
Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day - ericflo
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supporting-companies-no-longer-allowed-at-yc-demo-day/
======
chernevik
The House Judiciary supporters list is chock-full of lawyers -- one-seventh of
the list has the string 'LLP' -- and therein lies a major target of
opportunity for the technology industry. I doubt anyone will change their
counsel over this, but they can make them explain their position.

Let every tech industry CEO, CFO and board member call their most senior
contact at a supporting firm. Ask them to explain their position, ask them to
explain how this _won't_ break DNS, how the precedents set here won't spread
to other policy questions or countries. Don't get into balancing one industry
or another -- just make them demonstrate a reasonable layperson understanding
of how the internet works. The last thing a partner wants is to sound less
than informed on the core technologies in their industry of expertise. If
nothing else they'll have to go to school on the question.

No doubt many such partners will say they get it but the firm is larger than
they are. And that's the point of a law firm, isn't it, you hire one because
it provides quick access to expertise on a wide variety of subjects. But if
that larger firm doesn't understand the tech business, just how prepared are
they to handle technology problems in various corners of the law? Ask the M&A
guy, the financing guy, the tax guy, to explain how SOPA won't break DNS.

I don't know where tech billings compare with movie and recording industry.
But they aren't small: M&A, financings, patent, etc etc ad nauseum. Beyond
that, the network and technology are the core of how business and industry are
changing. Maybe these firms stand to gain from SOPA over the next five years.
But can they, can the individual partners, afford to misunderstand the
technologies that will be driving more and more clients over time? Get on the
phone, not to argue, but to make them understand that they are showing an
ignorance that could leave them behind.

~~~
dpe82
I was extremely alarmed to see our firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on that
list and immediately emailed my attorney (a partner) about it.

Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of
the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list.

Incredibly dirty move on the part of Rep. Smith.

DWT has tweeted about it
(<http://twitter.com/#!/DWTLaw/status/150019649130606592>) and tell me they
are working to get their name removed from the list.

Edit: fix link

~~~
dpe82
Update: ALL the law firms have been removed from the list.

[http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of...](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of%20SOPA%20Supporters.pdf)

~~~
redthrowaway
Excellent. That's a few down. I think the next one to focus on should be the
Entertainment Software Association. It strikes me that, like the BSA, many of
these companies would only have agreed to support some broad, generic, fight
against piracy and not SOPA in particular. Let's put the pressure on them to
withdraw their support.

Also, the UFC might be a good target. I know Joe Rogan has spoken out against
SOPA, so he might be a good place to start.

~~~
chernevik
I have to wonder about the various state and local organizations on the list.
Do mayors and state chief information officers really have a position on SOPA?

Maybe the SOPA opposition lobbyists can reach out to these organizations and
find the details of their "support", and whom these groups really represent.
Then maybe tech industry types can reach into whatever state and local
connections they have to have conversations with the state / local officer
represented here. If those supports are soft, and a couple of folks call from
the field to ask what's going on, they too may melt off the list.

EDITED TO ADD: Don't know the industry, but entities with showbiz relations
may be feeling pressure from the studios to be supportive. They need licensing
deals with the studios, no? Pressuring them to choose sides might not be
productive -- might be enough to urge them to offer nothing but transparently
pro-forma support.

~~~
cdcarter
Your best bet would probably be to get the unions to pull back support. But
doing that will be hard.

~~~
chernevik
Zero probability, for most of them, as they're employed by the movie industry.
They're worried about erosion of their wage base, and (on this matter) their
relationships with the studios.

------
burgerbrain
" _"If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA
is a good idea, how could they be good investors?"_ "

That is a brilliant point.

~~~
philh
I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be
religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is:
nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science.

So I'm not convinced by the argument here. It makes too many unstated
assumptions.

I support this boycott, and this argument might make good rhetoric, but I
wouldn't use it directly to evaluate investors.

~~~
spindritf
> I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be
> religious, how could they make a good scientist?

That's because the underlying assumptions are false. Being religious doesn't
require one to be "clueless about rationality" and supporting SOPA doesn't
requre the supporter to be clueless about technology -- they may as well hope
to benefit from breaking the Internet.

