SOPA Opponents May Go Nuclear(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
SOPA Opponents May Go Nuclear
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57349540-281/sopa-opponents-may-go-nuclear-and-other-2012-predictions/?tag=mncol;topStories
121 comments
Your comment made the line "Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station!" run through my head.
More seriously, Facebook alone doing a single-day blackout would be powerful. I guess its a question of how much money they'd be losing by doing it.
More seriously, Facebook alone doing a single-day blackout would be powerful. I guess its a question of how much money they'd be losing by doing it.
It might be a question of how much money they would lose by not doing it. SOPA enforcement would be insanely expensive for a site with as much user generated/linked content as Facebook.
It's not easy to simply predict how much they would lose if SOPA passed, or even how effective a blackout would be. Personally, I don't think a blackout would have much effect at all. So what if millions of people flood the phone lines of their representatives? Do you think politicians support SOPA because they incorrectly think their constituents like it? That's ludicrous. As for the threat of the next election cycle, most American voters will have forgotten about it by then, and I doubt many representatives have much fear of losing the next election anyway.
The mass-media is powerful and is known to have overthrown governments.
The Internet companies hold even much more power then traditional mass media. They just don't realize it.
The Internet companies hold even much more power then traditional mass media. They just don't realize it.
most American voters will have forgotten
about it by then
The thing to keep in mind is that SOPA, if I understand correctly, only applies to foreign entities. As it stands, FB won't be impacted substantially by the legislation.
That said, it'd be in their best interest to stop this now, because even if this doesn't impact them, slowly but surely the laws will be amended to apply to everyone.
That said, it'd be in their best interest to stop this now, because even if this doesn't impact them, slowly but surely the laws will be amended to apply to everyone.
Facebook, Google, at al have to be ready to pull ads for, links to, and results containing blocked sites as well. They have to continue to monitor that over time as well.
I would imagine a two-phase approach: phase one would be the black-bar-type-doodle logo, phase two would be shutting things down. Whether phase two would happen would depend on how likely the bill is to pass, how well phase one went, and how much it would cost to police if it passed.
I would imagine a two-phase approach: phase one would be the black-bar-type-doodle logo, phase two would be shutting things down. Whether phase two would happen would depend on how likely the bill is to pass, how well phase one went, and how much it would cost to police if it passed.
Foreign entities don't have Facebook pages?
Foreign entities refers to the website operators. SOPA creates new rights of action against site operators and their domains, not individual URLs.
Observe that the definition of "foreign Internet site" does not state that the site is located outside the USA, owned by a non US Citizen, or any other commonly understood meaning of the word "foreign". All "domestic" sites also meet the definition of a "foreign Internet site" "for the purpose of this section":
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112dI2...:
(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112dI2...:
(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.
Seeing that kind of doublespeak codified into law is downright frightening. I watched that SOPA markup hearing a while back and all the reps were talking about foreign this and foreign that and how these targets of prosecution were in other countries so most wouldn't even show up in court... yet the definition of foreign is a US-directed site?
I have been peddling this quote all over, when the major news outlets claim it only effects foreign sites.
`foreign infringing site' = "if such site were a domestic Internet site"
The only reasonable response to that is WTF.
`foreign infringing site' = "if such site were a domestic Internet site"
The only reasonable response to that is WTF.
That is EXACTLY why Google and the other big guys are attempting to prevent SOPA from passing. Many people, even on HN, believe that these large entities are on our side, or on the side of freedom, or whatever. The truth is that they don't care about us. They care only about their wallets. All of the time, money and energy they are expending, now, to fight SOPA, is a tiny fraction of what they will be required to spend, in terms of enforcement, should SOPA become law.
[deleted]
If Facebook did that, many people would see that they could survive one day without Facebook. That would not be good for Facebook, because those same people might contemplate going without for a second day, voluntarily.
So many people around these parts bemoan the amount of influence corporations have in the legislative process. That being the case, how does one justify corporate muscle-flexing like this?
I really, really hate this attitude of searching high and low for anything remotely resembling hypocrisy so we can condemn any and all action. It's not only counterproductive but intellectually slothful.
It's lazy because the answer is so painfully obvious: we don't want corporates to have such strength. But they do. In fact, this is pretty much the only real way to have any lasting effect right now. So should we keep on a downward spiral out of some misplaced principle and poor understanding of what hypocrisy actually is or should we use the only tool potentially available to use to affect change?
Sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire, sometimes the best way to weaken lobbying is through lobbying.
It's lazy because the answer is so painfully obvious: we don't want corporates to have such strength. But they do. In fact, this is pretty much the only real way to have any lasting effect right now. So should we keep on a downward spiral out of some misplaced principle and poor understanding of what hypocrisy actually is or should we use the only tool potentially available to use to affect change?
Sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire, sometimes the best way to weaken lobbying is through lobbying.
It's how the game is played until congress restricts or regulates such influence.
An analogy would be a voter refusing to vote because representatives are not representing the voter. Self-reinforcing view (or exiology).
An analogy would be a voter refusing to vote because representatives are not representing the voter. Self-reinforcing view (or exiology).
We're talking about websites blacking out their own pages, or advocating that their customers call up their representatives.
Are you meaning to endorse congress restricting or regulating such influence?
I'd see that as a far worse threat than SOPA. (Maybe you don't disagree.)
Are you meaning to endorse congress restricting or regulating such influence?
