WSJ comes out for SOPA(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
WSJ comes out for SOPA
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57361059-261/wsj-comes-out-for-sopa-more-lawmakers-pull-support/
22 comments
Disclaimer: I heard the Editorial via my Audible subscription this morning and sometimes those editions are abridged. Though normally not in the Editorial section.
I thought the article was pretty fair to be honest. It called out the DNS issues as being egregious and they highlighted the constitutional basis of copyright which most people forget. They also highlighted the difference between individual piracy and piracy for business as an important point (the exact sentence is "This isn't college kids swapping MP3s as in the 1990s. Rather rogue websites set up shop overseas and sell US consumers bootleg [media]"
My main criticism is they made SOPA seem a little more benign than it is. They say...
"The notion that the SOPA dragnet would catch a stray Twitter Link or Facebook post is false"
Well, I don't see how that is false. My main issue with SOPA (now that the DNS part has be taken out) is it could be used to allow media companies to shut down legitimate indie products because they resemble commercial offerings. Because the bar is set so low as far as initial proof is concerned.
Anyway, the bottom line is the article is worth reading and it isn't just "Murdoch Henchmen Towing the Line". I wish they'd let it out of the paywall so you could see that.
I thought the article was pretty fair to be honest. It called out the DNS issues as being egregious and they highlighted the constitutional basis of copyright which most people forget. They also highlighted the difference between individual piracy and piracy for business as an important point (the exact sentence is "This isn't college kids swapping MP3s as in the 1990s. Rather rogue websites set up shop overseas and sell US consumers bootleg [media]"
My main criticism is they made SOPA seem a little more benign than it is. They say...
"The notion that the SOPA dragnet would catch a stray Twitter Link or Facebook post is false"
Well, I don't see how that is false. My main issue with SOPA (now that the DNS part has be taken out) is it could be used to allow media companies to shut down legitimate indie products because they resemble commercial offerings. Because the bar is set so low as far as initial proof is concerned.
Anyway, the bottom line is the article is worth reading and it isn't just "Murdoch Henchmen Towing the Line". I wish they'd let it out of the paywall so you could see that.
We are so far beyond the constitutional basis of copyright. That clause only gives Congress the right to grant copyrights for a "limited time" to encourage creativity. Congress realized at some point that they could just keep extending the copyrights when they are about to expire to create effectively unlimited copyrights. Lawrence Lessig has a lot of great things to say about this in regards to our 'creative commons'
I agree with you in many ways but it's important to remember copyright is in the constitution in the first place. If you surveyed most people I doubt they'd even know that.
Isn't selling bootleg stuff ALREADY illegal though? I mean, ICE can shut you down for importing ripoff stuff if they find it already - why do we need SOPA/PIPA to make things even more difficult for regular people?
As far as I understand it, if you have a website with a non U.S. domain name and not using a U.S. or U.S.-treaty-based payment system, there is no way to block access to rip-off items (material or digital) to be purchased in the U.S. For material goods, customs have the ability to confiscate these at the borders. There are international treaties in progress, where the U.S. partners with other countries, but the internet is a big, wide-open place and it's easy to move elsewhere or get safe harbour.
(For the record, I believe that only innovation will solve these problems, not suppression).
(For the record, I believe that only innovation will solve these problems, not suppression).
ICE has no jurisdiction outside the US. As I understand it, they can seize US domains (.com) but not other countries' domains, nor can they force an ISP to block access to a domain. So what legal recourse is there?
I was unable to find a source which explained what is the current state of SOPA. Do you have one? The Wikipedia page (yes, it's still up) didn't explicitly say what was still in it, and the NY Times articles I read were equally unclear. This is the best I have, from the Wikipedia page that should be easy to get to today:
After the first day of the hearing, more than 20 amendments had been rejected, including one by Issa which would have stripped provisions targeting search engines and Internet providers. PC World reported that the 22–12 vote on the amendment could foreshadow strong support for the bill by the committee.
The Committee adjourned on the second day agreeing to continue debate early in 2012.[11][151] Smith announced a plan to remove the provision that requires Internet service providers to block access to certain foreign websites.
Oh, and the full article is available if you access it through Google. I assume that's an above-board way of reading it.
After the first day of the hearing, more than 20 amendments had been rejected, including one by Issa which would have stripped provisions targeting search engines and Internet providers. PC World reported that the 22–12 vote on the amendment could foreshadow strong support for the bill by the committee.
