
Progress against SOPA - sathishmanohar
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/internet-censorship-sopa/
======
slowpoke
_> So if we can make it through the next 20-25 years, the people in power will
protect technology for us, not fear it._

No, they won't. They will be the same corporate sellouts as they are today
because we keep thinking like this. That mentality needs to die.

We cannot rely on those in power to "protect technology for us" - or anything
else, for that matter. We have to do it ourselves. The situation won't
magically fix itself just because we sheepishly wait for two or three decades.

People have to realize that most, if not all authority is naturally opposed to
progress. Authority depends on the status quo, and will try everything in its
power to preserve that. The internet is probably the largest threat to
authority in the history of mankind. The recoil against it therefore was not
only predictable, but inevitable.

The internet as it is today is the largest functioning system of anarchy that
has ever existed - and on a planetary scale, no less. That's scary to some
people, if not utterly terrifying. But it's the way forward. Authority trying
to preserve itself by all means possible is nothing new. It's to be expected,
and must likewise be resisted with every available countermeasure - _atterete
dominatum_.

~~~
Matt_Cutts
My point is that in 20-25 years, the fight to protect the internet will be
easier--not completely hands off, but easier--because more people will
understand technology. But in the mean time, we absolutely do have to take
action to protect the net ourselves.

~~~
roc
> _"more people will understand technology"_

When has this ever happened? As technologies approach the refinement of
appliances, it looks to me like the general understanding plummets. Under-the-
hood complexity all but kills the tinker class and buries the professional
class in detail that further muddies their attempts to talk to the average
person.

Consider hardware issues. In absolute numbers there may be more hardware
tinkers than 25 years ago. But as a ratio of technologists, they're shrinking.
And as relevant to popular opinion and voting, the general public has no more
(though not clearly less) understanding or appreciation for hardware freedom
issues. Trusted computing, _the_ issue of yesterday's hardware freedom
battles, is simply the reality of mobile computing.

~~~
brlewis
If the RIAA tried today to lobby for a law that all Interstate highways
include checkpoints to search cars for infringing copies of movies or books,
they wouldn't find a sponsor. This is not because the public has a deep
understanding of auto mechanics. It's because the public understands that
traveling at highway speeds is desirable and checkpoints to serve a special
interest are not. It's hard to sway people today by arguing that highways make
it too easy to transport infringing copies.

~~~
roc
> _"It's because the public understands that traveling at highway speeds is
> desirable and checkpoints to serve a special interest are not."_

15 years ago I'd be agreeing with you. But the drunk driving checkpoints, the
Patriot Act checkpoints, border security and the TSA nonsense makes it a
little difficult for me to trust the public's ability to recognize serving a
special interest for what it is, when it's bearing a promise that honest
citizens have nothing to fear.

If the RIAA _were_ lobbying for checkpoints, if they insisted it would only
affect "rogue" streets and that the critics of their proposal were just those
who profited from the flow of illegal goods, I honestly would not feel
comfortable enough to bet money on whether people pushed back.

~~~
brc
Absolutely. The madness of TSA checkpoints which everyone glibly accepts while
privately thinking it is a giant waste of time proves your point well.

Everyone always thinks these things will make things better for them, while
assuming it will cost them nothing.

And as always, some hawk will be saying 'won't someone think of the children'.

------
mquander
_So if we can make it through the next 20-25 years, the people in power will
protect technology for us, not fear it._

Remind me how well this has worked out for the War on Drugs.

~~~
adgar
That's the thing - its not just about the representative and his/her values,
it's about the constituents. There's still too many people alive and voting
who oppose eg marijuana legalization to touch it. I think that's going to take
another couple decades of attrition.

Luckily, even old people like the Internet.

~~~
marquis
There are also a lot of young people being brought up conservative. I don't
believe conservatism is going to magically disappear after a few generations,
we can only hope that exposure to global cultures build tolerance: to spread
global culture we need an open internet so it's our responsibility to fight
for this, as I see it (though, that statement is a given in here).

~~~
thyrsus
I hope that's true. I'm worried that it will be too easy to avoid reality by
staying with comfortable, ideologically compatible sources -- which is a
problem regardless of ideology.

