron Paul's popularity in tech circles.
I hope your post doesn't hurt your career. We need to stand up for our political beliefs on the web and stop relying on the AM radio listeners because frankly, they are all going to be dead soon.
Thanks for your time and best of luck.
BTE
bloc
· 2 years ago
There are some terms you're using that us couch potatoe pundits can twist and abuse. Democrats, Republicans, Liberal, Conservative, Social liberal Fiscal conservative, Libertarian...etc etc. Does someone have a check list to tell me which one I'm in? You apparently have one for conservative/libertarian but I'm sure I'd find some I'd disagree with. And this would lead us to the waste of time in political discourse called a 'semantics war'. I'm going to avoid that right now.
What I do know is that most of us agree on the results. If you can use and can get a positive result, then the proof is in the pudding.
Let history decide.
I will say though that people need to stop criticizing the most egalitarian medium ever. Any one with a view has the same potential to reach a mass audience. Sure a hierarchy exists, but that's the same with any thing us humans do.
lol. In the UK we'd even consider the Democrats to be fairly conservative!
Surely the link between most tech companies having a 'liberal' bias is hardly shocking due to the fact that probably 90% of them are based in Democrat states. And the link between techy people and being an aethiest: Tech people are by definition geeks - and therefore science-leaning - and therefore much less likely to believe in god - and i suppose therefore less likely to be Republican.
Marcus (champagne-socialist/libertarian/part-time-hypocrite/web2.0geek)
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 2 years ago
Well, I appreciate, and could probably entertain a fairly lively debate on the topic of media bias.
I'm actually, in the editorial, attempting to comment on the idea of the web 2.0 crowd (perhaps falsely) assuming that we're dominated by what's considered modern liberal (i.e. democrat) thinking.
The article grew out of personal experience in dealing with a wide variety of tech executives drawn to my conservative politics and technology punditry, and thus felt comfortable admitting in confidence that they were in fact conservatives themselves.
@alexmerced: I am a Ron Paul fan, but unfortunately, I think his mainstream PR lacks direction, which will ultimately prevent him from winning the primary.
@alan: I try to shy away from accusing folks of group-think or herd mentality. It may be true, but the last time I used those terms, I wound up getting flamed out of a community.
@countrob: I will be, of course, commenting on stories like this here at Mashable where applicable, but you're also welcome to click on my bio here at Mashable or the link here on the comment to find my daily podcast that centers around these types of ideas.
@peter: I think that definition of conservative isn't very applicable to American politics. The way I've always viewed American conservatism is a slight variation with a significantly different meaning: "to preserve existing values and morals." Thus, the message is important, yet the medium isn't. There are plenty of conservatives in technology, this much I know.
Web2NewYork
· 2 years ago
@zirr, "Dems" don't dominate the internet, but they dominate a handful of sites that constantly hyped up whenever the New York Times etc. do a story on politics and the web.
Then there are the "wisdom of crowd" type gatekeeper sites like Digg that are dominated by "activists" who apparently have nothing better to do than flag down anything that doesn't fit their agenda. Or write scripts to spam polls etc. Idiots of all stripes are doing this; marxists, 9/11 truthers, ronpaulians, islamists, old-fashioned fascists etc.
It creates one big echo chamber that means nothing. Howard Dean was supposed to prove the power of the netroots. Daily Kos never succeeded in getting any of their candidates elected. Now it's Barack Obama or Ron Paul. Let's wait what will happen, shall we?
Josh: It isn't that I'm not used to it. I am very used to it, having lived all over the country in blue counties and red counties.
It's just that it sort-of blows. And I wish it were different.
And it is different in tech, because morality has very little to do with the science of Web 2.0. What my morals and resulting political beliefs are should have very little to do with the driving philosophy behind my technology viewpoints and resulting actions.
Furthermore, I don't mind civil political discourse, even from within the context of technology discussion. What I do mind are viewpoints like Marc Canter's, which are increasingly frequent, and also based in absolutely no logic or technology grounding whatsoever (brought up in the midst of a discussion on net neutrality, by the way).
