

What I Wish Wikipedia and Others Were Saying Today About SOPA/PIPA - jzb
http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2012/01/what-i-wish-wikipedia-and-othe.php

======
DrCatbox
There must be an alternative to SOPA/PIPA/NDAA, we must push for "Free and
open Internets Act" - fair game for all, "Packet Network Liberty Act" - no to
government protecting failing business models/corporations, and "Liberties of
the internets Act" - unsupervised liberty to connect and communicate unless
there is strong court order for surveillence.

------
polymatter
I sympathize with the sentiment, but I think that saying "what's even more
important is that you start paying attention and demand better from your
government" is a little antagonistic and will raise conspiracy nut bells.
Despite it being absolutely true. And even if they do pay attention most
people are defeatist on politics changing.

I am no patio11, but they should be stressing SOPA/PIPA as an anti-jobs bills
that will destroy Silicon Valley and won't even protect Hollywood jobs.
Perhaps employ the fear of China or terrorism to make it seem important too.
And most of all, Silicon Valley should be sending highly paid lobbyists too to
make laws in their interests.

Maybe I'm overly cynical, but relying on public engagement in the long-term is
folly.

~~~
rhino42
But a intermediate stance, such as "you should use more than just mass media
to learn your issues: consider these five websites" could be an effective
message (if people actually browsed those websites / got informed)

~~~
toyg
I think that's already happened, actually.

Mainstream news channel didn't cover SOPA/PIPA until very late; the press
didn't know what they were about, and when they did they just kept mum out of
self-interest. Nevertheless, a very large mass of people noticed, enough to
make extremely powerful congressmen like Smith sweat cold -- that's a _very_
significant number of people who clearly rely on "alternative" online sources
for their news and entertainment _right now_. Are they majority? The next few
months (and votes) will tell us.

15 years ago, the DMCA passed with no real opposition. Now, this bill could
actually be defeated. The shift might have already happened, and if not, it's
really, really close. One day we'll look back trying to find a turning point
(the rise of Google? Wikipedia? Facebook?), but I bet historians will set it
before 2012.

------
dmor
Reposting my blog comment here (because I know people don't read all the way
down):

I agree and we need to all become more vigilant. I also implore you, as a
member of the news media who is paying attention - please help us stay
informed. Government is big and complex and we laymen have work to accomplish
day-to-day. Help us find information, point us to new sources, new ideas.
Challenge us. Its not that we can't think, but simply that we are busy
producing and I personally feel their are few news sorces that give me the
facts, respect my intelligence, and dig in deep.

------
MarkTraceur
Here's another way of looking at it:

We can get Congress to vote down SOPA/PIPA, or alternatively get the next
Congress to repeal it, but there's a fundamental flaw in the way that _we_ ,
the consumers, do business. Yes, our Congress is taking severe steps in the
wrong direction, but we contributed significantly to that direction as well.

The permanent solution is not to stop one law or even a multitude of laws in
perpetuity. The permanent solution is to change the methods by which we create
(and allow to be created) copyrighted material. That means encouraging the use
of Creative Commons and Free Software licenses like the GPL, Apache, BSD, and
WTFPL (to name a few). We, as consumers, need to make shifts that not only
deny these laws to affect us to our detriment, but also deny the companies
supporting these laws the money to push them through.

In short, America and the rest of the world contributed heavily to these
actions by Congress. Even as these laws get voted down, we must start to take
steps that prevent them from happening again.

------
michaelochurch
SOPA has relieved me of any illusion that the Democratic Party is at all
useful or decent. They're just as bad as the other guys.

I will be likely voting Republican (for the first time in my life) for at
least some of the 2012 elections, out of my commitment to vote against any
incumbent who supports or votes for SOPA. Vote the bastards out. #FireSOPA
#FirePIPA

~~~
weaksauce
wait a second...

I count nine Republican initial supporters and four Democrat initial
supporters. Where are you getting the "...illusion that the Democratic Party
is at all useful or decent" part at all?

from Wikipedia(you know how to get there still):

The Stop Online Piracy Act was introduced by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX)
and was initially co-sponsored by Howard Berman (D-CA), Marsha Blackburn
(R-TN), Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), John Conyers (D-MI), Ted
Deutch (D-FL), Elton Gallegly (R-CA), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Timothy Griffin
(R-AR), Dennis A. Ross (R-FL), Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Lee Terry (R-NE). As of
January 16, 2012, there were 31 sponsors.[82]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporte...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporters)

I think both sides are terrible but to lambaste one side for something that
they didn't do is bad reporting.

~~~
jessriedel
> I count nine Republican initial supporters and four Democrat initial
> supporters. Where are you getting the "...illusion that the Democratic Party
> is at all useful or decent" part at all?

