
I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do? - kn0thing
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/83688294/
======
edw519
Alexis, you did great. Cool, calm, collected, and sharp. You did a great job
advocating what most of us here understand and champion.

But here is the problem I see with this whole SOPA debate...

I didn't see anything that would help my Uncle Art understand what this is all
about in _his language_ and why he should care.

This is what he sees:

    
    
      - There is a bill in congress.
      - It's to stop people from stealing other peoples' stuff.
      - There are strong opinions on both sides.
      - The old companies I love (movies, etc.) support it.
      - The Chamber of Commerce (mother, apple pie) supports it.
      - This young guy was very articulate; I like him.
      - I don't understand the Constitutional argument.
      - He says this new stuff wouldn't have happened. So what?
      - What is reddit?
      - I thought Facebook was for kids.
      - Who is Louie CK? I really don't understand what he did.
      - Why is the internet so afraid of ethical behavior?
    

There is another comment in this thread by squeee which is the first one I
read that my Uncle Art would understand, something like, "If someone shoplifts
in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." I
could just picture my uncle raising holy hell if that ever happened.

I read the comments in this thread before I watched the video (like I usually
do), so I was waiting for Alexis to say something like squeee said. Something
that would get the great mass of those who don't understand the argument to
take notice and take action.

Alexis, keep up the good fight. And find a way to get our aunts, uncles, and
grandparents to "get it". I believe that will be the turning point of the
battle.

~~~
DevX101
Despite my differences with much of the Republican party platform, one thing
that they are damn good at and I respect them for is an ability to communicate
with their target base.

Where's there's a hot topic issue, the Republicans will come out in lockstep
with voices on the same wavelength. They use clear and simple language with a
single antagonist. In the really big battles they even coin phrases like
'Obamacare', 'Death tax', & 'energy exploration', that succinctly convey their
point of view. Each of those phrases will be used repeatedly by every
Republican on TV, until their opponents (Democrats) even adopt the same
language they've invented.

This why I like that 'shoplifter in the store' analogy. Its pretty simple and
relatable to just about anyone. On the topic of language though, the opponents
of SOPA should be creating their own word/phrase. If we refer to SOPA as
'online piracy', then we've already conceded more ground that we need to.

~~~
wes-exp
Agreed. So here's how we do it.

This is the word: _Prohibition_. It's our "death panels".

This is how you tell it to grandma:

    
    
      - The music & movie industries want a Prohibition on user-created content.
      - When radio was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
      - When cable TV was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
      - When the VCR was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
      - Now Youtube and many other websites have been invented.
      - Youtube is very entertaining; you can watch funny cat videos all day long.
      - They want the Government to create a Prohibition on Youtube.

~~~
pfraze
I don't think that's accurate enough. 'Prohibition' is better for the War on
Drugs, which draws a more meaningful connection to the 20s.

If I had to paint in broad, evocative strokes, I'd claim the industries are
using the government to prop up their outdated business models by destroying
competition from users.

So I'd suggest 'Monopoly.'

~~~
enjalot
I don't like 'Monopoly' because most people don't recognize that as a
fundamental problem. In fact in the case of media, monopoly is assumed as
necessary to provide you with what you want (hundred million dollar
blockbuster films).

The key thing to focus on is the imbalance of power SOPA creates and how that
will end up getting in the way of Uncle Art's evening entertainment. So far
the shoplifting shutting down the store analogy is the most pointed I've
heard, but still not a catch phrase.

~~~
wes-exp
I find the shoplifting analogy decent, but the main flaw I see is that it
keeps the discussion framed around crimes being committed and what is the
punishment. Even if the punishment is seen as really extreme, centuries of
legislation have shown that being "tough on crime" is extremely popular.

My hope with the term 'Prohibition' is to turn it around and put the focus on
the evil being done by the media companies. They want the government take away
your rights, because they don't want to compete fair and square with web
technologies.

~~~
pfraze
Fair points on Prohibition. It definitely has the negative-only effect that
you'd want; I'll have to think about it.

Here's an analogy I've been using that might work: "They're tying your hands
behind your back so you have to pay them to feed you."

------
aspir
It was really strong! However, since that's not the most constructive line,
I'll try to point out a few things :)

1) Some would recommend not saying "I think" or "I feel" in interview
situations. You're the expert -- what you say is fact and the truth. It simply
_is_ , not what "you think." I know this is a belligerent, but his is a big
issue, so don't forget to pull out the rhetorical stops. However, "we think"
may work in these instances. It's congenial, yet conveys that you have the
backing of many (and you do, quite frankly), and that you are a thought
leader.

2) You need to begin to build some sort of presence in Washington. You're well
positioned to do so, and it's the most likely way to stop SOPA/PIPA. Get
meetings with as many elected official there as you can, and educate them.
It's what Big Media does, and its how they wrote SOPA/PIPA. If you don't think
our policymakers know enough about the internet, teach them -- they're smart
people, all in all. IIRC you had some success with individual meetings during
the first SOPA/PIPA hearings, so you know what I mean. Bloomberg interviews,
boycotts, and blackouts are incredibly valuable, but they all pale in
comparison to meetings with people who vote on the policy.