The Committee adjourned on the second day agreeing to continue debate early in 2012.[11][151] Smith announced a plan to remove the provision that requires Internet service providers to block access to certain foreign websites.
Oh, and the full article is available if you access it through Google. I assume that's an above-board way of reading it.
I don't think there will be one until the bills are re-evaluated in February. To the best of my knowledge the only significant chance is the removal of the DNS restriction (Which the sponsor himself said was a change). Even if you do find a SOPA breakdown remember it would have to be reconciled with PIPA after being passed (if both were to be passed). So that would add wrinkles as well.
So basically no, i'm of absolutely no use to you on this.
So basically no, i'm of absolutely no use to you on this.
(The phrase is toeing the line, as in to put one's toe upon the line)
You can avoid the wsj pay wall by typing or copying and pasting the article title into google.
I must publicly tip my hat to you for maintaining enough rationality to get to your second thought. My brain didn't get past a quite sarcastic "well there's a fucking surprise."
Here's another thought: It's a piece in the opinion section. They publish a variety of people in the opinion section. Sometimes they publish Paul Krugman. Sometimes they publish Karl Rove or George W Bush (as ex-president). They do not present a unified ideological front.
That said, Rupert Murdoch has grandstanded in the past in rather transparently self-serving ways ("OMG google news is indexing my sites! but i don't want to make them stop, I want to make them keep doing it and pay me for the privilege somehow.")
That said, Rupert Murdoch has grandstanded in the past in rather transparently self-serving ways ("OMG google news is indexing my sites! but i don't want to make them stop, I want to make them keep doing it and pay me for the privilege somehow.")
Actually it is an editorial, which is the opinion of the paper itself.
The language mirrors Murdoch and the piece is not well written, there's a stench of editorial interference here.
The language mirrors Murdoch and the piece is not well written, there's a stench of editorial interference here.
My bad, then.
Anyway. Usually Mr. Murdoch is perfectly willing to put his name to shamelessly self-serving saber-rattling and rent-seeking pieces (e.g. "omg BBC. british media is government controlled. please get rid of my competition.")
The article itself, FWIW, is basically a straw-man argument saying that anyone against SOPA is a bunch of dirty Commies who think it's a God-given right to pirate everything for free. If you'd like to read it (ew), Google the URL and click the resulting link. Or hack your Referer: or pretend you're Googlebot. I regret that I was only the second or third person on the comments page to say it was a load of BS and not the first.
Postscript (2): as user mapgrep pointed out below, the WSJ has a bad habit of labeling editorials 'Review and Outlook'. Meh.
Anyway. Usually Mr. Murdoch is perfectly willing to put his name to shamelessly self-serving saber-rattling and rent-seeking pieces (e.g. "omg BBC. british media is government controlled. please get rid of my competition.")
The article itself, FWIW, is basically a straw-man argument saying that anyone against SOPA is a bunch of dirty Commies who think it's a God-given right to pirate everything for free. If you'd like to read it (ew), Google the URL and click the resulting link. Or hack your Referer: or pretend you're Googlebot. I regret that I was only the second or third person on the comments page to say it was a load of BS and not the first.
Postscript (2): as user mapgrep pointed out below, the WSJ has a bad habit of labeling editorials 'Review and Outlook'. Meh.
Postscript. While the WSJ may be pro-SOPA, it appears its readers aren't falling for it. Polls show anti-SOPA sentiment leading with an 80-point margin: http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/media-marketing-267/t...
(This is linked from the front page of wsj.com also, so it's not just an obscure corner of the site.)
(This is linked from the front page of wsj.com also, so it's not just an obscure corner of the site.)
There are two kinds of stories that normally appear in a newspaper's opinion section: bylined opinion pieces and editorials. The former are written by various people and should ideally represent a diverse range of viewpoints. But the latter are written by the paper's editorial board, and represent the paper's official stance. This appears to be the latter.
I bet if you actually counted the ratio of progressive vs corporatist editorials, the latter would be the overwhelming majority.
Let's not kid ourselves, the WSJ does have a pro-corporations agenda, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch; in Europe most people consider it a far-right paper. The Financial Times in comparison looks almost like a socialist rag.