As every regulation (the more severe, the better) it will give an advantage to
established companies over startups and newcomers, maybe even allow the former
to became gate-keepers of the Internet business; DMCA allowed for attempts at
censorship (silencing criticism by claiming trademarks), SOPA will take it to
a whole new level; supporting SOPA signals loyalty to the entertainment
industry; etc.

~~~
bermanoid
_Being religious doesn't require one to be "clueless about rationality"_

Absolutely correct. You don't have to be clueless about rationality to be
religious; you can also explicitly reject rationality, even though you
understand it.

But if you don't reject it, then it's quite difficult to accept any of the Big
Three religions and simultaneously convince yourself that you're embracing an
evidence-based worldview. That's not to say a few haven't spun up enough
cognitive dissonance to manage it, but it's exceedingly difficult and rare.

And as a rule, yes - to someone of the current generation, it _does_ cast
serious doubt on someone's scientific abilities when it comes to light that
they are religious, especially since it's no longer as socially unacceptable
to reject religious beliefs.

~~~
spindritf
> But if you don't reject it, then it's quite difficult to accept any of the
> Big Three religions and simultaneously convince yourself that you're
> embracing an evidence-based worldview.

Every worldview is based in faith. The very act of considering any evidence
requires trust (faith, if you will) in the value of input provided by our
senses. There is no and there cannot be any evidence for that value either
way.

Best we can do is analyze reasons for our beliefs, keep them logical, and
consistent with experience. Which, coincidentally, is one of the meanings of
the word "rational."

> And as a rule, yes - to someone of the current generation, it does cast
> serious doubt on someone's scientific abilities when it comes to light that
> they are religious

That's normal and OK -- we all hold a (pretty large usually) number of
conscious and unconscious prejudices. So much for evidence-based worldview
btw.

~~~
esrauch
> Every worldview is based in faith.

This is just religious apologetic and it's not really true.

This is the definition of faith in this context:

> Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without evidence
> supporting the claim or disregarding all evidence to the contrary

Religion is explicitly _not_ based on evidence, and is explicitly not
disprovable. You believe something despite no evidence, that is faith.
Believing something as a best guess based on what actual evidence you have is
not faith.

~~~
philwelch
Hume, who was certainly no religious apologetic, would differ.

~~~
esrauch
That's interesting, do you have a particular source in mind that I can read
more?

My very limited knowledge is only that Hume was fairly critical of religion
and that it wasn't really clear if he was a complete atheist because if he
were any more hostile to Christianity than he was he would have been
persecuted. Maybe I am assuming too much about the person I was replying to,
but it sounds to me like he is defending Christianity as an equally defensible
way to live your life, so I don't think invoking Hume here is actually
supporting his argument.

It's worth clarifying that my claim is that I am trying to claim that faith is
a subset of belief. That you can't possibly know anything for sure is
incompatible with Christianity and all current major religions, and to act
like making conclusions based on evidence with confidence levels is the same
as saying you know Absolute Truth Just Because is clearly absurd.

~~~
philwelch
The best original source is probably _An Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding_ , though it covers much more than the point I'm talking about.
The point I'm talking about is that, according to Hume, there's actually no
reason to believe that the future will continue to be like the past. Without
this premise--which _must be accepted without evidence_ \--empiricism is
broken. A basic treatment of Hume's argument is available from the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy here:
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#CauIndInfNegPha>

------
Joakal
PG, a request; demand INTERNET FREEDOM bills support from SOPA turncoats?

Otherwise, we'll go through this shit again [0][1][2][3] until compromises are
made. Which I'm sure is from quite an effective tactic [4]. At the moment, it
seems to be a lot of 'pacifist' movements to STOP SOPA when they can go to war
against the anti-INTERNET FREEDOM supporters by demanding INTERNET FREEDOM
bills.

After all, if they change the bill to be about stopping rogue sites selling
child pornography with same wording except replacing piracy words; are you
going to publicly say STOP CHILD PORN act supporting companies are no longer
allowed at YC Demo Day?

[0] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_S.978>

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
Counterfeiting_Trade_Agre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act)

[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique>

------
samstave
PG, thank you - this is one of the best stances against SOPA yet.

Frankly, this is a badass stance.

