I always keep a firewall between my own travails and my perception of public-policy issues; otherwise I would retain no credibility as a commentator.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
'Firewall' seems both scary and protective at the same time. And how often does that happen within one word besides 'military' and 'government?'
When the policy is controversial, you have to go out and defend it.
I take policy seriously; I'm not just trying to be a political hack.
I try to talk about policy issues intelligently, I try very hard to avoid thought bubbles. I make sure my speeches are well researched and footnoted. I make sure I am not talking through my hat.
In the real world, answers may not be clear cut. There will be messy choices, and you're not going to be able to construct a policy response in a neat and tidy way. Being able to listen to other people, even as you stay true to your principles, that's how you actually succeed.
Avoid any specific discussion of public policy at public meetings.
There's a tremendous gap between public opinion and public policy.
If a policy is wrongheaded, feckless and corrupt, I take it personally and consider it a moral obligation to sound off and not shut up until it's fixed.
Calling China's online censorship system a 'Great Firewall' is increasingly trendy, but misleading. All walls, being the creation of engineers, can be breached with the right tools.
It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway', but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.