I'd see that as a far worse threat than SOPA. (Maybe you don't disagree.)
Yes, it's acceptable because entrenched conservative interests are against fresh young interests + people with a lot to lose.
If such conservative influence against congress was regulated, then the reputation cost of such blackouts would rise a lot due to the perception that such interests are trying to influence congress. ergo, uneconomical to blackout.
If such conservative influence against congress was regulated, then the reputation cost of such blackouts would rise a lot due to the perception that such interests are trying to influence congress. ergo, uneconomical to blackout.
How is it different from Walmart opening a store in a small town, putting local shops out of business by undercutting them, then deciding they don't make enough money and closing?.
Ummm...you mean companies and/or individuals asking others to contact their representatives? Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
I think that the general suggestion of a more tepid response (that is, blacking the background of google/facebook but leaving everything else usable), would probably be completely ineffective. Most people are incredibly unconcerned with things on the internet that they might have to read, so if an ad comes up or something that you can click through, people will click through without reading it because they've been to Forbes enough times to have that behavior trained into them. Unless they commit to a total blackout of their usual features, you can expect very little response from users.
Blacking the background is enough to make it a top TV news story, and that's a medium politicians understand very well.
Whereas removal of functionality will irk uncaring users and may turn them against the SOPA opposition.
Whereas removal of functionality will irk uncaring users and may turn them against the SOPA opposition.
It will certainly turn more against SOPA supporters.
I'm still finding so many that are unaware about SOPA and upon understanding that it's far-reaching attempt to control the Internet, they're not SOPA opponents. However, the older generation doesn't quite get it until I mention restricting Radio stations (They were familiar with the Pirate Radio in past).
I'm still finding so many that are unaware about SOPA and upon understanding that it's far-reaching attempt to control the Internet, they're not SOPA opponents. However, the older generation doesn't quite get it until I mention restricting Radio stations (They were familiar with the Pirate Radio in past).
People are lazy creatures. If something happens that inconveniences them in some way they will first hate the thing that caused the block (i.e. Facebook itself), but once they see that the initial target won't move they will hate the other party (i.e. SOPA)
The response rate could be hundredths of a percent of users and still generate a massive number of emails/calls/faxes.
You are absolutely correct. However, representatives are not idiots and I think that it's likely that they will be aware, just like you are, that despite the incredible number of faxes/calls/emails they receive the number of people who actually care are likely to be only hundredths of a percent. Since it is unlikely that the politician will lose an election due to hundredths of a percent of a drop in their ratings, you can bet they will just turn their phones off for a few days rather than actually changing their political stance.
Keep in mind a company like Fox or Universal is in a position to offer them what amounts to free commercials on their networks. That is what this potential black out is competing against.
Update: I was unaware of this rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule. However, studios could still offer things like interviews for candidates that it doesn't offer to other candidates, which may not exactly be a commercial, but would have a similar effect.
Keep in mind a company like Fox or Universal is in a position to offer them what amounts to free commercials on their networks. That is what this potential black out is competing against.
Update: I was unaware of this rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule. However, studios could still offer things like interviews for candidates that it doesn't offer to other candidates, which may not exactly be a commercial, but would have a similar effect.
> despite the incredible number of faxes/calls/emails they receive the number of people who actually care are likely to be only hundredths of a percent
No. Regardless of volume, for everyone who makes a fax/call/email, there are dozens or hundreds who still care but did not contact their representative. Instead, they vote against them later.
No. Regardless of volume, for everyone who makes a fax/call/email, there are dozens or hundreds who still care but did not contact their representative. Instead, they vote against them later.
Ah, the good old equal-time rule. Because if the media could do whatever they wanted with their air time, that would be some sort of "freedom of the press" and we can't have that. It might be "unfair". </bitterness>
But how often does someone have to click through an add to get to Facebook?
Watch out for movement fatigue. The Internet Filter/Censorship blackout happened in Australia; it was partially successful in the filter not being mandatory. But the biggest ISPs are pushing filters on their customers 'voluntarily' with government money (Capitalist take: Internet Censored cheaper than Internet Freedom) taking after UK.
Unrelated to blackout, but the other big ISPs not forcing the filter on customers decided to police users for copyright infringement.
Such unrelenting copyright industry anti-Internet parasites.
Unrelated to blackout, but the other big ISPs not forcing the filter on customers decided to police users for copyright infringement.
Such unrelenting copyright industry anti-Internet parasites.
In the short term: instant win. really. as stated by others in the thread, practically 100% of the internet start their days in one of these core services, google, facebook, yahoo, tumblr, twitter, etc.
In the long run though, dangerous move, as every politician alive in every(!) nation would start work on curtailing the obvious power in these companies hands demonstrated by such an event. but win? hell yes. no question.
Someone likened it with a "6k km meteor", aka world-killer, and that was probably spot on. On one hand I would love seing it, and think of how powerless all these politicians would feel, but fear indeed the results further down the line. politicians like power...
In the long run though, dangerous move, as every politician alive in every(!) nation would start work on curtailing the obvious power in these companies hands demonstrated by such an event. but win? hell yes. no question.
Someone likened it with a "6k km meteor", aka world-killer, and that was probably spot on. On one hand I would love seing it, and think of how powerless all these politicians would feel, but fear indeed the results further down the line. politicians like power...