And this line, as also mentioned by others, is fantastic:

 _"If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is
a good idea, how could they be good investors?"_

~~~
gasull
I was going to say the same thing.

Thank you PG for doing your part. Thank you so much.

------
nextparadigms
PG, if you're reading this, I don't know which list you saw, but here's one
with SOPA supporters that is probably the most comprehensive:

[http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/the-439-organizations-s...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/the-439-organizations-
sopa-opponents-should-worry-about/)

~~~
mrlase
Some of these companies are just so random... Why, for instance, does Adidas,
L'Oreal, American Apparel, Rite Aid, Pfizer, etc. even have a stance on SOPA?
I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :(

~~~
marshray
Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs.

There are people who would sell their country's freedom for a handful of cash.
I consider them un-American traitors.

~~~
mekoka
_Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs._

Your assumption is that if someone doesn't buy knock offs, they'll buy the
real thing. Until that can be proven true, I think a better reformulation
which more accurately translates the greed of these corporations is _Because
they feel they're not making more money due to counterfeit knock offs_. The
companies themselves aren't actually _losing_ anything.

~~~
codyrobbins
No, I don’t think that’s the reason why fashion brands are against knock-offs.
They don’t necessarily expect that everyone who buys a counterfeit will buy
the real thing. Instead, a market glutted with counterfeit products dilutes
their brand and reflects poorly on the quality of their merchandise because
consumers confuse the knock-off with the real thing. And that most certainly
_does_ lose them something.

A Chanel handbag is a luxury item that, in part, is desirable simply because
of its expense and thus relative scarcity—not everyone can have one.
Lifestyles brands are built in large part around a carefully crafted image of
their consumer, and when every 19 year old Starbucks barista making $21K/year
is walking around with a knock-off Chanel handbag it’s difficult to maintain
the image they’re going for. Sales drop as the real consumers flee the brand,
and then the company has no choice but to market to a lower demographic.
Counterfeits undermine the company by commoditizing their goods.

Since fashion brands have significantly more limited legal protections for
their products than other industries, I don’t see how you could expect them to
be against an act that stands to enlarge the remedies available to them to
protect their brands. It was shortsighted for the media companies to try to
take a sledgehammer to the Internet—since what they sell are inherently
digital products for which it was inevitable that distribution would move to
the Internet eventually—but apparel is a physical product that isn’t in any
danger of having that happen. For that reason apparel companies don’t care
about the Internet (just like you probably don’t care very much about
apparel), and I can’t say I could really blame them.

This isn’t even to mention the fact that fashion design is an art, and having
opportunists steal your design, completely mangle it in an attempt to make it
cheaper, and then sell it as an original is in all likelihood an incredibly
infuriating thing simply from the perspective of artistic purity. Again, I
find it hard to blame them for wanting to stop this, given that how well the
Internet works is largely irrelevant to practically everyone in the entire
industry.

~~~
michaels0620
There was an article (that I now cannot find) that claimed there was a
positive effect of counterfeiting for high end fashion brands because it
motivated buyers to more quickly move on to the latest version. Someone who is
willing to spend $700 on a hand bag will get a newer version rather than hold
onto the one they have when they see anyone and everyone sporting it.

~~~
codyrobbins
That’s an interesting point, and I’d like to read that article, but I think
it’d be highly situationally dependent on the particular brand and you’d have
to know their internal sales numbers to confirm it.

Even if it were true, though, it still doesn’t address the fact that the
designers would be crazy not to want more power to stop their designs from
being stolen for simply artistic rather than pragmatic or business reasons.
It’s not fair to call them greedy or immoral—and it’s _certainly_ uncalled for
and wrong to call them unpatriotic traitors—for wanting this and for not
particularly caring about our industry just as we probably don’t really care
about theirs. In fact, it’s that kind of one-sided ad hominem bullshit that’s
actually the problem.

That being said, SOPA is still an unacceptable solution.

~~~
mekoka
You made some very valid points in your replies and I was with you as long as
you presented them as reasonable hypothetical motives for the fashion industry
to support this bill.

However, when you say stuff such as _In fact, it’s that kind of one-sided ad
hominem bullshit that’s actually the problem_ , you presume that the point
about them being greedy or immoral is invalid. That also sounds a bit naive
and one-sided.