Let's not kid ourselves, the WSJ does have a pro-corporations agenda, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch; in Europe most people consider it a far-right paper. The Financial Times in comparison looks almost like a socialist rag.
This: "One of America's most respected newspapers has come out on the side of copyright owners..." really annoys me. I am a copyright owner. I make money from that fact. I am against SOPA.
Setting up a false dilemma of "copyright owners" vs "others" is incorrect and evil spin. Everyone be sure to note that many of the sites and people against SOPA (e.g. Google, Tim O'Reilly, etc) are all major copyright holders and beneficiaries when you talk with people about this.
Setting up a false dilemma of "copyright owners" vs "others" is incorrect and evil spin. Everyone be sure to note that many of the sites and people against SOPA (e.g. Google, Tim O'Reilly, etc) are all major copyright holders and beneficiaries when you talk with people about this.
What bothers me is that in most news coverage the set up veers further off as "copyright owners" vs "internet giants". This sets the tone that only large Internet business are protesting SOPA because they make money from pirating in some way. It completely overlooks the fact that the backlash is largely driven by average informed users.
I agree. In any debate it's important to frame the issue carefully and to avoid letting the opposition choose the terms that will be discussed. If most people view this as "rogue sites/thieves vs. legitimate copyright holders" or something similar then the debate is already partly lost.
Even worse, introducing the WSJ as "one of America's most respected newspapers" automatically presents the paper in a very positive light -- "respect" is good, "America" is good, so good + good must be good, right?
What if a different formula was used instead, like "one of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers"? It'd be much more correct and impartial, technically (ownership can be proven; "respect", not so much), but the spin would feel quite different.
What if a different formula was used instead, like "one of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers"? It'd be much more correct and impartial, technically (ownership can be proven; "respect", not so much), but the spin would feel quite different.
This is meta, but as of right now every single comment on this article is about why the WSJ would claim to believe SOPA is a good idea, not what their actual argument is. A decent fraction of these comments cite Rupert Murdoch and/or phone hacking.
That's not very productive. Anyone on the pro-SOPA side can say exactly the same thing about e.g. Google. One of Google's major divisions, Youtube, was built in part on piracy. And Google itself does help people find pirated content; that's not something immoral, and they do make it difficult, but Google benefits from some copyright infringement in the sense that it means they're a better default search engine, since some fraction of queries are for copyright-violating content.
And the WSJ article does make a similar point:
Wikipedia has never blacked itself out before on any other political issue, nor have websites like Mozilla or the social news aggregator Reddit... They've taken no comparable action against, say, Chinese repression.
This is not the first thing so awful that websites choose to take such action--it's the first awful thing that threatens them so much.
The WSJ also points out that the most egregious part of SOPA--DNS-level censorship--was removed in the latest draft. They don't make an exceptional argument, but they do make a superficially reasonable case; someone unfamiliar with the way the Internet works would likely find it pretty convincing.
SOPA/PIPA is an awful, awful idea. But if the WSJ claims that it's a good idea, and you claim that the WSJ only says so because corrupt, then you lose by default. The WSJ can have a good argument that defends their economic interests, or that is hypocritical in light of what they've been caught doing in the past. SOPA opponents are in a very similar situation.
That's not very productive. Anyone on the pro-SOPA side can say exactly the same thing about e.g. Google. One of Google's major divisions, Youtube, was built in part on piracy. And Google itself does help people find pirated content; that's not something immoral, and they do make it difficult, but Google benefits from some copyright infringement in the sense that it means they're a better default search engine, since some fraction of queries are for copyright-violating content.
And the WSJ article does make a similar point:
Wikipedia has never blacked itself out before on any other political issue, nor have websites like Mozilla or the social news aggregator Reddit... They've taken no comparable action against, say, Chinese repression.
This is not the first thing so awful that websites choose to take such action--it's the first awful thing that threatens them so much.
The WSJ also points out that the most egregious part of SOPA--DNS-level censorship--was removed in the latest draft. They don't make an exceptional argument, but they do make a superficially reasonable case; someone unfamiliar with the way the Internet works would likely find it pretty convincing.
SOPA/PIPA is an awful, awful idea. But if the WSJ claims that it's a good idea, and you claim that the WSJ only says so because corrupt, then you lose by default. The WSJ can have a good argument that defends their economic interests, or that is hypocritical in light of what they've been caught doing in the past. SOPA opponents are in a very similar situation.