An alternative outcome is that they would start realizing who they had to suck up to in order to get power, and that it's not JUST media companies any more.
Why leave it to the big guys to take the initiative? Larger players only jumped aboard the godaddy boycott after the grassroots push gained enough momentum that they'd look bad if they sat on their hands.
We should take the same approach here. Set a day, then gather as many companies and individuals as possible who will pledge to shut down their sites and replace them with anti-SOPA information and calls to action. Once momentum is established, then call out the big corporations and challenge them to stand up for their supposed values alongside the rest of the web. They will find this much more difficult to decline.
We should take the same approach here. Set a day, then gather as many companies and individuals as possible who will pledge to shut down their sites and replace them with anti-SOPA information and calls to action. Once momentum is established, then call out the big corporations and challenge them to stand up for their supposed values alongside the rest of the web. They will find this much more difficult to decline.
So you want little guys who are struggling for market share to risk it all for a fight they may not win in the end (and if they even survive, this losing stance could be held against them)? Companies like Google and FB could shut their entire US sites off for a week and wouldn't lose more than a few percentage of market share if anything at all.
Maybe so, but the big companies don't have sincere values beyond financial self-interest. They'll only act if pushed into feeling that their credibility is at stake. Otherwise they'll pursue more conservative paths that benefit them and other large entities exclusively, like lobbying for carve-outs and exemptions, to the detriment of everyone else.
Individuals and small companies actually have the ability and willingness to act decisively according to real principles and moral values. It may be unfair for the little guys to shoulder the burden at first, but the sad truth is that if we don't, no one else will.
Individuals and small companies actually have the ability and willingness to act decisively according to real principles and moral values. It may be unfair for the little guys to shoulder the burden at first, but the sad truth is that if we don't, no one else will.
That's not nuclear.
Nuclear would be: you vote for SOPA you will be blacklisted from ever using google, gmail, facebook, twitter, aws. Your campaign, personal, and business websites will never appear in google searches. Your books will never be sold on amazon. You will never be allowed to have a google account, upload videos to youtube, or own an android device.
That is nuclear.
Nuclear would be: you vote for SOPA you will be blacklisted from ever using google, gmail, facebook, twitter, aws. Your campaign, personal, and business websites will never appear in google searches. Your books will never be sold on amazon. You will never be allowed to have a google account, upload videos to youtube, or own an android device.
That is nuclear.
I don't dislike fighting dirty when it really counts, but realistically this strategy would never work. First, such actions would not stand long-term, because the government can merely prohibit withholding services from government agents, and sanction any companies who do. You delist certain senators from google? That is (insert violation of law or ethics here, real or conjured), you are fined $1 million a day until you de-de-list us. And they could make the fine as big as they wanted, and google (or whomever) would buckle. Make no mistake: the government has the power over long-term behavior, not corporations. And second, the government knows such a boycott would not be able to stand up against their power, that it is an idle threat, and so they would call their bluff and vote for SOPA anyway.
You can't win a fight by threatening to beat the bully up tomorrow and the next day and the next day for taking your lunch money today. You have to win the fight now, before the damage is done.
Add in the additional problem that it is much easier to pass (or block) legislation before it passes than it is to repeal, and I don't think this strategy is viable. If it were, google and other companies could get together now and force the repeal of legislation already in place that is distasteful. How likely is that? On the other hand, the original nuclear strategy mentioned in the article would indubitably have an immediate and unbelievably tremendous impact. We're talking shock and awe here, folks. If google didn't work for a day, every voting person in America would know about it.
And that's the way they pass legislation that the majority of people wouldn't like if they knew the truth about it -- by sneaking it through because, frankly, most people are just too busy or too apathetic to not fall asleep when someone mentions the word "politics". The actual nuclear strategy mentioned in the article would certainly wake them up, and in a big way.
That said, unfortunately I doubt google or any other publicly traded company has the balls to do it.
You can't win a fight by threatening to beat the bully up tomorrow and the next day and the next day for taking your lunch money today. You have to win the fight now, before the damage is done.
Add in the additional problem that it is much easier to pass (or block) legislation before it passes than it is to repeal, and I don't think this strategy is viable. If it were, google and other companies could get together now and force the repeal of legislation already in place that is distasteful. How likely is that? On the other hand, the original nuclear strategy mentioned in the article would indubitably have an immediate and unbelievably tremendous impact. We're talking shock and awe here, folks. If google didn't work for a day, every voting person in America would know about it.
And that's the way they pass legislation that the majority of people wouldn't like if they knew the truth about it -- by sneaking it through because, frankly, most people are just too busy or too apathetic to not fall asleep when someone mentions the word "politics". The actual nuclear strategy mentioned in the article would certainly wake them up, and in a big way.
That said, unfortunately I doubt google or any other publicly traded company has the balls to do it.
What if, hypothetically, a majority of shareholders wanted a publicly traded company to do it?
Do you think it would happen then?
Up-sticks and move the corporation to another country. Some of them will probably have to do that anyway if SOPA passes.
I believe there is a way around this. Google doesn't need to hide or remove pro-SOPA search results. Making them harder to find would be equally effective. Something like this perhaps?
In order to show you the highest quality results, we have omitted some entries.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.I don't like this stance at all. Give the user free access to information, even if you don't like that information, you need to serve it just the same. You won't find any compelling arguments about SOPA on anti-SOPA sites, you need to go to pro-SOPA sites for pro-SOPA material and anti-SOPA sites for anti-SOPA material :/ They misrepresent each other (and sometimes themselves) because of their biases. For an informed decision, you need all the information.