We've all observed how artistic rights, copyrights, patents are used by
corporations to turn unscrupulous profits. Can you guarantee that executives
leading corporations in the fashion industry are exempt of such practices?
Would you vouch for their integrity if we decided to observe their various
operations under the magnifier? Can you say with certainty that no
questionable corners have been cut to turn up a buck or two?

~~~
codyrobbins
_You presume that the point about them being greedy or immoral is invalid_

Yeah, I am presuming it—because I just laid out how what they’re doing is not
necessarily driven by greed or immorality but defensible motives from their
point of view. You’re simply saying they’re bad people and that’s probably not
true in the vast majority of cases. I’m not vouching for anyone’s integrity,
but you are so down a rabbit hole of fundamental attribution bias I don’t have
any interest in attempting to change your mind.

------
kbutler
So, who is the congressional staffer who can't spell rogue?

[http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Su...](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf)

------
Steko
200+: content creation, distribution, etc. Approximately 1/4 seems to be small
photography studios.

100+ commonly pirated physical products - pharma, shoes, fashion, guitars,
spirits, golf clubs, etc.

50+ general manufac/retail industry concerns.

15+ law enforcement/local government trade orgs

15+ law offices

There's a number of testing and credentialing organizations, I'd guess they
might be part of content but I'm really not sure.

------
mahmoudimus
Wow, surprising to see Visa on that list. Here's a direct link to the list on
the techcrunch article.

[http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Su...](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf)

~~~
nextparadigms
Mastercard should be there, too. They even had a "witness" at the first
hearing.

Can we get a list for the companies supporting Protect IP, too? We don't want
that one to slip past us, either.

~~~
samstave
Mastercard (and Visa) are both on the PDF I linked to above..

[http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Su...](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf)

EDIT: Just realized this was the same as the GP link.

~~~
ggchappell
But not Discover. Interesting.

~~~
alexg0
Not American Express either.

------
AdamFernandez
Gauntlet officially thrown down. I respect PG even more for taking a stand on
this. Now we need to figure out the best way to get people opposed to SOPA on
a grand scale. No disrespect to the HN community, but I wonder how much of an
impact we really have had thus far. Tumblr, Reddit, and Mozilla have done a
fairly good job of this, but they are not large enough to do it on their own.
Next we need Google and Facebook to get more involved as I think that would
make awareness of this issue skyrocket. Any thoughts on pragmatic approaches
to getting the public more involved?

~~~
Joakal
1) Adjust the movement to be about INTERNET FREEDOM, not SOPA. This is because
the bill can be delayed/stopped til there's an anti-child porn bill with
similar wording.

eg "Demand INTERNET FREEDOM bills to replace the ANTI-INTERNET bills [of SOPA,
PROTECT-IP, DMCA, etc]"

2) Having INTERNET FREEDOM bills would make it impossible for laws like SOPA
to pass. As a bonus, compromises can be made while having some INTERNET
FREEDOM. Whereas with SOPA, they're watering down some parts that still lead
to ANTI-INTERNET. Which further encourages ANTI-INTERNET supporters to make
huge demands. It's a technique: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-
face_technique>

3) Find Congress people that love Internet. I hope there's a few! Ask if they
can be the mascots, the INTERNET messiah, etc.

4) Copy and paste SOPA to start with. Replace the words to protect INTERNET
instead. This is a delicious backfire of using someone's work and their own
weapons against them.

5) Add a way for people to be excepted from the movement to the services. Also
allow a way for people to understand why the companies are no longer appearing
politically neutral (because the anti-INTERNET bills are going to kill them).

6) Add some masking of dropped services with JS hover and non-JS side-by-side
of anti-FREEDOM warning 'of increased costs to comply with the legal demands
of other companies'.

7) Of course, provide a simple link to the INTERNET FREEDOM movement that has
to have two different sections;

a) Simple. A video, simple acts to perform to demand and spread the
information. This is an attempt to educate people with simplicity. A link is
provided to advanced for more complex information.

b) Advanced. 'Nerds', that understand the terminology, and what it's about.
How to demand and spread information. Also how to explain with simple
education if some people don't understand.

I tried to suggest some of this to Reddit's ideas for admins but got
ghostbanned and censured because apparently it's 'politics' despite Reddit's
recent anti-SOPA support.

------
dantheman
We need try and start to route around companies that are damaging the
internet; and start figuring out who their collaborators are and route around
them. This is a great first start, but we need to get companies like google to
refuse to allow the MPAA & RIAA to use any of their value add products
(gmail/calendar/etc).

~~~
nazgulnarsil
Is there a peerblock list for SOPA supporting companies?

------
rjurney
Maybe all us angry nerds should OCCUPY something. Something big, related to
SOPA. It would be cool to see EFF type concerns channeled into that movement.

