Feel free to make the connections to political rhetoric that are more or less explicit here.

Dear Cory:

I am a boingboing fan, and your posts are generally right up my alley. But at times you’ve got a certain problem I like to call “michaelmooritude,” whose primary symptom is that you preach to the choir in a particularly polarizing way. The end result is that your sycophants and antiponents (it should be a word!) get pumped up while people without a dog in the hunt get turned off by your over-the-top rhetoric. Here’s the latest example (naughty word in the subject line!):

I still use the Reasonable Agreement EULA at the bottom of all my emails: “READ CAREFULLY. By reading this email, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.”

That’s terrific, Cory, but I don’t think it has any positive effect. Anyone who is inclined to agree with you and knows enough about the issue to do so will probably still agree with you after reading this. But Anyone who has drafted a real EULA before will get only one thing out of this: Cory Doctorow thinks I eat babies. And anyone who has no idea what a EULA is will still manage to get one thing out of this: Cory Doctorow seems willing to go out of his way to antagonize people over an issue that doesn’t really matter very much.

My point is that because of the huge readership you have, you’re in a rare position to popularize relatively obscure but relatively important issues. Copyright law innovations, net neutrality, freedom of speech and, yes, unconscionable legal agreements (not to mention unicorns and lolcats). But all too often you take a confrontational, aggressive stance that does nothing more than froth up the waters on both sides without actually persuading anyone to consider the issues and, potentially, change their mind. There’s a great justification for this kind of thing–the other side does it, and if nobody on my side does it, the other side will win!–but I don’t actually buy that. In more or less every big election in America (and probably other countries, but I don’t know enough to speak about them), each side has its kneejerk supporters. And those kneejerk supporters get excited when their leaders rev them up with high-energy, accusatory rhetoric. But everyone who isn’t a kneejerk supporter gets turned off by this stuff–they’re looking for someone to help them work through the issue for themselves, not just tell them what to think.

It’s easier to take that kind of position, and in some ways more rewarding. I’m sure you get tons of “hell yeah! keep on fighting!” emails every day, and I’m sure you get plenty of “you’re the devil!” hate emails every day–but people don’t bother to send “I didn’t understand this issue, but something about your tone bugged me so I’m not going to look into it anymore–but from now on I’ll have an unconscious aversion to your point of view” emails.

Anyway, to get back to this particular example. The interesting thing here is that you’re managing to make the same mistake twice, with two different effects. The first time is when you append the message to your emails–here, you’re pushing people’s buttons individually. The second time is when you post on boingboing to tell everyone about it. And here, of course, you’re broadcasting your rigid and kinda obnoxious message to the unwashed masses.

Just to clarify a couple of things:

1. It’s not that I disagree with you about EULAs (or most of the other issues you write about often). In fact, I write this only because I think that the way you advocate for these things is often hindering the improvements I care about–and I want you to use your powers for good.
2. It’s not that I think you’re bugging most people, or even a sizeable minority. I think you’re just bugging the most important people–the undecided 25% whose opinions will make or break a campaign for change. Who cares if your natural adversaries get pissed off? It’s not like they were going to change their minds and agree with you. And by that same token, who cares if the people already on your side get excited by what you’re writing? They were already on your side! The big issue is the people who don’t know or don’t care–these are the people you’re trying to reach.

On the whole, I certainly think you do much more good than harm to these movements, but I think you could do quite a bit more by focusing on getting the right information to the right people (while still, of course, “mobilizing your base” to increase general awareness and interest–just not doing the latter at the expense of the former).