The WSJ's point, that Wikipedia has never blacked itself out on any other political issue, is factually incorrect - odd that a newspaper can't take the time to do its research, but Wikipedia blacked out in Italy after passage of a similar law there making it responsible for user content. Oddly enough, Italy backed down as well.
Wikipedia takes action when the Internet is threatened - that's just common sense. Which may be why the WSJ editorial page can't grasp it.
Wikipedia takes action when the Internet is threatened - that's just common sense. Which may be why the WSJ editorial page can't grasp it.
"Google benefits from some copyright infringement in the sense that it means they're a better default search engine, since some fraction of queries are for copyright-violating content."
What? Google doesn't benefit from copyright infringement if it goes out of its way to make infringing material difficult to find.
Google doesn't index infringing material because some people search for that, and returning them the results they're looking for is good for Google's bottom line. Rather, Google indexes infringing material because infringing material is out there, and Google indexes everything, because that is easier than not indexing everything ( see also: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php ), and returning the best matches it can is what it does.
What? Google doesn't benefit from copyright infringement if it goes out of its way to make infringing material difficult to find.
Google doesn't index infringing material because some people search for that, and returning them the results they're looking for is good for Google's bottom line. Rather, Google indexes infringing material because infringing material is out there, and Google indexes everything, because that is easier than not indexing everything ( see also: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php ), and returning the best matches it can is what it does.
I agree. I think it's important to argue against the WSJ's actual points, not dismiss them because of conflict of interest.
Real quick, my reaction to their points: yes, changes have been proposed to the bill, but I'm not clear on exactly what has been removed, and I'm not confident that what remains would leave the internet's infrastructure intact; they conflate "open source" with people who are pro-piracy; they conflate people who oppose copyright with people who oppose censorship.
Real quick, my reaction to their points: yes, changes have been proposed to the bill, but I'm not clear on exactly what has been removed, and I'm not confident that what remains would leave the internet's infrastructure intact; they conflate "open source" with people who are pro-piracy; they conflate people who oppose copyright with people who oppose censorship.
The reason you're not seeing much comment on the WSJ article's actual content is probably because it's behind a pay wall and so inaccessible to most here.
On the other hand, the "traditional" press has centuries-old ties with governments, diplomacy, it's even part of the constitution in most countries, so if you want to compare apples to apples, you have to also notice that the media establishment is defending its (now outdated) exclusivity over content distribution.
As an outsider (i m not in the US) one can see that it's not just the corporate interests of Google/twitter/facebook etc that are threatened, but also the transition from the old "mass media", (where mass manipulation was possible) to something new.
In the end, the whole SOPA debate should motivate people building startups to think up new ways to monetize intellectual property, not just ignore the problem
As an outsider (i m not in the US) one can see that it's not just the corporate interests of Google/twitter/facebook etc that are threatened, but also the transition from the old "mass media", (where mass manipulation was possible) to something new.
In the end, the whole SOPA debate should motivate people building startups to think up new ways to monetize intellectual property, not just ignore the problem
> Anyone on the pro-SOPA side can say exactly the same thing about e.g. Google. One of Google's major divisions, Youtube, was built in part on piracy.
If we're being objective about this, then we should acknowledge that YouTube still carries a vast amount of illegal material. These days they get safe harbour because of the DMCA takedown provisions, but Google are still knowingly providing a tool that is and always has been widely used to break the law.
The thing is, the big studios may be able to afford people to monitor such popular sites full time and have a well-oiled takedown process, so the DMCA provisions balance things out for them. The small, independent outfits can't and don't, though, and the bottom line for them is that the law says they have exclusive rights but in practice those rights aren't enforceable.
The provisions of SOPA/PIPA are obviously over-the-top, but there is a legitimate reason for some of these organisations to complain about the current situation.
If we're being objective about this, then we should acknowledge that YouTube still carries a vast amount of illegal material. These days they get safe harbour because of the DMCA takedown provisions, but Google are still knowingly providing a tool that is and always has been widely used to break the law.
The thing is, the big studios may be able to afford people to monitor such popular sites full time and have a well-oiled takedown process, so the DMCA provisions balance things out for them. The small, independent outfits can't and don't, though, and the bottom line for them is that the law says they have exclusive rights but in practice those rights aren't enforceable.