Yes, that is exactly what we should do to oppose a censorship bill.
Sometimes you have to show people why their way is wrong by using it on them.
So, would you guys be okay with google blacklisting sites they disagree with politically? I'm pretty sure we would generally crucify google for doing that, but is SOPA bad enough for this to be an exception?
Google can do whatever they want (and probably will), and I can respond however I want if they do something I don't like.
So this is, uh, "fight terror with terror"?
To clarify: I don't necessarily support these actions as a response to SOPA (although SOPA is a pretty aggressive attack on civil liberties). I'm merely pointing out some examples of what SOPA opponents could actually do if they decided to employ a "burn the fields, salt the earth" strategy.
And call me unreasonable if you like, but if this thing passes, and they haven't gone nuclear (or some variation thereof), as far as I'm concerned, they are endorsing it.
There are a few times when you have to take a stand. This is one of them.
None of the airlines opposed the TSA like they should have, and I stopped flying american carriers as a result, except where there's literally no other option.
I won't have a problem ending all association with Google, Amazon, Facebook or Twitter.
There are a few times when you have to take a stand. This is one of them.
None of the airlines opposed the TSA like they should have, and I stopped flying american carriers as a result, except where there's literally no other option.
I won't have a problem ending all association with Google, Amazon, Facebook or Twitter.
For many of these sites, that definition of "going nuclear" would already be them giving up, or at least fundamentally changing. Google blocking sites that they disagree with politically would (and should) be protested by all of us, yet that's exactly what this would be.
I would be concerned about any of these services using their platforms to promote political agendas (especially those with dominant positions). Do it once and you become a Murdoch or one of the many other media barons.
How about Apple and Microsoft and Adobe? And 37signals and foursquare and Dropbox and AirBnB and literally every other company that has an internet presence and doesn't go nuclear to support this bill?
Start a new Internet.
Is that impossible? Isn't it just a matter of running a root nameserver for the new internet?
It depends what you mean by "new internet," and how much control the government eventually takes over the actual hardware routing the current Internet. Even If the government owns every ISP, you could take part in encrypted communication, and I don't think there's any way for them to stop that. At the absolute worst, you could go back to basics, and just use the plain old telephone system to dial into known servers.
".. government owns every ISP, you could take part in encrypted communication, and I don't think there's any way for them to stop that.."
Sure they could: just disallow any "unknown" encrypted communication. For example requiring the en/decryption to happen at the ISP or only allowing traffic they can decrypt and check.
(I'm not saying this is likely, but it could be implemented and most folks wouldn't care)
Sure they could: just disallow any "unknown" encrypted communication. For example requiring the en/decryption to happen at the ISP or only allowing traffic they can decrypt and check.
(I'm not saying this is likely, but it could be implemented and most folks wouldn't care)
> Sure they could: just disallow any "unknown" encrypted communication.
Even then, it's impossible to prevent arbitrary communication. You can always hide your message inside of allowed messages (steganography), or an even more basic albeit inefficient technique: just use the timing between allowed messages to encode your hidden message.
Even then, it's impossible to prevent arbitrary communication. You can always hide your message inside of allowed messages (steganography), or an even more basic albeit inefficient technique: just use the timing between allowed messages to encode your hidden message.
How do you trivially decide what's an encrypted file, and what's simply a highly compressed gzip archive?
You err on the side of "it's encrypted, and you're under arrest." False positives aren't the "bad guy's" concern.
Not particularly serious. A little maybe.
Not particularly serious. A little maybe.
In such a situation, the upcoming SOGA (Stop Online Gzips Act) shall provide a reliable decidability methodology.
No, the nuclear option would be if the group created a device that produced a cascading fission reaction, destroying Washington. I think it's unlikely at this point, but SOPA is an existential threat.
Taking a devil's advocate perspective: this would be perceived as corporate blackmail, an attempted takeover of the democratic process by industry.
Even though such an approach may have plenty of support, especially in our communities, I wonder if it wouldn't turn off non-technical moderates in a much bigger way.
Even though such an approach may have plenty of support, especially in our communities, I wonder if it wouldn't turn off non-technical moderates in a much bigger way.
I don't think that's a devil's advocate viewpoint. I'm pretty sure that's the common wisdom. It's obviously something that everybody is considering very carefully, because it's an irrevocable act.
But the timeline won't be "1. Internet blackout 2. SOPA defeated 3. Congress wipes out the entire computer industry next year". What this does is put them on the board, with all that implies, it's not a suicide move.
But then, the whole point of SOPA is that they are on the board whether they want to be or not, and while they are flattering themselves with their moral purity and pretending they aren't players, all the other players are checkmating them. What this move would change is not the nature of the game, merely the other player's perceptions of the power of the computer industry players.
I suspect that it is effectively inevitable this blackout will occur. It will work. And then we'll have a couple of years of breathing room to work with before the computer industry is coopted and they become part of the machine.
(Sidenote: Note barrkel said would be perceived as, not is. Not the same thing.)
But the timeline won't be "1. Internet blackout 2. SOPA defeated 3. Congress wipes out the entire computer industry next year". What this does is put them on the board, with all that implies, it's not a suicide move.
