Three Key Takeaways: Deeply democratic. Building something needed on an already existing model. I do enjoy the notion that hacking could be considered 'by the people, for the people'. The values of the internet are the values of democracy? Which is a nice thought that I believe used to be true, but in order to have a truly successful democracy there must be choice. Most sites now are owned by the biggest three or four and those are driven by profits. I can see the argument for 'clicks' equaling votes, but if I can only upvote an add and not downvote it, it is not truly democratic. Her use of 'empowerment' is perfect. People want to help with in their community and often do not know how. Civic hacking is a great way. Goverments are notorious for spending obscene amounts of money, civic hacking can really reduce the rates that countries spend.
Did Hacking Build America?: I like the idea that certain things are hacks, such as the underground railroad. But, the Ben Franklin comparison makes it sound like 'hacker' is the equivalent to 'inventor'. I do think America was built by a 'a group of people with a need for something else', but it is weird to consider that 'hacking', but that may be me getting stuck on a definition.
What is the Defintion or Idea of Civic Hacking?: I LOVE the part about the citizens coming together and submitting the answers for the frequently asked questions. Giving the people real influence over content. Really, that is the idea behind it, a 'group of people with a need for something else'. I think I enjoy the idea, better than the definition.
Future Gear-Up Article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/linkedin-founder-reid-hoffman-spends-millions-to-grow-democracy?verso=true
With the two-party system separating the US in two factions. Its a billionaire and civic hacking that may come to rumble up the party. It may be the altenative choice built by the people and for the people.