The provisions of SOPA/PIPA are obviously over-the-top, but there is a legitimate reason for some of these organisations to complain about the current situation.
The e-vangelists seem to believe that anybody is entitled to access to any content at any time at no cost—open source. Their real ideological objection is to the concept of copyright itself, and they oppose any legal regime that values original creative work. The offline analogue is Occupy Wall Street.
That alone is enough to render the article useless, a very bad piece for a generally high-quality blog (can we just call newspapers blogs from now on? it's technically the same thing)
On the other hand, the internet doesn't yet offer a good way for creators to get rewarded for their work. Donations are too arbitrary, itunes despite its popularity is tied to music corporatism and so is spotify. What other startups are working in novel ways to monetize intellectual property?
That alone is enough to render the article useless, a very bad piece for a generally high-quality blog (can we just call newspapers blogs from now on? it's technically the same thing)
On the other hand, the internet doesn't yet offer a good way for creators to get rewarded for their work. Donations are too arbitrary, itunes despite its popularity is tied to music corporatism and so is spotify. What other startups are working in novel ways to monetize intellectual property?
> What other startups are working in novel ways to monetize intellectual property?
Selling DRM-free downloads is working extremely well for many; Bandcamp comes to mind. Plenty of indie content creators do just fine handling piracy by ignoring it.
Selling DRM-free downloads is working extremely well for many; Bandcamp comes to mind. Plenty of indie content creators do just fine handling piracy by ignoring it.
I used to read the WSJ regularly, but stopped when their editors came out so obsequiously in favor of the bailout in 2008, after years of rejecting government intervention. Even this editorial is a farce. How often does the WSJ use the phrase "rights" in a positive way outside this context?
Good point about "rights". We should respond by saying we DO support their rights - just not SPECIAL rights.
Privatize profit; socialize risk. That's just another way in maximize profit and minimize risk. Pretty consistent with capitalism.
True capitalists believe that government is a referee; government should not the bagman for losses or a source of investment funding.
Of course it does. It's a Murdoch paper, and Murdoch is a fascist. All Murdoch's outlets operate as a kind of Pravda for American neo-fascism.
(I am not using the term fascism hyperbolically. Murdoch is, I think, properly classifiable as an authoritarian collectivist -- a fascist.)
(I am not using the term fascism hyperbolically. Murdoch is, I think, properly classifiable as an authoritarian collectivist -- a fascist.)
Downloading a CD might land you in jail and will saddle you with serious punitive damages, but stealing hundreds of thousands of voice mails while working at a newspaper is apparently OK!
Though if you believe their parliamentary testimony, James apparently had no knowledge even though he authorized million-pound payoffs to victims.
Laws are for poors, chap.
Fun fact: fascism wasn't the first name Mussolini wanted for the Italian political movement of the 1920s-40s. Corporatism was the original name.
"Corporatism" in the context of 1920s Italy meant something different than it does in 2010s America. Specifically, it referred to vertically-integrated sectors of public life, like heavy industry, or schoolteachers, or policemen, or banks.
Also, SOPA was never about fighting piracy, that's just a disguise. SOPA is about dissent suppression. The Internet is exploding into establishment's face, and imagine what will happen when all those people who are now - thanks to the blackout - screaming on Twitter while discovering about SOPA/PIPA for the very first time - what do they do when they learn about the kind of information that's e.g. posted here: http://goo.gl/2RVeB
Hacker News will shorten URLs if necessary to make them fit, so it's not necessary to use URL shorteners (which are discouraged): http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1023-financia...
Edit to add: Please make a compelling case why I should take the time to read an article that starts with an amusing replacement of the letter A in the headline with a quartet of all-seeing eyes.
Edit to add: Please make a compelling case why I should take the time to read an article that starts with an amusing replacement of the letter A in the headline with a quartet of all-seeing eyes.
Don't let that picture discourage you. Read the first few paragraphs, it doesn't take long.
See, that's why I used URL shortener - if somebody was giving me a link beginning with domain "divinecosmos.com", I'd think they are insane, and skipped that link without even blinking.
However, sometimes, things are not what they seem at the first appearance. I don't think I can or should attempt to really explain it here. Just give the article a try.
See, that's why I used URL shortener - if somebody was giving me a link beginning with domain "divinecosmos.com", I'd think they are insane, and skipped that link without even blinking.