But then, the whole point of SOPA is that they are on the board whether they want to be or not, and while they are flattering themselves with their moral purity and pretending they aren't players, all the other players are checkmating them. What this move would change is not the nature of the game, merely the other player's perceptions of the power of the computer industry players.
I suspect that it is effectively inevitable this blackout will occur. It will work. And then we'll have a couple of years of breathing room to work with before the computer industry is coopted and they become part of the machine.
(Sidenote: Note barrkel said would be perceived as, not is. Not the same thing.)
You're right that it can be spun in a dangerous way. However, we're talking about sites where 95%+ of people go everyday they connect to Internet: they have a first shot at presenting their case to users, they can do it in a simple and convincing way: "Some lobbyists are pushing the Congress to pass a law called SOPA; this law is so bad that it threatens the survival of Internet as we know it, and many companies dependent on it including ourselves. We're so scared that we're willing to give up one day of business, to let everyone realize what a world without us would be like".
(disclaimer, I'm neither a communicant nor a native speaker; but you get the idea, there's a way to spin the black screen explanation in such a way that it's hard to counter-spin).
(disclaimer, I'm neither a communicant nor a native speaker; but you get the idea, there's a way to spin the black screen explanation in such a way that it's hard to counter-spin).
The problem with SOPA is that the vast, vast majority of non-technical moderates are completely unaware of it. Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen this large of a disconnect between the tech community and "everyone else". If you don't believe me, next time you run to the supermarket or the drug store, just politely say to your cashier, "Excuse me, I was just wondering if you knew what SOPA is?"
It's only anecdotal counter-evidence, but my cousin, who's a non-technical owner of a kite surfing business, has expressed concern about SOPA on facebook. He doesn't normally post about anything political, but he's worried it will destroy the porn industry. The percentage of non-technicals concerned about SOPA is nonzero.
She'd send you to the international aisle for some mexican soup.
Unaware? Or not interested?
The problem with some of these things is, after a while, a universal assumption is developed: the assumption that people must know what you're talking about now.
Ask anyone about SOPA and they might now and be concerned, they might not. Ask someone about the act that has the real possibility of infringing on civil liberties in the name of corporate power, and you might get an open ear. You might not, or you might find someone who actually knows it but not by name.
It's like any *-gate scandal. Until it's historical fact, where you learn about it in reverse (what happened, to how it happened), you're not going to know about it unless you followed it from the start or read up.
Of course, the solution is to raise awareness as best you can, and educate people. Write to a tech blog or site and you're preaching to the choir; do that, or something more drastic, on a site focussed on an entirely unrelated demographic, and you might just get a few more people on your side. If you're Google or Facebook, then this could be the best gauge of consumer influence you can get.
The problem with some of these things is, after a while, a universal assumption is developed: the assumption that people must know what you're talking about now.
Ask anyone about SOPA and they might now and be concerned, they might not. Ask someone about the act that has the real possibility of infringing on civil liberties in the name of corporate power, and you might get an open ear. You might not, or you might find someone who actually knows it but not by name.
It's like any *-gate scandal. Until it's historical fact, where you learn about it in reverse (what happened, to how it happened), you're not going to know about it unless you followed it from the start or read up.
Of course, the solution is to raise awareness as best you can, and educate people. Write to a tech blog or site and you're preaching to the choir; do that, or something more drastic, on a site focussed on an entirely unrelated demographic, and you might just get a few more people on your side. If you're Google or Facebook, then this could be the best gauge of consumer influence you can get.
"an attempted takeover of the democratic process by industry"
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the attempt happened a long time ago, and it was completely successful.
There is also precedent for something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_World_Wide_Web_protest
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the attempt happened a long time ago, and it was completely successful.
There is also precedent for something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_World_Wide_Web_protest
(1) It was a different time, when almost everyone online was technical; (2) it didn't work then like protesting SOPA today would be intended to, since the act passed back then; and (3) that act was ruled unconstitutional by the courts, rather than by democratic action motivated by protest.
So I think that example is irrelevant in almost every way.
(As to whether congress was taken over by industry; of course I agree with you. I'm not in favour of SOPA, after all. I'm just wargaming the potential scenario of a protest like this today.)
So I think that example is irrelevant in almost every way.
(As to whether congress was taken over by industry; of course I agree with you. I'm not in favour of SOPA, after all. I'm just wargaming the potential scenario of a protest like this today.)
It could also be viewed as basic freedom of speech and information. The majority of people have no idea that SOPA/ProtectIP exist or what kind of effect it would have on their lives. I'm pretty sure it's all in the wording.
> this would be perceived as corporate blackmail, an attempted takeover of the democratic process by industry.
In that sense, any industry going on strike could be perceived in the same way.
In that sense, any industry going on strike could be perceived in the same way.
> an attempted takeover of the democratic process by industry
As distinct from SOPA itself, which is an attempted takeover of the democratic process by industry.
The only difference from business as usual is that this time, Big Media picked a fight with people who can and will fight back. Hopefully in doing so, they have undermined their lobbying efforts irretrievably and will never regain the undue influence over legal policy they seem to have drummed up in recent years.
As distinct from SOPA itself, which is an attempted takeover of the democratic process by industry.
The only difference from business as usual is that this time, Big Media picked a fight with people who can and will fight back. Hopefully in doing so, they have undermined their lobbying efforts irretrievably and will never regain the undue influence over legal policy they seem to have drummed up in recent years.