Point 2 will of course prompt the question "How the heck is Alexis supposed to
meet with these guys, cmon?" My answer: you're an entrepreneur. Hustle. Do
what it takes :)

~~~
kn0thing
Thanks! I prefer the constructive stuff.

1) Yes, you're absolutely right - it matters and I've gotta break the habit.

2) I actually had a really productive set of meetings with a bunch of reps,
sens, and their staffs back in Nov. One of whom, Chaffetz [R-Utah], has been a
good voice of reason in House Judiciary Committee Meetings:
[https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo...](https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmovJ1)
I'm doing everything I can to go back - and early signs are looking promising.

------
squeee
I love how everyone keeps asking where is the compromise from the tech
industry. This bill is like someone saying "Hi Bob, this store you have here
is great, but sometimes someone comes in and steals one of my products off
your shelves and since you can't guarantee me that I will get paid for every
one of my products that walks out the door I'm going to have to shut down your
store until you can."

But, to answer your question; great job. Did you get the sense that she truly
had any idea what would happen if SOPA/PIPA pass as they are written today?

~~~
JoshTriplett
> I love how everyone keeps asking where is the compromise from the tech
> industry.

Politics lives by the fallacy of middle ground: the compromise is _always_
right, and anyone refusing to compromise is _always_ wrong and can be safely
ignored. Put that together with the Overton window
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window>), and politics compromises its
way towards whatever position it wants. Zeno's Paradox, applied to law.

------
kevinalexbrown
_Some criticisms on style:_

\- You said "you know" reflexively while she asked questions.

\- You look young. The cool hair (which I like, personally) makes you look
even younger.

\- You bob your head.

\- You mentioned PIPA without defining it. Most people you need to convince
won't know what you're talking about.

\- Emphasizing "One Million Dollars!" doesn't sound too huge compared with how
often we hear "Billion" and "Trillion" thrown around in the news. LouisCK was
great, and it's a good point, but I think it doesn't make the point you want
to the people who don't already understand.

 _Some suggestions on content:_

Play up "government intervention is bad" even more. The conservative
electorate might be tough on crime, but they're also pro-business. Paint SOPA
as a government-subsidized bailout intervention evil that is anti-business and
taking away our constitutional rights.

People respect Google, and at least go "those people are smart!" even if they
don't get the internet. A lot of conservatives got traction against Obamacare
by saying "Doctors hate it, and we trust doctors." Play that up: Smart,
innovative businesses like Google oppose this government intervention in the
free market. We trust Google, etc. etc.

If I had one sentence to suggest it would be:

"SOPA lets the government intervene to take away the right to free speech from
trusted businesses like Google that are the future of our economy, just to
bail out the movie industry."

That's one hell of an oversimplification, but I think it's enough to perk up
ears. This isn't defense spending - conservatives don't necessarily have any
love for "Hollywood liberal PETA supporters" (as my mother puts it). In
Hollywood versus Google, Google at least has "pro-business" points. The thing
to remember is that _if they don't get the internet, the won't get your
explanation of any nuances._

~~~
sc00ter
"SOPA lets the government intervene [...] just to bail out the movie industry"

The implication here is that he movie industry is in trouble, and needs
bailing out. And no-one wants to see the movie industry go under.

Does Hollywood _really_ need a bail-out?

------
InclinedPlane
Notice the blatant verbal blunder the reporter makes in the first few minutes,
she says: _"SOPA would allow the government and private companies to shut down
websites enabling copyright infringement..."_

Is there a word missing there perhaps? A word that we've become accustomed to
in its routine presence in the media?

When members of the media talk about crimes the word "alleged" might as well
be "uh" given the frequency it drops from their mouths. But not here.

Even a news outlet as savvy as Bloomberg is utterly clueless about the
pitfalls of erasing the presumption of innocence and due process for the
online world.

------
ynniv
Quite a grilling from the nice lady. As usual her facts were shaky, and this
might be an important time to adopt more mainstream arguments. We're familiar
with the nuances, but often miss the important points.

1) These laws will not prevent IP infringement. They might not even reduce it.
They will definitely not increase profits.

2) These laws will hinder domestic innovation in software, but will not stop
innovation - it will just happen elsewhere (probably China).

3) Enforcement of these laws is extrajudicial. If someone does not like
something on a site, they can claim IP infringement and have the site removed
without a trial. That isn't even prudent, never-mind upholding the ideals of
Americans.

SOPA and PIPA won't help Hollywood, will cripple Silicon Valley, and will
create a means of silencing unwanted speech. I can't see how anyone who
understands the reality of the situation could support them. You might as well
legislate sunny days and outlaw umbrellas.

I'm glad that you spoke for all of us in such a public manner. It takes nerve
and resolve to stand in front of that camera.

------
jiggity
Looking sharp. We're lucky to have a charismatic figure from our demographic
who can articulate the issues that matter to us.

\- From the outside-in perspective, you carry the impression of being a young,
successful, and likable Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

\- From the inside-out, you have the ultimate cred, not just for starting one
of the most influential online communities but imbuing it with your
distinctive ethos of caring, humor and nerd.

With these two identities, you're in the position to really help influence how
the future is shaped.