However, sometimes, things are not what they seem at the first appearance. I don't think I can or should attempt to really explain it here. Just give the article a try.
I've read a few paragraphs in and so far it sounds like a stock conspiracy theory ("They burned this guy's house down for leaking information, just like they didn't with the WikiLeaks guys"), very much in line with what the logo would suggest.
I meant a few more paragraphs. But yes, it's easy to dismiss the article based on those 2 things alone. Bad choice on author's part.
No it wasn't, that's a lefty myth recently invented. The word "corporatism" didn't exist back then.
Mussolini referred to corporativismo, which he defined as a large number of people working together, not specific to the modern corporation.
You shouldn't relay bad information if you're actually ignorant of Fascist history under Mussolini.
Mussolini referred to corporativismo, which he defined as a large number of people working together, not specific to the modern corporation.
You shouldn't relay bad information if you're actually ignorant of Fascist history under Mussolini.
"Corporatism" as a concept has existed since the 19th century (identified by that term) and so did exist in the 1920s for Mussolini. Corporatism has similar aims as corporativismo, which is the Italian for corporatism.
Corporativismo (in the fascist sense) referred to a desire for single-party totalitarian rule in the fusion of state and business power-- the goal that, instead of having separate and potentially competing interests, the elites of all of these sectors should glom together and centralize power.
It's not exactly the same thing in the modern U.S.: in totalitarian corporatism (fascism) the government co-opts private businesses and installs puppets of its elite. That's not what we've seen over the past 30 years. In anarchic corpratism (which is what the American upper class and right wing had in their golden era-- the Gilded Age-- and have been implementing since the late 1970s) it goes the other way: the business elite invades the government and makes it generally powerless to stop them. This form of corporatism is more limited and therefore more benign. "Anarchic corporatism" seems like an oxymoron, but the fundamental idea behind it is that business elites (which need not put up a unified front, as states must do for morale reasons) call the shots, but nonetheless compete. It's "anarchic" in the sense that the government is not supposed to be king-making or impeding specific players.
What we're seeing, amusingly, is that the elite has no real ideology. In 1980, they were predictably conservative and relatively principled, if wrongheaded. They were anarchic corporatists and proud of it. What the Bush, Jr. Era has shown us is that when this elite successfully co-opts the state, these people start to like unlimited state power and intrusion (Patriot Act, SOPA)... even if they say they're for "small government". So anarchic corporatism leads to the totalitarian kind over time; the TL;DR summary of that is "power vacuum".
It's not exactly the same thing in the modern U.S.: in totalitarian corporatism (fascism) the government co-opts private businesses and installs puppets of its elite. That's not what we've seen over the past 30 years. In anarchic corpratism (which is what the American upper class and right wing had in their golden era-- the Gilded Age-- and have been implementing since the late 1970s) it goes the other way: the business elite invades the government and makes it generally powerless to stop them. This form of corporatism is more limited and therefore more benign. "Anarchic corporatism" seems like an oxymoron, but the fundamental idea behind it is that business elites (which need not put up a unified front, as states must do for morale reasons) call the shots, but nonetheless compete. It's "anarchic" in the sense that the government is not supposed to be king-making or impeding specific players.
What we're seeing, amusingly, is that the elite has no real ideology. In 1980, they were predictably conservative and relatively principled, if wrongheaded. They were anarchic corporatists and proud of it. What the Bush, Jr. Era has shown us is that when this elite successfully co-opts the state, these people start to like unlimited state power and intrusion (Patriot Act, SOPA)... even if they say they're for "small government". So anarchic corporatism leads to the totalitarian kind over time; the TL;DR summary of that is "power vacuum".
Pretty much cannot trust the position of the traditional medias, like WSJ, on SOPA. They have a clear conflict of interest since their owners underwrite the legislature.
Just treat them as propaganda.
Just treat them as propaganda.
On the flip side, the WSJ could say the exact same thing about Google, Facebook, Ars Technica, etc. Just because they offer a different viewpoint doesn't mean you should completely write them off. Instead, it is useful to read these types of pieces to see what the opposition really wants.
If there is to be any sort of compromise, we can't just shut our eyes and plug our ears when the traditional media says what it needs in a law.
If there is to be any sort of compromise, we can't just shut our eyes and plug our ears when the traditional media says what it needs in a law.