~~~
philwelch
The "Occupy" movement is a sinking ship run by anarchists. It's literally an
expression of incoherent rage. I think a traditional, well-organized, on-
message movement against SOPA would do a lot better than throwing in with OWS.

~~~
forensic
Expressions of incoherent rage have fuelled the majority of social change in
history.

~~~
AndyKelley
My conclusion after learning European history for the first time was that
revolutions don't happen until people are starving.

------
DavidSJ
I'm virulently anti-SOPA myself, have signed all the petitions, etc. But am I
the only one made uncomfortable by a blacklist of people who have expressed
certain opinions?

~~~
pork
If you think about it, hunters are rarely invited to wildlife fundraisers, fur
clothing manufacturers to PETA meetings, and creationists to NAS meetings --
all because of opinions expressed by each party. Dissent is part of a modern
life, and not inviting people to private events is a perfectly legitimate way
of voicing that dissent.

~~~
DavidSJ
The examples you gave are all of events which are _defined by_ some belief or
cause, whose opponents would simply be out of place if present. That's very
different from what's going on here, where the bearers of a particular opinion
are being excluded from a business relationship as a punishment for expressing
an opinion which is only circuitously related to that business relationship.

~~~
pork
I don't see how SOPA is "circuitously" related, since YC deals with Internet
companies and SOPA is damaging to fundamental bits of Internet infrastructure.
IMO, it's no different from the PETA/fur manufacturer analogy in that the
viewpoints are almost diametrically opposed.

~~~
DavidSJ
I did not say SOPA was merely circuitously related to YC. I said it was merely
circuitously related to YC's relationship with the blacklisted company.

On the one hand, we may have:

A) Avoiding a business arrangement because the counter party has behaved
unethically. or B) Avoiding a business arrangement because it would make poor
business sense.

On the other hand, we may have:

C) Avoiding a business arrangement because the counter party has expressed
views you disapprove of.

I am advocating against (C) on the grounds that it is an attempt to intimidate
people into silence.

Your scenarios are all of the form (A) or (B). Hunters and clothing
manufacturers have _acted_ in ways which some judge to be unethical, and hence
they may be ostracized _for their actions_ (A). Anti-evolutionists have
demonstrated by their words a misunderstanding of science, and hence their
participation in NAS would make poor "business sense" (B).

All GoDaddy and others have done, in this case, is express an opinion. Now, if
the reason were, as Paul Graham says, that "these companies are so clueless
about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, [so they cannot] be good
investors", then this would be an example of avoiding an arrangement for
making poor business sense (B), rather than punishing others for expressing
their views (C). But do you really believe this is what's going on here, as
opposed to merely a post-hoc rationalization? I'll certainly concede that
support for SOPA reasonably _calls into question_ an organization's
understanding of the Internet and therefore their merit as a business partner,
but an outright boycott, as opposed to mere caution, clearly goes beyond what
is warranted by simple concern for one's own business, and becomes an attempt
to silence others.

~~~
sycren
I would say though that in addition to C) you should change to ..has expressed
views you disapprove of that have direct consequences to your business.

I think though you would be right if C) was more simplistic and ineffectual to
you like.. I would not do business with x because they use goDaddy for
hosting. No?

------
malandrew
Which companies on the list send people to Demo Day?

------
mverwijs
PG: How did you arrive at this action when concerning Monsanto I understood
your comments as something along the lines of "that's just the way of things
work in the world of corporations"?

------
rbanffy
Thanks for standing up for us all, pg.

------
vijayr
may be we should stop watching the movies of the supporting studios (and
giving them money directly or indirectly) - much harder to do, but would be
quite effective

------
dickbasedregex
My company has about 35 domains and SSL certs through GoDaddy. I've always
loathed them but I can't justify the cost of transferring over. Is anyone
offering a discounted option to jump ship?

~~~
dickbasedregex
Just found discount list on Reddit:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supp...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supports_sopa_im_transferring_51_domains/)

------
webinsiders
GODADDY is acting like we're bluffing and basically challenging us to try and
make a dent in their business. Read this!

Update (6:18 PM): GoDaddy seems unimpressed by the boycott so far. They made
the following statement to Ars Technica: "Go Daddy has received some emails
that appear to stem from the boycott prompt, but we have not seen any impact
to our business. We understand there are many differing opinions on the SOPA
regulations."