Scott
· 2 years ago
This really doesn't seem the place for a post like this. If I wanted to hear some conservative rant on the liberal bias, I'd go elsewhere.
Stick with the news you're good at and leave your politics at your blog.
thesubjective
· 2 years ago
Your apathy is their victory.
This certainly doesn't help
Mark Johnson
· 1 year ago
I live in San Francisco and work for a company made up of liberal PhDs. I often find myself to be the lone libertarian/conservative. When I go the Libertarian route, I definitely arouse passion and questions, but the debate is usually friendly.
However, I find when I make a statement like, "Obama would be bad for the country" or "I'm considering voting for McCain" or "At least George Bush has appointed a quality Chief Justice," people just get angry at me. I was (admittedly very jokingly) told once that, if I voted for McCain, I'd be fired.
It's funny to me that, in liberal circles, which are supposed to be accepting, you just aren't allowed to accept anything that's not considered mainstream liberal.
Nonetheless, I like to fight the good fight and remind people that there are informed opinions that aren’t ultra-liberal. Career be damned!
All Comments
I just mention him cause he's a good example of these old hoagies harnessing the power of web 2.0. Even though Ron Paul online success is due to having a tech-savey fan base and taking them seriously, I guess Obama would be second place in that race.
Huckabee is attempting to capitalize on the internet, the difference is that Ron Paul like FacebOok had a very organic growth. In many ways, I feel Ron Paul is the facebook for the US, ina sense empowering the user in his message.
Hope people enjoy political web 2.0 rhetoric
this is only a political comment cause it's a political post.
Look at the hotspots of tech - San Francisco, Seattle, Boston - all liberal bastions.
As a libertarian/conservative type, whenever I am dealing with people at tech companies in these areas, they unknowingly insult me in almost every conversation by injecting their liberal political views into conversations. To respond would be to (a) take the conversation away from the business at hand and (b) likely reduce chances for business.
As well, the global reach of the internet has introduced left leaning conversation (ie. most of the western world is left leaning) into what used to be US-only conversation.
I will stay away from the irony of the open source crowd being against freedom by leaning left and other delicious tidbits... suffice it to say that the self-proclaimed "freedom of speech" crowd is anything but.
Thank you for being brave and posting.
Yeah, there are alot of wackos on the net. I mean, even though I totally disagree with them, I still get along OK with liberals in Real Life. We can talk about non politics related things and not get into a word war.
But it's a whole different attitude on the internet. If you have even a hint of pro-constitution views, they're going to tear you to shreds.
I was talking to this one guy and he's like: "The problem with a Capitalist society is that it doesn't give you the option of not working." Ah, a typical neo-utopian Marxist. If we just had a communist society, we would never have to work anymore...
Fortunately, Ron Paul practically owns the internet. You look at Hillary or Obama's videos on YouTube, they have like 2000 views. Ron Paul's are in the hundreds of thousands. It's a shame he doesn't have that kind of popularity in RL, but hopefully the momentum from the internet will eventually carry over.
But if worse comes to worse, I'll be running at the maverick Write in Cadidate in 2012, lol. Check out my campaign @ http://merced2012.ning.com
I'll be annoucing my candidacy on a radio show in a couple of weeks (and yes I know I'm too young to run (I'm 22 (yes I just put a parenthesis in a parentesis)))*noodle code!*
I love ning, I can't wait till they implement opensocial.
The funny thing is my platform is to run the country like OpenSocial/FB Apps.
http://my.ronpaulspace.com
Yet there seems to be almost a dark cloud hanging over anyone who isn't liberal-leaning in their political views in the tech arena. If you're involved in tech, you either steer clear of politics completely and are accepted or you put yourself at risk by showing a bent towards something other than liberalism.
As a conservative that shares many views with libertarians, I do find it quite annoying and borderline childish how conservatives in general are viewed in the tech world. I must state here that I do have some really great, VERY liberal friends that work in technology though so I want to be careful to not to paint with too broad a stroke. I'm merely speaking in general sense about how conservatives in particular are viewed.