There is a difference. Google and Facebook are not media organizations and are clearly stating that SOPA will hurt them. People go to media companies for news, and when they see op-eds like the one in the WSJ, are less likely to consider that the writer herself is a critically invested party in the issue.
It is not the same thing for Reddit/Ars Technica/Google/others. It would be the same when Reddit/Ars Technica/Google/others sponsor a bill to cut the electricity of the printing press of any newspapers when suspected of copyright infringement. In that case WSJ can claim whatever these sponsoring companies said are propaganda.
This is the fundamental problem with democracy and a free press. The banks help their cronies consolidate the media, the media defines the terms of the debate and what people know about. The people process the limited amount of inputs they receive and basically do what they're told to do.
The internet disrupts this, so it is a threat. Even so, for the most part, it's still amazing how deaf dumb and blind the conversation on the internet is in that the mainstream media, who define the terms and scope of the debate, are the only link to the world outside of immediate perception for the participants.
The internet disrupts this, so it is a threat. Even so, for the most part, it's still amazing how deaf dumb and blind the conversation on the internet is in that the mainstream media, who define the terms and scope of the debate, are the only link to the world outside of immediate perception for the participants.
What's not at all surprising about this is that the WSJ is positioning SOPA as an anti-piracy bill and not as a bill that gives tacit acceptance to the assertion that government controls of information channels is acceptable in a free society.
Also the WSJ being One of America's most respected newspapers hasn't been true since Murdoch purchased it and started inserting opinion into front page news stories.
Also the WSJ being One of America's most respected newspapers hasn't been true since Murdoch purchased it and started inserting opinion into front page news stories.
Well - they still report the news quite well. It's just their editorial page that's off the rails.
I find it rather humorous that it is unsigned. It makes it feel even more as though it were penned by Murdoch.
Editorials are, as a rule, unsigned. That's what makes them editorials as opposed to op-eds or columns. They represent, ostensibly, the opinion of the newspaper itself rather than any individual staffer. The NY Times does the same thing.
(The WSJ could avoid a lot of confusion if it labeled its editorials "Editorial." Instead it labels them "Review & Outlook," a term only regular readers of the opinion section will be familiar with.)
(The WSJ could avoid a lot of confusion if it labeled its editorials "Editorial." Instead it labels them "Review & Outlook," a term only regular readers of the opinion section will be familiar with.)
I honestly never knew the difference. Thank you very much for that insight.
I prefer Murdoch's twitter rants to these articles (by fox, wsj and his other holdings). At least when he tweets, I know where the opinions come from.
It's a Murdoch paper, what else did you expect?
Off Topic: Whenever I read WSJ I always think of Weekly Shounen Jump and then I'm like that makes no sense, this has to be about the Wall Street Journal. It's never about Manga.
Off Topic: Whenever I read WSJ I always think of Weekly Shounen Jump and then I'm like that makes no sense, this has to be about the Wall Street Journal. It's never about Manga.
So they chose to back money over liberty. Not a real surprise, if you ask me.
TFA from CNet begins "One of America's most respected newspapers" in big text, forgetting to mention that, well CNet is part of CBS Interactive and CBSi is part of... you probably get my drift.
Ok I think I understand now, so I can't link to copyrighted material in any way or my site will be pulled, but I can hack into peoples mobile phones right?
For some reason this sentence jumped out at me:
"Some lawmakers have noted that PIPA and SOPA would not affect anyone of the Web sites participating in the blackout."
I assume the argument being made here is that they're domestic sites and would not be affected by the legislation. And since they're not pirating anything what do they have to worry about. I could see someone reading it and thinking this is much to do about nothing. But this bill really puts pressure on domestic sites to comply and as we all know will just push the pirate sites to find ways around the law. So really, the sites most affected by these laws will be domestic and law-abiding.
"Some lawmakers have noted that PIPA and SOPA would not affect anyone of the Web sites participating in the blackout."
I assume the argument being made here is that they're domestic sites and would not be affected by the legislation. And since they're not pirating anything what do they have to worry about. I could see someone reading it and thinking this is much to do about nothing. But this bill really puts pressure on domestic sites to comply and as we all know will just push the pirate sites to find ways around the law. So really, the sites most affected by these laws will be domestic and law-abiding.
Post a comment. Include a link to respectable content. Tweak target page to SOPA-contrary content. Goodbye, WSJ.