------
robomc
> and many startups, such as Reddit

Can you call a 6 year old site, sold to a major media conglomerate, with some
of the highest traffic on the net a startup?

~~~
robryan
This seems common for anything that is rooted in new media and doesn't look
like the traditional newspapers and magazine websites. You still hear the word
startup used with Facebook and twitter occasionally even though they at
clearly not.

------
mostlyListening
So if SOPA fails to pass and stops being an issue, will that boycott end or
will it continue?

Going by PG's reasoning (If these companies are so clueless about technology
that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?") then
it should continue until there are major changes the leaderships of those
companies. Right?

~~~
TheCowboy
That's a good question, and tough one to figure out. This applies to anyone
who wants to deprive these companies of their support.

From my perspective, these attempts will not stop, and will take on new forms
of bills. We have had to deal with bad bills since during the Clinton
administration/Republican-controlled congress.

Some people call for 'Internet freedom' laws, but what is stopping the next
congressional class from weakening or negating these laws without amending the
Constitution?

My own view is that it will take a long time for these attempts to cease.
Worst case, efforts will peter out until the generation who did not grow up
with the Internet are no longer with us.

------
geebee
I just saw that the USTA (United States Tennis Association) supports SOPA.
What a disappointment. This is the organization that manages the US Open and
other pro tennis tournaments, but it's also the group that manages amateur
leagues and tournaments.

I've been thinking about just playing ultimatetennis instead, maybe this is
the time.

------
austenallred
It's not only about Congressmen and Congresswomen being in the back pockets of
big corporations. If you watch the hearings you realize that 90% of them don't
understand enough technology to know what DNS is. They are persuaded by the
people that are bought, and it goes from there.

------
jerfelix
Amazingly, nine out of the top ten articles on the front page are SOPA related
(if you count Louis CK's personal distribution, which seems to me to be an
experiment in fighting the xIAA organizations.)

------
aestetix_
pg, thank you so much for doing this. You rock.

------
pan69
I sincerely hope that many Internet companies such as Facebook and Google will
follow this initiative by removing all these companies from their databases.

------
satyajit
Found this link from a comment thread on TechCrunch: commenter (Nick Such)
said, jhalf of the YC companies may be affected:
<http://jpf.github.com/domain-profiler/ycombinator.html>. But this graph is (I
think) earlier on Dec 22nd. Will be interesting to see how the graph looks
like after that day's mayhem!

------
Bud
Paul Graham: Thank you for this incredibly forceful and ballsy move. I almost
applauded out loud after reading this.

------
readme
Looks like the link to the Sopa Supporters.pdf file was taken down, so here's
a backup, courtesy of google docs:

[https://docs.google.com/open?id=1-fTQaHJmvOAe78mGBBRSeFdRLoR...](https://docs.google.com/open?id=1-fTQaHJmvOAe78mGBBRSeFdRLoR9mgJYaIIPd3Cowy_P0ReiJF-
lt9rv7FG7)

------
johnrob
As much as I support the anti SOPA cause, is this more of a hunger strike than
a consequential action? The startups presenting at demo day need those dollars
a whole lot more than the corporate venture arms need the investments. Money
is money, no matter how stupid it may be.

~~~
gasull
SOPA is going to hurt our industry so much. It's going to be destructive for
Silicon Valley.

Taking a stand is necessary. YC startups are going to have much a harder time
is SOPA passes. Even from just an economic point of view, it's better to take
some loses now than taking higher loses in the future.

~~~
johnrob
A sacrifice is worth it assuming it provides some benefit to the cause. I'm
not sure if this action is going to have any effect (hopefully I'm wrong
though).

------
briankim
This is pretty awesome indeed.

------
bokchoi
GoDaddy no longer supports SOPA:

[http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-
view.aspx?news_ite...](http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-
view.aspx?news_item_id=378&isc=smtwsup)

------
jwblackwell
This is great news, but I still feel that more leading industry figures need
to step forward the same way PG has and make clear their stance on SOPA.

Hopefully PGs move will encourage others to follow suit.

------
kposehn
Smart move. This is a clear way to send a signal to SOPA supporting companies:
supporting this bill may cut you out of some of the best investment
opportunities in the world.