"...attempted takeover of the democratic process by industry"
That pretty much sums up SOPA and PIPA too.
That pretty much sums up SOPA and PIPA too.
Are we talking about just painting those websites black, or turning completely off for the day with a directed message telling you where to contact your representatives?
The latter option would truly be "nuclear", but would Google/Facebook/et al put up with a day without those ad revenues? Would it be worth the loss in the long run?
The latter option would truly be "nuclear", but would Google/Facebook/et al put up with a day without those ad revenues? Would it be worth the loss in the long run?
Well...if I were one of those sites, and I really believed that SOPA was an existential threat--which I think is a very reasonable position for any of those sites--then a day's loss of revenue is absolutely worth it, because the alternative is no, or greatly reduced, revenue. I'd take a known loss of ~1/365th (~.3%) of revenues over a probable loss of 100% of revenues any day of the week.
Actually, when you think about it like a Googler, you don't even need to lose 1/365th of your revenue. You only need to hit districts where those representatives are voting for SOPA. You can also hit people once, then resume normal business. Maybe do it for an hour or two at a time. You can feather out the carpet bombs.
[Edit] I meant targeting the reps that are voting for SOPA, not against it.
[Edit] I meant targeting the reps that are voting for SOPA, not against it.
Alternatively, they just spend more money to reelect those politicians until their positions switch. It's not like SOPA proponents won over those constituents to win the support of their reps. Or is this supposed to be a principled stand?
Probably not a good idea when your in the antitrust firing line ask ATT and IBM how that turned out for them.
I hate SOPA, but I've got to wonder how much of this is actually driven by concern for the bottom line. Hollywood and Big Media are very happy to work with established, institutional partners. Indeed, the types of partnerships that'd be formed, backed up by federal force, would serve to drive off potential competitors.
Would it really damage advertising revenues that much? If the fear is that Google would be hit by large lawsuits from some twelve year old posting a music video on YouTube, or that Facebook would be liable for a link to it, I expect that media conglomerates would be happy to give de facto immunity, so long as Google or whoever is willing to put Viacom's commissars in charge of which content is allowed and which isn't.
Obviously it's good that Google is on the side of angels on this, but if it's actually in their best interest is a relevant angle for analysis. It also would tell us how hard they're actually willing to fight to block SOPA.
Would it really damage advertising revenues that much? If the fear is that Google would be hit by large lawsuits from some twelve year old posting a music video on YouTube, or that Facebook would be liable for a link to it, I expect that media conglomerates would be happy to give de facto immunity, so long as Google or whoever is willing to put Viacom's commissars in charge of which content is allowed and which isn't.
Obviously it's good that Google is on the side of angels on this, but if it's actually in their best interest is a relevant angle for analysis. It also would tell us how hard they're actually willing to fight to block SOPA.
The law doesn't say, Viacom may make a claim on your content, so make a deal with Viacom and you're golden. It says that any rights-holder can make a claim on your content.
There's a big problem with patent trolls right now making totally frivolous claims based on patents that they bought up, right? And yet many companies are paying oodles of dollars to pay them off and to try to avoid future trouble from essentially ridiculous patents. I would expect exactly the same thing to arise under SOPA, but with ridiculous copyright claims instead of ridiculous patents. Entities with no actual concern about their IP will start knocking at the door looking for shakedown money when it allegedly gets posted on Youtube.
There's a big problem with patent trolls right now making totally frivolous claims based on patents that they bought up, right? And yet many companies are paying oodles of dollars to pay them off and to try to avoid future trouble from essentially ridiculous patents. I would expect exactly the same thing to arise under SOPA, but with ridiculous copyright claims instead of ridiculous patents. Entities with no actual concern about their IP will start knocking at the door looking for shakedown money when it allegedly gets posted on Youtube.
I think concern for us(the bottom line) isn't indeed the real drive. Roughly speaking the business of Google is the Internet. If the internet thrives, they thrive. That's one of the reasons why they don't need to treat Mozilla as a competitor.
So, this bill could hurt their business model, at least here in the US.
Even if you're right and Google et al can establish institutional partnerships that minimize the impact of SOPA on their current services and business (and, hence, their current bottom line)...
SOPA would dramatically (and negatively) reshape the environment in which new services and business are developed (by startups, individuals, teams within larger companies, etc.). In the long run, that will matter more for the bottom line than anything else.
SOPA would dramatically (and negatively) reshape the environment in which new services and business are developed (by startups, individuals, teams within larger companies, etc.). In the long run, that will matter more for the bottom line than anything else.
[deleted]
Nuclear is a excellent metaphor. Because Google, Twitter and Amazon actively doing something similar to what Tumblr did(instigating their users to protest) would be too extreme. Tumblr has only a few million users; Google and Amazon together have much, much more.
I can hardly wrap my mind around the implications and ramifications of such a move.
I don't think they're gonna do it. I think they're gonna choose a subtler strategy.
I don't think they're gonna do it. I think they're gonna choose a subtler strategy.
I don't understand your reasonning. Why do you think it is "too extreme"? Politics is struggle. You can't win if you don't fight. First it's SOPA, and if it passes then what?