The OP's whole point is that the Democratic party is _arguably_ less bad than
the Republicans, but that they are still very bad and deserve no loyalty. Your
pointing out that more Republicans initially supported the bill does not
conflict with this.

Here is a list by propublica.org which lists likely supporters and opponents
for SOPA/PIPA.

<http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/>

I count 37 Republicans and 43 Democrats on the list of supporters. I count 14
Republicans and 17 Democrats on the list of opponents.

~~~
weaksauce
I understand that they are about equally as bad; I don't understand the
conclusion: "vote republican because those democrats are bad." If anything
vote libertarian or independent to show disapproval. Vote against the people
in your congress/senate that support it.

I am not going to argue here which one is less bad because that's pointless
and off topic. I am merely pointing out the logical disconnect that I saw.

~~~
jessriedel
Well, you misinterpreted. The conclusion of michaelochurch was decidedly _not_
to "vote republican because those democrats are bad." He said

> I will be likely voting Republican (for the first time in my life) for at
> least some of the 2012 elections, _out of my commitment to vote against any
> incumbent who supports or votes for SOPA_

~~~
repsilat
This is the important point - the US doesn't have a strong party system.
Senators aren't evicted from their party when they cross the party line like
they are in other countries.

Outside of the presidential election, voters in the US don't vote for the
Democratic Party or the Republican Party, they vote for their electoral
reprentative. The party of the representatives on offer might be a decent
heuristic for their policies and values, but the informed voter has a lot more
information at their fingertips than just that.

~~~
bricestacey
Worse, with a 2 party system you can't necessarily vote for your preferred
candidate. In most cases, elections are so skewed toward Democrat/Republican
candidates and often are so close between the two that you have no short-term
effect unless you vote for the Democratic or Republican you hate the least.

------
guelo
The unified message should have been a simple 'keep the internet free' or some
such simple slogan.

------
femto
Perhaps the threat will dissipate over time, despite the electorates limited
attention span, since the electorate is continually voting with its eyeballs
and brain space?

Murdoch (and ilk) are terrified of the Internet, as it dilutes their
influence. Once their influence dilutes past a certain point, people and
politicians will stop listening to them. Is SOPA the beginning of the end, a
final effort at shoring up their power base before reaching the point of no
return to influence?

------
irishloop
That sounds like it's going to cut into my American Idol voting time.

------
nirvana
The fundamental problem is the US government has essentially unlimited power
(despite the legal basis for its existence, the constitution) and has
manipulated the courts and the elections process such that there's little
anyone can do about it.

Many of these really egregious bills are unpopular with the majority of
americans, but their opinions are not represented by the actions of
government. There's little they can do to get real reformers elected because
the "two party" system focuses on immaterial differences between the parties
and on these issues the parties are pretty close. Most democrats and
republicans voted for the PATRIOT ACT (and its renewal and extension under
Obama) as well as NDAA, etc.

I'd love for someone to find a way to make democracy work. If there were a way
to keep the US government constrained to the powers enumerated for it by the
constitution, then we wouldn't have these problems.

But the only "checks and balances" on the government are all part of the
government, and thus have long ago been compromised, there's no real
oversight.

That's the fundamental problem.

If SOPA is "defeated" it will just rise up under another name in a few months.

SOPA itself is only the latest attempt to do this- they've been attempting to
gain this level of control over the internet using the excuse of fighting
terrorism for several years now.

~~~
moultano
The two party system is an inevitable outcome of the election system we have.
The game theory dictates it. Switch to approval
voting(<http://www.electology.org/approval-voting>) and we'll have a much more
responsive and ethical government.

In a winner take all system, if there are more than two candidates, the
dominant effect is the spoiler effect, where having more similar candidates
makes it less likely that any will win. This means that anything more than two
parties is degenerate, which implies that only the dominant eigenvector of
political opinion will ever be reflected in an election. (Which in the US is
typically the culture wars/identity politics, unless the economy is falling
apart.)

~~~
farnsworth
I've thought a system like this would be great, but it seems like we would end
up with so many candidates that it would be difficult to make informed
decisions for every one. Then congress would become fragmented with dozens of
factions that don't work together. It seems like a system of a small number of
large parties (but more than 2, perhaps) would be most efficient. I suspect
that there's a solution but couldn't find one in the link.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Then congress would become fragmented with dozens of factions that don't
> work together.

That sounds like an _excellent_ outcome. They might actually have to talk to
each other, work out solutions that work for everyone, and refrain from doing
things they can't all agree on.

------
pasbesoin
Amen

------
rmc
Erk, this is getting very politic-y and not the sort of content that should be
on HN. I've flagged this.