I mean, I have had some very enriching discussions with some of my liberal techie friends - which is great. But why is it so taboo to be conservative and involved in technology? And why do conservative politicians avoid technology like the plague it seems?
It's almost like masochism every time I pull up Digg anymore because I have to be pummeled with all kinds of liberal banter just to find a few interesting tech nuggets buried in a sea of global warming posts and warnings about how Bush is personally watching your laptop and yadda yadda yadda. Regardless of where I stand on global warming, maybe I don't need to be beaten about the skull with it when I want to read some tech news ya know?
All in all the post poised some good questions. They are questions I often wonder about myself. Unfortunately, I don't really understand the mechanics of why things are the way they are with regards to technology and politics. It would be nice to find out though. At the very least it would be nice to be able to surf tech sites without reading about how people with my political views are aligned with satan or some other equivalent nonsense.
Given that definition, it is no surprise that conservative candidates are not adopting new grassroots technologies and that most of the people who are in startups in the vanguard of a new technology wave are not "conservative." As has been noted in the comments here, most of the innovation in this country comes from the bluest of the blue states.
Most startup and technology people are libertarian in my experience, which when framed around social issues can be labeled liberal. A conservative does not want to work with gays, etc. A libertarian will hire Martians if they are the best qualified, and yes, will do whatever is reasonable to keep them happy and productive at work, even if it means training all of the other employees to not make fun of Martians because they are stinky and green.
On the other hand, startup people that compete against the likes of big lumbering giants like IBM and Yahoo definitely know that a big federal government is not exactly agile in its response to issues. :)
In short, I agree with your post, but consider the reason: people who want "to preserve existing conditions" generally are not going to get along very well with people who thrive in changing conditions.
Admitting one's conservative leanings can be, as WEb2New York states, it *can* be a career killer.
Why would tech/scientific inclined thinkers so readily give up their thoughts to groupthink?
An example of this is Global Warming. Is Global Warming as dire as Al Gore and friends insist? Does hard science really back up the hysteria foisted upon us? Or is the hysteria a by-product of liberal/pc propaganda?
This is the bewilderment: tech people should be on the front lines insisting hard data speaks. The reality though is the opposite. And that reality is this: wimpy geeks neutered by liberal groupthink. It's as "zombie" as it gets.
With regards to libertarianism, I view it as a philosophy that elevates the individual above all other things. Which is, unfortunately, antagonistic to how the development of technology works, at least certainly in the present era. Almost all of the technology we (the people) currently benefit from is rooted in science that was created/discovered in universities and/or at the behest of the federal government. (Think about the Internet, wireless communication, UNIX, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, agribusiness, etc., etc.) No one can really turn a profit with pursuing pure research and development, but without it, there's no way technology can advance.
Sure, you can wax philosophical about the mythic individualistic inventor, but on closer examination, everyone got help from somewhere, somehow. Like Isaac Newton noted, all scientists and inventors are "standing on the shoulder of giants." Moreover, the progress of science and the scientific method requires putting the community and the scientific method above the individual. Scientists have to be able to share their results with each other freely in order for ideas to progress.
Another thing that contributes to the negative representations of conservatives in technologic and scientific circles is the fact that they are often lumped together with the religious conservatives, many of whom are vehemently anti-science. Their worldview is so out of step with the present day reality that it's easy to (perhaps unjustly) equate them with idiots and morons. Unfortunately, liberals tend to generalize this perception of lack of intelligence to all conservatives.
Not saying I'm any of those labels mentioned. Just for the record. I have rent to pay.
Is this also good for PR? Maybe, but I'm inclined to trust people to figure out for themselves whether they agree with the view(s) of a particular organization.
There's a related 'disclosure bias' that sometimes shows up in the industry, a bias that can sometimes become a credibility killer in conversations with tech folks.
God. Or rather, the lack of God.
Anyone else noticed a disclosure bias in the tech community, particularly in startups, towards agnosticism and atheism?
I am a co-founder of http://gophub.com, which is essentially a Digg or Reddit alternative.