------
swalkergibson
It seems to me that if Google, Facebook, etc. really wanted to effect change,
just redirect their homepages to a message about SOPA and why this legislation
is detrimental to the economy, etc. That would be better than any lobbying
money spent in Congress. It could be the "emergency broadcast system" of
sorts. I suspect that the inundation of phone calls from constituents unable
to search for Thanksgiving recipes utilizing their favorite search engine
would make my vote awfully easy.

~~~
waterside81
This is a _fantastic_ point. While perhaps it would be too detrimental to
their respective services (how many $/min would Google and its ad partners
lose?), this would really hit people across the US quickly and hopefully piss
them of enough to phone someone.

------
redthrowaway
So it looks like we're headed for a temporary reprieve, and that's great, but
as long as Big Content continues to lobby as heavily as it does, we will
continue to face these attacks on the Internet. What are companies like Google
doing to ensure that the Internet is not run by Hollywood? At some point, the
tech industry is going to have to hold its nose and get into the lobbying game
in a serious way if we want to prevent future attacks like SOPA. We are in no
way helped by the fact that a lot of software companies lobbied in support of
it. How are we going to counteract that, if not with increased lobbying
efforts?

~~~
waqf
I'm confused by at least the tone of your question, because this is _exactly_
what companies like Google are doing to ensure that the Internet is not run by
Hollywood. They testified against SOPA in Congress, and Matt Cutts' article
includes a bar graph showing how much they spent lobbying.

~~~
buff-a
10% of what the other team spent.

------
oldstrangers
Off topic, but the large 'Stop Censorship' banner on Matt's site makes it look
like 'Stop Censorship and SEO'. Too funny.

Screenshot: <http://i.imgur.com/aXST6.jpg>

~~~
snowwrestler
Considering Matt's day job, that might not be an accident! :-)

------
snowwrestler
I don't think the fight is really "Hollywood vs. Internet" since there are
some tech companies who are big on the Internet, who have not come out against
the bill--like Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, etc. I'm guessing that it is
more of a fight between business models--distributing "pro" content vs.
aggregating user-generated content.

There are some fine lines being walked in the tech industry. Microsoft hates
piracy of their package software, but Bing would face all the same legal
issues under SOPA that Google would.

Google wants to maximize freedom for Search and YouTube, but they are also
trying to buddy up to big content for products like Google TV and the new
music service.

~~~
bad_user
The BSA changed their position: <http://t.co/jSw3i6bf>

I also think that whatever support for SOPA there is inside Microsoft or Apple
or the others (if they indeed support SOPA) has nothing to do with _piracy of
their package software_.

Microsoft at least was built by thriving on piracy. For instance China is one
of the biggest consumers of pirated Microsoft software. Do you know what
people would do if the Chinese government would find a way to force people to
comply right now? Some of them would buy Windows / Office, but a majority
won't as Windows / Office is too expensive relative to their monthly income.
However China is the biggest emerging market and Microsoft would be stupid to
prefer the revenue of a couple of users versus the domination of an entire
market full of possibilities.

Just as in the case of software patents, these companies aren't interested in
protecting their _innovations_. Instead they are interesting in having bullets
to attack disruptive competition.

It's all about preserving the status quo.

~~~
snowwrestler
The BSA is trying to walk the same fine line as everyone else.

------
nopinsight
I am not a US citizen, but looking at the graph, I really wonder...given that
the stake is quite high and their collective cash hoard is huge, why don't the
Internet companies spend more on lobbying?

I understand it's not their nature to do so, but the practical considerations
certainly encourage that, right? Or are there other non-obvious factors
involved?

------
pdx

        - Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic
         Representative Nancy Pelosi came out against the bill.
    

I wonder if there was, perhaps, a much more well known Republican
Representative that came out against the bill at the same time Issa did, and
if so, why he wasn't mentioned?

~~~
barry-cotter
I hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul has way less influence on the
Republican establishment than whoever the hell Issa, because he doesn't play
ball. Also there's media bias, but mostly it's that he, and those like him,
have next to no influence _because they don't shift the median._

------
sanderson1
It's good to see that at least some people in power hear the voice of reason
over the voices of lobbyists.

------
jeffreymcmanus
It is freaking crazy that a progress report concerning a piece of public
legislation should have to contain a bar graph comparing which side has spent
more money.

When money influences the outcome, something other than democracy is at work.

------
sir_charles804
This is awesome everybody should follow the links at the bottom of the page to
help out!