The thing here is that nuclear is actually a poor metaphor. Because it would imply that the menace of Google, Amazon etc. doing something similar to what Tumblr did would be enough. It's not. Politicians don't understand the web, that's why they want SOPA. They surely did not understand nuclear weapons before a few of them had tragically been used.
That said, I also think that it would be preferable that big internet companies do not get to do what is described in the story. But not for the same reason as you seem to think. Here is my sweet dream: What I would like is for people to go on strike and to get down in the streets until SOPA is dead. Because that way politicians and all those who/which are backing SOPA knows what the web is capable of, without the web needing big private companies to back people up. Because some companies may be on the web's side for now, but everybody should keep in mind that these are companies, which mainly want/need to make profit. For this fight and for now the interests are the same so it's okay to use them as objective allies. It's never okay to really depend on them.
The thing here is that nuclear is actually a poor metaphor. Because it would imply that the menace of Google, Amazon etc. doing something similar to what Tumblr did would be enough. It's not. Politicians don't understand the web, that's why they want SOPA. They surely did not understand nuclear weapons before a few of them had tragically been used.
That said, I also think that it would be preferable that big internet companies do not get to do what is described in the story. But not for the same reason as you seem to think. Here is my sweet dream: What I would like is for people to go on strike and to get down in the streets until SOPA is dead. Because that way politicians and all those who/which are backing SOPA knows what the web is capable of, without the web needing big private companies to back people up. Because some companies may be on the web's side for now, but everybody should keep in mind that these are companies, which mainly want/need to make profit. For this fight and for now the interests are the same so it's okay to use them as objective allies. It's never okay to really depend on them.
I think they're going to talk a lot, then do essentially nothing and knuckle under. Because at the end of the day these things always destroy the small and defenseless. The large and moneyed won't be harmed. The government will never take down Facebook, not for ten minutes.
What this really is, is legalization of asymmetric warfare, and while a minority of tech/content companies might prefer things the way they are, they'll prosper just fine after SOPA is passed. This will only ever existentially affect the small.
What this really is, is legalization of asymmetric warfare, and while a minority of tech/content companies might prefer things the way they are, they'll prosper just fine after SOPA is passed. This will only ever existentially affect the small.
In the fantasy land of my mind, I'd prefer it if some of those large companies could cut deals with other governments to create pro-Internet laws and then move their headquarters abroad. If SOPA is passed the US deserves no less than total decimation of their position as a technological leader.
Who is John Galt?
Who is John Galt?
Never thought about Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc, going black and telling you to contact representatives. But it would be not "nuclear", it would be "6000km diameter meteorite". Think about it: almost 100% of people connected to the Internet would be concerned about SOPA. Really, really concerned. I don't think neither representatives nor Hollywood industry would support this pressure.
Forget meteorite, it would be a Suprnova.
what would happen if Google, Bing (and by association Yahoo), made all SOPA-supporting properties disappear from organic and ad-sponsored searches.
my bet - the bill would be be dead within days, they have no obligation to service SOPA supporters.
my bet - the bill would be be dead within days, they have no obligation to service SOPA supporters.
While that sounds cool, such blatant non-neutrality from search engines sounds almost as scary to me as what they're protesting.
Agreed. "Free speech (so long as we agree with it)" is exactly what we're opposing, here.
What we're (or at least I) am opposing is government regulation of free speech. Corporations are allowed to regulate speech on sites that they own.
Fair enough. We can at least agree, I hope, that tactically it would be a poor choice.
The alternative is the bill making such companies non-neutral, for copyright industry interests.
That ended when they passed the DMCA.
If Google and Facebook are going to start using their websites to influence politics, maybe it's time for companies to start lobbying them instead of Washington directly.
Very unlikely; the SOPA bill will impose significant costs to their operations compared to the reputation loss of publicly political to protect their bottom line.
Couldn't they just devote, say, half the above-the-fold screen space to a banner about SOPA for a couple days? Definitely gets people's attention, especially if coordinated across the internet, without pissing them off too much. It would link to a page that names names and gives action steps for users.
Is there a compelling reason they couldn't do this or that it wouldn't work?
Is there a compelling reason they couldn't do this or that it wouldn't work?
Hopefully the threat is enough. If I'm Google I'm strategically going to leak out plans (memos, design mocks, etc) for a blackout to see if it makes a difference without actually having to do it. They just have to be ready to back it up if it's not enough.
I’d like to see something with more teeth, and less potential for antagonizing disinterested users (which most are). I fear that this would satisfy us emotionally more than it would effect change.
Which is an occasion for more creative thinking. The most important point, which the article mentions, is that Google et al have a direct relationship with users, and goodwill.
It needs to speak to users in non-strident tones, and engage on a level that users might care about. In turn, it must engage those users to do something that politicos will actually fear.
Perhaps something like “click here and Google will donate $1 to [politician’s rival]”. Or, Google simply gives $1 to an effective organization for every unique SOPA search.
Which is an occasion for more creative thinking. The most important point, which the article mentions, is that Google et al have a direct relationship with users, and goodwill.
It needs to speak to users in non-strident tones, and engage on a level that users might care about. In turn, it must engage those users to do something that politicos will actually fear.
Perhaps something like “click here and Google will donate $1 to [politician’s rival]”. Or, Google simply gives $1 to an effective organization for every unique SOPA search.
the problem is that the users aren't disinterested - they're uninterested. blacking out google and facebook would go a long way towards changing that.