I fear that GOP HUB is too polarizing, but it has grown steadily and with the election now exactly one year away I want to polish the site with new technologies and potentially a new identity. I would love to hear your thoughts, as a libertarian. I would also like to know what you think about Ron Paul's popularity in tech circles.
I hope your post doesn't hurt your career. We need to stand up for our political beliefs on the web and stop relying on the AM radio listeners because frankly, they are all going to be dead soon.
Thanks for your time and best of luck.
BTE
What I do know is that most of us agree on the results. If you can use and can get a positive result, then the proof is in the pudding.
Let history decide.
I will say though that people need to stop criticizing the most egalitarian medium ever. Any one with a view has the same potential to reach a mass audience. Sure a hierarchy exists, but that's the same with any thing us humans do.
I'll refer you to a Lewis black clip:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/28/daily-...
Surely the link between most tech companies having a 'liberal' bias is hardly shocking due to the fact that probably 90% of them are based in Democrat states. And the link between techy people and being an aethiest: Tech people are by definition geeks - and therefore science-leaning - and therefore much less likely to believe in god - and i suppose therefore less likely to be Republican.
Marcus
(champagne-socialist/libertarian/part-time-hypocrite/web2.0geek)
I'm actually, in the editorial, attempting to comment on the idea of the web 2.0 crowd (perhaps falsely) assuming that we're dominated by what's considered modern liberal (i.e. democrat) thinking.
The article grew out of personal experience in dealing with a wide variety of tech executives drawn to my conservative politics and technology punditry, and thus felt comfortable admitting in confidence that they were in fact conservatives themselves.
@alexmerced: I am a Ron Paul fan, but unfortunately, I think his mainstream PR lacks direction, which will ultimately prevent him from winning the primary.
@alan: I try to shy away from accusing folks of group-think or herd mentality. It may be true, but the last time I used those terms, I wound up getting flamed out of a community.
@countrob: I will be, of course, commenting on stories like this here at Mashable where applicable, but you're also welcome to click on my bio here at Mashable or the link here on the comment to find my daily podcast that centers around these types of ideas.
@peter: I think that definition of conservative isn't very applicable to American politics. The way I've always viewed American conservatism is a slight variation with a significantly different meaning: "to preserve existing values and morals." Thus, the message is important, yet the medium isn't. There are plenty of conservatives in technology, this much I know.
Then there are the "wisdom of crowd" type gatekeeper sites like Digg that are dominated by "activists" who apparently have nothing better to do than flag down anything that doesn't fit their agenda. Or write scripts to spam polls etc. Idiots of all stripes are doing this; marxists, 9/11 truthers, ronpaulians, islamists, old-fashioned fascists etc.
It creates one big echo chamber that means nothing. Howard Dean was supposed to prove the power of the netroots. Daily Kos never succeeded in getting any of their candidates elected. Now it's Barack Obama or Ron Paul. Let's wait what will happen, shall we?
And yes, let history decide.
Highly recommended reading:
Digital Maoism, The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism, by Jaron Lanier
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier...
It's just that it sort-of blows. And I wish it were different.
And it is different in tech, because morality has very little to do with the science of Web 2.0. What my morals and resulting political beliefs are should have very little to do with the driving philosophy behind my technology viewpoints and resulting actions.
Furthermore, I don't mind civil political discourse, even from within the context of technology discussion. What I do mind are viewpoints like Marc Canter's, which are increasingly frequent, and also based in absolutely no logic or technology grounding whatsoever (brought up in the midst of a discussion on net neutrality, by the way).
Stick with the news you're good at and leave your politics at your blog.
This certainly doesn't help
However, I find when I make a statement like, "Obama would be bad for the country" or "I'm considering voting for McCain" or "At least George Bush has appointed a quality Chief Justice," people just get angry at me. I was (admittedly very jokingly) told once that, if I voted for McCain, I'd be fired.
It's funny to me that, in liberal circles, which are supposed to be accepting, you just aren't allowed to accept anything that's not considered mainstream liberal.
Nonetheless, I like to fight the good fight and remind people that there are informed opinions that aren’t ultra-liberal. Career be damned!