According To YouGov Poll, Snowden Support Declining Among Americans 658
eldavojohn writes "A recent poll from the YouGov consisting of one thousand responses shows that Snowden's support among Americans has shifted. Now, according to the poll, more Americans think he did the wrong thing rather than the right thing when asked: 'Based on what you've heard, do think Snowden's leak of top-secret information about government surveillance programs to the media was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do?' The results and breakdown are available online (PDF). Without getting into racial or political breakdowns, the results now show that 38% say he did the wrong thing, 33% say he did the right thing and 29% remain undecided about the results of his actions. Instead of charging the populace into action Snowden may be facing apathy at best and public disapproval at worst."
Re:obviously (Score:5, Informative)
Not just spin doctors. Commenters on the internets. Public opinion is made today by manipulating virtual peer groups on social media, discussion boards, online newspaper comment sections, newsgroups etc.
Re:Maybe (Score:2, Informative)
Blah blah blah
Snowden is an attention whore
He's an attention whore for all the RIGHT REASONS, as opposed to the sad sack culture that we have now e,g what is Britney Spears wearing this week? who fucking cares, or should that read, who with a brain fucking cares?
Push polling is a sign of fear (Score:5, Informative)
Push polls are a sign of fear. They're trying to give the impression that protestors are isolated and thus should be afraid of stepping out line by protesting. If people really didn't care, then you wouldn't need to keep the program secret, and continue to lie about it.
The details of the economist poll I could not find, only the claimed single question, which is rarely the full story, there's always pre-questions to remove the 'don't know'.
For example the first poll 'Pew', was heavily loaded with pre-questions to push the person to accept surveillance:
e..g.
"Did you follow reports about the government collecting emails and other online activities directly from large internet companies to track foreign suspects in terror investigations very closely,"
See the "to track foreign suspects in terror investigations" part?
If I told you the surveillance is everyone for everything (which it is), that's different from tracking a few terror suspects (which it isn't). The loaded questions were only able to just take it above 50%.
If they're pushing, then its fear.
Re:Weasely "interpretation" of Constitution (Score:4, Informative)
Talk about limited attention span. The Seattle restorethe4th rally was scheduled for July 6 at Westlake Center in Seattle. You would think that in a city of a half-million people, a few of which are tech savvy, the protest would have drawn something.
Instead, there were three ambulances, three cop cars, a dozen cops, and one guy walking around with a sign saying "What does Jesus mean to you" or some crap like that.
What the hell? Anonymous could get a pretty big turnout to protest the Church of Scientology, an organization that harms a minuscule fraction of the world's most gullible people, but nobody in Seattle can turn out to protest programs that harm every fucking person in the planet?
YOU SUCK SEATTLE.
Re:Weasely "interpretation" of Constitution (Score:2, Informative)
"Odd, ain't it? How the US resemble more and more the Stasi after the Stasi is no longer..."
That better?
Not really, no. The Stasi [wikipedia.org] was the "Shield and Sword of the Party," i.e. the East German Communist party. The thing that made the Stasi dangerous wasn't that they listened, but that they engaged in oppression of people that had religious faith, opposed the government, said things that were not politically acceptable, tried to form a new political party, etc. Their function was to keep the Communist party in change of the one party state of East Germany and repress any actual or potential opposition. The NSA does not do anything like that. If you want to claim that I think you need to offer some evidence.
As to the rest of your post.... It looks to me like you may support free speech in theory, but in practice are offended when someone has an opinion that is different from, or in opposition to, your opinion. You wish to silence me because my opinion is different than yours. That isn't really what free speech is about.