Huge play if they pull this off. This could really set the stage for increased leverage as we move into 2012. There must be a show of strength that strikes at the core of the D.C. machine. This isn't just over people downloading Ashton Kutcher movies, this is about taking down startups that are in direct competition with the distribution players, this is about going for the juglar and using Congress to pick winners. Google, Facebook, Ebay, Twitter, Paypal, Wikipedia and everyone else needs to step their game up; this is going to be a long haul.
Google, Apple, Facebook, etc., should just buy these media giants. The RIAA and MPAA would become like cockroaches ripe for stomping upon. That would be the real and permanent nuclear option.
Wouldn't this just invite retaliations in the form of a massive deluge of pro-SOPA television commercials? There are a lot of folks who use Facebook/Google/Wikipedia, but I'd bet there are many more who watch TV, especially among the demographic who will fall for the "we gotta stop the pirates or the terrorists/drug dealers/child molesters will win!" tactic.
I know there is a pro-SOPA commerical going around, but given that I've only seen it aired once, it doesn't seem
I know there is a pro-SOPA commerical going around, but given that I've only seen it aired once, it doesn't seem
I wonder how effective it might be, in addition, for major sites to point directly to user generated content on their sites, posted by both well knowns and unknowns, and assert that that specific content would cause trouble for both the poster and the site.
Bonus points if someone points to all infringing content on members of Congress sites, a la the recent Congressional torrent torrent.
Bonus points if someone points to all infringing content on members of Congress sites, a la the recent Congressional torrent torrent.
Nuclear war isn't the sort of thing that usually produces winners.
I have a hard time seeing Google in particular starting a nuclear war over this. They value relationships with big content providers and have done a lot to build them. If a drastic action leads content providers to pull out of YouTube, Google Music, Google TV, etc., it would hurt Google quite a bit. Users care a lot less about YouTube than they care about what they can watch on YouTube, and the most popular videos are "official" music videos.
It is rare that huge consumer companies allow legislative fights to spill over and impact their core business. It usually just annoys customers rather than generating any sort of meaningful grassroots bump.
I have a hard time seeing Google in particular starting a nuclear war over this. They value relationships with big content providers and have done a lot to build them. If a drastic action leads content providers to pull out of YouTube, Google Music, Google TV, etc., it would hurt Google quite a bit. Users care a lot less about YouTube than they care about what they can watch on YouTube, and the most popular videos are "official" music videos.
It is rare that huge consumer companies allow legislative fights to spill over and impact their core business. It usually just annoys customers rather than generating any sort of meaningful grassroots bump.
Where would they go if they pulled out of YouTube etc.? Do you think they are there because they like Google? No matter what product you have, if you don't market it, it's the same as if you didn't have it. Marketing is Google's other name, they are a marketing giant. There's an awful lot of extremely talented people floating in the wild, who are not under mega-labels because the mega-label business model only allows a handful few. Imagine what could Google do with its marketing power and this available talent - they can literally create a new mainstream music industry almost overnight.
Regarding annoying of customers - when fascism was on the rise in Germany, lot of people should have been annoyed but they were left in ignorance, and that's why eventually Hitler succeeded in the takeover, before turning the country to ashes.
When your government breaks the law, and then under the disguise of copyright infringement they take down any website that reports about it, the last working piece of the responsibility feedback loop is completely destroyed, the citizen is fucked, and the country eventually ends in ashes. That is the true danger of SOPA, and that is what SOPA is all about.
Regarding annoying of customers - when fascism was on the rise in Germany, lot of people should have been annoyed but they were left in ignorance, and that's why eventually Hitler succeeded in the takeover, before turning the country to ashes.
When your government breaks the law, and then under the disguise of copyright infringement they take down any website that reports about it, the last working piece of the responsibility feedback loop is completely destroyed, the citizen is fucked, and the country eventually ends in ashes. That is the true danger of SOPA, and that is what SOPA is all about.
I agree there would be repercussions for YouTube and Google Music, I'll note that content providers have already pulled out of / are actively blocking Google TV, so Google has little to lose on that front. I'll also say that I think the consequences for YouTube are smaller than you think."Official" videos may be the most popular videos on YouTube on an individual basis, but I strongly suspect that, as a group, user-generated videos drive the majority of YouTube usage, even though very few user-generated videos are extremely popular individually.
There are far more elegant, insidious ways to destroy SOPA using the powers that SOPA opponents possess than something as cheap as a blackout.
I do like the idea of PR hype surrounding the threat of blackout though. Just publicizing the potential threat of the 'nuclear option' in the press for a week should be enough to get congress to back off.
I do like the idea of PR hype surrounding the threat of blackout though. Just publicizing the potential threat of the 'nuclear option' in the press for a week should be enough to get congress to back off.
Upvoted for some honest-to-god, decent insightful writing. (not something I normally expect when I click a cnet link)
SOPA is all over hacker news and other tech feeds, but I have seen nothing on the television news outlets (CNN, FoxNews). Obviously, they want to see this slip through... they are all owned by big media business who are probably supporters.
Join in the Google Bomb of GoDaddy:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3393177
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3393177
Actually it's the link farms and spammers who should be linking to GoDaddy rather than giving free pub to Namecheap. I can't link to every provider on the right side of this issue.
If Google and Facebook were to demonstrate that power once, on an issue that most of their users will agree with, the industry would get a lot more respect in D.C.