By calling the SMH article a puff piece and only picking the outcome of one petition and disregarding the other 13 you do not make much of a case for your argument, however.

As to your last point, which is important, I'll get back to you. I've made an enquiry because I also want more clarification. Thank you for that.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sorry mate im not going to read change dot org marketing material. I assumed they put their best case up top.

I suggested you find some examples supporting your position. If thats the best then youve got nothing, sorry.

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Here's a couple of items to broaden perspective that show why petitions are useful and have broader implications that are important for democracies. https://theconversation.com/not-another-online-petition-but-heres-why-you-should-think-before-deleting-it-110029 https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/lifematters/from-slacktivism-to-real-change-are-petitions-still-effective-/105805264

Over the years I have signed many petitions. Positive outcomes have been because petitions are mostly part of a multi-pronged 'campaign'. One example is the Free Julian Assange petition on your pet peeve, Change.org. I signed the original petition plus just about every other online means of support I could. Julian was finally brought back. I am sure the original petition was not the cause alone but it helped to make the issue broadly dispersed and became an integral part of the campaign as the number of signatories went from tens, to thousands to nearly 800,000. Another is https://www.change.org/p/introduce-arnie-s-law-stronger-penalties-for-crimes-against-pets which you can read for yourself is now closer to being tabled in the Qld Parliament as the petition initiators have been hard at work advocating to MPs.

You seem to want a very mechanical cause and effect. Nothing stands alone in relation to the ways we can benefit our society. It's all process and persistence. Petitions do not solve a problem on their own but are a straightforward tool that can be used to engage people in issues they care about but don't know how to improve on their own. They are also a straightforward way for authorities and advocacy groups to get an idea of what people think. Why do you think our govts are so poll-driven? What people are thinking does matter. Some petitions will never make a difference but some most certainly do.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I appreciate you trying to engage with me in good faith, and I'm trying to respond in the same way.

Firstly, theconversation article mentions change dot org directly 3 times, is full of breathless praise for them, and links directly to several of their campaigns. This is the very definition of a puff piece. It was probably written by the communications / PR team at change dot org. These aren't reliable sources from which to base an opinion.

That said, that article is literally the antithesis of the petition you're asking people to sign. The instructions for "what makes a good petition", are basically what I said up top - a councillor can't just reject a specific buyer or developer (and for good reason). You need to find out where in the approval process it's up to, and what are the potential issues a councillor might raise. You do that by having a genuine conversation with a councillor and doing more listening than talking.

This petition is literally just a "trump bad" petition. If you've been paying attention to US politics for the last decade, you'll know that Trumpism thrives on this type of "wokery". It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if no one has any intention of building a Trump tower, and it's just a One Nation gambit to foment division.

The life matters episode you linked has a guest who is from the communications team at change dot org. She's there up front singing the praises of the platform. It's not really clear but it seems to suggest that the petition that actually got traction was launched by and promoted by the organisation itself - sort of the culmination of a number of other petitions around a similar topic. Later in the episode Dr Sky Croeser reveals that episode was actually promoted by News Corp - who had a very obvious vested interest in the new laws.

I think these elements really demonstrate a lack of a causal link between signing a petition and effecting change.

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago

Here is the reply I got from GetUp:

It’s true that councillors can’t simply cancel a development because of a petition. Planning decisions still have to go through a formal approval process and be assessed against planning rules.

But that doesn’t mean petitions are useless.

What petitions do is show the scale of community concern before and during that process. When councillors, planners and governments see that thousands of people are paying attention, it often leads to much closer scrutiny of a proposal and can influence how decisions are made, what conditions are applied, or whether projects move forward at all.

Community pressure has played a role in many planning debates in Australia. Petitions are one way people can make sure their voices are part of that conversation.

So the honest answer is: a petition won’t decide the project on its own, but it helps demonstrate that the community cares and wants decision-makers to take a careful look. We're also considering delivering the petition directly to the mayor – we've got over 15,000 signatures already and climbing, we're sure this will show the community doesn't want the tower to go ahead.

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ok, we'll just have to stick to our points of view. Just wanted to add that Change.org gets a lot of air play because it is the largest petition platform, to my knowledge, in the English-speaking world. Also that petitions can be very useful and effective as part of broader campaigns.

I learnt a lot myself as I was responding to you, so thank you for the exchange.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 2 points 3 days ago

Change.org gets a lot of air play

Sadly the landscape for journalism in the current era is kind of corrupted.

Instead of journalists doing the investigating and reporting to the public in an objective way, it's very often communications teams employed by companies that are doing a lot of the work.

Someone who works for change dot org writes the backbone of "an article" in dot points and sends it to a contact or even a publicist who puts them in touch with a journalist or presenter.

In an era where there's no money in real journalism this is how print journalists meet their quota.

Certainly that podcast episode was created in this way, change dot org comms lady had a publicist who contacted the abc presenter. They got Dr whoever on board for the episode to create balance. Boom. Easy podcast ep.

The same thing happens with retailers on free to air TV for both news and current affairs shows. If a company, retailer, or website is mentioned there's a very strong likelihood that they created a lot of the content.

They talk about this a lot on media watch on ABC.

Regardless, I wish you well in your opposition to this development.