Might that wake 'em up?
Might that wake 'em up?
I had a look at the comments on the article and pretty much every poster, wall street journal subscribers included, are opposed to SOPA.
[deleted]
[deleted]
WSJ has always been trash 'reporting'. No surprises here.
Yup, an editorial with out any author attribution. Go Murdoch!
Could we block HN submissions that point to WSJ articles? Maybe Reddit could do the same?
I think proposals of this nature are not productive.
Much of what fuels anti-SOPA/PIPA sentiment is rooted in the principles of individual freedoms and the preservation of a commons that makes the exchange of information, ideas and enables commercial, individual and scientific innovation (amongst a whole long list of other awesome things that the Internet fosters). Taking retaliatory measures against those that exercise those freedoms, as distasteful as their position may be, is exactly the type of behaviour that SOPA proposes. We can each choose not to support those organizations that seek to control the Internet at the behest of Big Media and Hollywood, but to institutionalize controls constraining those that support it is, in my opinion, a victory for SOPA.
Much of what fuels anti-SOPA/PIPA sentiment is rooted in the principles of individual freedoms and the preservation of a commons that makes the exchange of information, ideas and enables commercial, individual and scientific innovation (amongst a whole long list of other awesome things that the Internet fosters). Taking retaliatory measures against those that exercise those freedoms, as distasteful as their position may be, is exactly the type of behaviour that SOPA proposes. We can each choose not to support those organizations that seek to control the Internet at the behest of Big Media and Hollywood, but to institutionalize controls constraining those that support it is, in my opinion, a victory for SOPA.
That's bullshit.
Rejecting submissions from SOPA supporters on a private website just isn't the same as manipulating the machinery of government the way bill supporters have done.
Rejecting submissions from SOPA supporters on a private website just isn't the same as manipulating the machinery of government the way bill supporters have done.
That's inflammatory.
But to your point, I wasn't commenting on the manipulation of government (a point that I also don't agree with - I think the government is complicit, not manipulated) but on the manipulation of technology to stifle freedom of expression. I don't see a huge difference between building filters that target torrent sites and building filters that target SOPA supporters. Nor do I think it makes a difference whether this is initiated in response to legislative demands, or some sense of "what is right".
YMMV.
But to your point, I wasn't commenting on the manipulation of government (a point that I also don't agree with - I think the government is complicit, not manipulated) but on the manipulation of technology to stifle freedom of expression. I don't see a huge difference between building filters that target torrent sites and building filters that target SOPA supporters. Nor do I think it makes a difference whether this is initiated in response to legislative demands, or some sense of "what is right".
YMMV.
> Taking retaliatory measures against those that exercise those freedoms
In one sense, it is a bit hypocritical. However, we are dealing with the same mentality that supported "You are either with us, or against us." The WSJ's main audience are people who don't give a flying damn about rights, they only care about money.
So you have to hit them in the money. Hard. Painfully.
In one sense, it is a bit hypocritical. However, we are dealing with the same mentality that supported "You are either with us, or against us." The WSJ's main audience are people who don't give a flying damn about rights, they only care about money.
So you have to hit them in the money. Hard. Painfully.
I think simply ignoring or blocking anyone who disagrees with you will just lead to ignorance.
Sure we could. But then what would be the difference between us and them?
Freedom of speech goes both ways and that's good. Without a good counterpoint constructive arguments can't come to life. In other words, contrast helps you see things clearly.
Rather than block those submissions why not automatically annotate/decorate them in such a way that users on the site know that the site's owners support SOPA/PIPA/Damaging the Internet
Ugh, no. Just because you disagree with them is no reason to ban them.
What would be the rationale for that?
Because in a couple years we'll have bots that can generate WSJ editorials by scratch simply by estimating what text will maximize the profits of the WSJ's old industry corporate masters?
...and if that content prompts insightful discussion that is appropriate for HN, what exactly is the problem?
It sounds like you're more concerned with censoring WSJ than maintaning the quality of HN.
It sounds like you're more concerned with censoring WSJ than maintaning the quality of HN.
Second thought: "But just because you would expect it of them doesn't make them wrong. What points do they make?"
Final thought: "Oh look, a paywall. Oh well..."
It seems their mission to overzealously block content on the internet was impeded by their decision to overzealously block content on the internet.