------
rbanffy
In case someone takes the list down,

[http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/blog_en/companies-that-
suppo...](http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/blog_en/companies-that-support-sopa)

Enjoy.

------
dontbelame
Excellent! Props to PG for standing up against SOPA. Media company wants to
take the free internet away from us. We cannot afford to have SOPA passed!!

------
cechmaster
Just gained a ton of respect for you YC

------
andrewhillman
A bomb was just dropped! This is a badass stand that sends a strong and direct
message to anyone tied to a SOPA supporter. It will be interesting to see if
venture funds start to cut ties w/ SOPA supporters.

------
moses1400
anyone have a list of the companies that were part of SOPA that attended
either of the last two demo days?

------
inaworldofideas
Paul Graham. Hero.

~~~
ypcx
Not sure why you are getting downvoted. Let's call things and people the right
names.

 _"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing."_

------
joezhou
balls, PG has them.

------
bambax
PG is quoted in the article as saying ”I don’t know exactly which companies
had people on the list. But I know which will now: none of them.”

That's fine and admirable, but on the practical side, if he doesn't know who's
who, how is he going to enforce this rule?

~~~
Flenser
From the article:

 _Graham told me in a followup email that he was indeed serious and had just
given the list of SOPA supporters to the people in charge of the Demo Day
invites_

It's not PG who needs to know, it's the people he's put in charge of Demo Day.

~~~
bambax
Yes, I read that too, and that's my point: he doesn't make the invitations
himself; just because you trust an organisation to do something doesn't mean
you can dispense yourself from verifying they did what they were asked to do.

The "people in charge of the Demo Day invites" probably have enormous
incentives to invite influential and powerful employees from SOPA-supporting
companies, and would certainly face backslash they'd rather do without.

So what I think is happening is that PG just added "manage invitations to Demo
Day" to his todo list... (all the most admirable BTW)

~~~
Flenser
The people in charge of the Demo Day invites work for PG. They're just running
an event, they don't care if any specific organisations attend it apart from
the criteria given to them by PG.

~~~
bambax
Oh well, if they're simply Y Combinator employees it's as you say; I read that
as if it meant they were a contractor ("the people in charge" vs. "us/we").

------
Patrick_Bateman
Boom, headshot.

Mmmmmaybe these companies are all so clueless that they think it's a good
idea. Far more likely, they know what they're doing is bad, but choose to do
it anyway because there's no downside for them.

It's like people who are deliberate assholes in public because they
(correctly) gamble that no one will risk punching them in the face.

Well I for one fully support punching SOPA supporters in the face. This is as
good a start as any.

------
d0vs
Am I the only one thinking that this is censorship too?

edit: censorship _

~~~
theorique
YC demo day is a private event hosted by a private organization. As such, YC
has the right to determine the kind of entities that are allowed to be present
at the event.

And YC / pg have determined that the kind of companies that would support SOPA
are unlikely to make good investors in YC portfolio companies. No censorship,
just a business decision.

~~~
thebigshane
Curious: Aren't ISPs and payment processing companies also private
organizations? Are DNS "name servers"?

I don't disagree with PG's stance here and I don't think it is censorship, but
you must admit that these are "just business decisions" for these parties as
well (possibly even Congress)

~~~
marshray
The term for large ISPs and DNS systems is "common carriers". They are
qualitatively different than a Y Combinator.

~~~
thebigshane
I think you might be wrong.

According to wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier>

    
    
       Internet Service Providers have argued against being 
       classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have 
       managed to do so [...] Because ISPs are no longer 
       prohibited from discriminating among different types of 
       content under common carrier law [...]

~~~
marshray
That's maybe an interesting discussion in its own right, but I think the fact
that they're "arguing against" it means it was at least a relevant example.

A much better example would have been "The Power Company", a formally-
regulated utility. The phone, electric, or gas utility is not allowed to
refuse you service simply because they don't like your politics or your
business judgment the way a Y Combinator can.

------
_THE_PLAGUE
This controversy to me seems eerily similar to the so-called "SCO Wars" when
the SCO Group defended her intellectual property rights against looters like
IBM and Novell. This act will help to prevent tragedies such as what happened
to SCO from occuring in the future, by making it more difficult to pirate
other people's code. I do not see why some people think that is a bad thing.
Darl McBride was right. He might have lost the suit, but I think history will
vindicate him, and SOPA is part of that vindication.