~~~
kn0thing
Thank you. reddit was started and sold from Somerville, MA though ;)

It's going to take much more than a few TV news appearances, though. It's on
all of us to motivate our friends & family to educate their representatives
about the horrors of these bills. We're on the right side of this, but it's
going to take a concerted effort from all of us to win the day.

I may be getting another chance to return to Washington later this month to
meet with decision-makers. I'll be back here to solicit feedback on my
testimony.

[https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo...](https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmovJ1)

Oh, and be sure to check out <http://engineadvocacy.org>

------
aidenn0
From my point of view, the 3 important points on SOPA, and your grade on them:

1) This will kill innovation in the US, hurting job growth.

    
    
       Mentioned
    

2) This will not prevent rogue sites from operating on the internet, meaning
we pay the cost of #1 without any real gain

    
    
       Not mentioned at all
    

3) There are good technical reasons why this is a bad idea

    
    
       Not mentioned at all.

~~~
fenugeek
What are the good technical reasons? Quick, give a canned 1min response ...See
I thought so. There are good technical reasons but I would probably not
mention this in a 3 minute tv interview where I couldn't expand

~~~
aidenn0
The good technical reasons are "Vint Cerf says so"

------
narrator
One thing to remember when arguing about SOPA in a forum that encompasses a
broader audience than Hacker News or Reddit is that not everyone is involved
in the internet industry or even primarily a knowledge worker.

Think about how to appeal to someone who is retried or involved in managing a
bakery or who runs a flower shop. We don't want to come off as a bunch of
elitist nerds. We want them to understand that we're concerned about the
future of innovation in this country and the preservation of free speech. We
should focus on explaining how SOPA wildly oversteps the bounds of reasonable
measures to prevent piracy and causes an enormous amount of collateral damage
to the rest of the economy and innovation.

The store analogy was a pretty good start, IMHO.

~~~
kn0thing
Yes, I think we're cooking up the perfect analogy in this thread. It needs to
be as honest as it is relatable as it is succinct :)

------
tomsaffell
Fantastic job. I have three suggestions on how to be even more fantastic next
time. These are all about presentation; I'm not suggesting any changes on
position.

1\. At 3.27 she asks, "..where's the compromise in-between, is there one?",
and you reply "Unfortunately, the way this technology works....", so three
seconds into your answer, applying a binary filter, your answer is "no".
Assuming your objective is to move the 'swing voters' towards your position,
that's probably not ideal. A more politic thing would be to say "Yes, there
is.. <details...>". Even if those details don't pertain to legislation at all,
you can still present it as a compromise in the sense that it gets the other
party the thing they ultimately want.

2\. Distance yourself further from the real bad guys and the _prime_ targets
of this legislation (some extreme example like counterfeit manufacturers of
safety equipment). You did this once or twice, but I think this point needs
hammering. Most people don't know that Reddit isn't some sketchy movie sharing
site. Do this in a way that demonstrates empathy for the other side. _I want
to help solve their problem, but this isn't the way_

3\. While I love what Louis CK did, and it is a good example of the type of
innovation big media should be trying, I don't think it's a great example to
bring into this debate - it's just too complicated for most people to
understand.

~~~
kn0thing
1) Gah, yes, I'm no politician, but there are better ways to pitch compromise.

2) I need to stress that this is well-intentioned legislation that is a
problem I want to help solve, just not this way.

3) Sigh. Yeah. I didn't expect that question and through out the first example
from recent history that came to mind.

Thanks! I hope there'll be a round 2.

------
Joakal
Does anyone have a transcript for those that are unable to parse video
content?

Alexis, did you talk about Internet Freedom? How anyone in the world can use
Internet to read about controversial topics, to share memories, etc. However,
certain industries can not compete in controlling topics, memories, etc, so
they are bringing the laws in, making website owners at the mercy of aging
industries?

Did you know that SOPA is just one of the many bills? I highly recommend
adopting Internet Freedom movement that seeks to clearly say any SOPA-related
restrictions are unacceptable. Otherwise, how do would you explain a bill
titled "Stop Online Child Pornography Act"?

Quite a mouthful, though.

I'd say SOPA is giving corporations the power to control Free Speech on the
Internet because it's illegal for the government to do so. If you don't want
the government or big companies to read what you type online, then demand
Internet Freedom.

------
Alex3917
I think the one weakness was using the phrase 'user-generated website' out of
context, because understanding what this means is really the key to getting
people to understand the implications of the bill. I think most people
probably have a vague idea of what user generated content is, but I'm not sure
they would have connected all the dots from just this phrase, in terms of
understanding why exactly the bill would cause sites like reddit, ebay,
google, etc. to get shut down. Overall pretty good though, especially
considering how insane live TV is.

~~~
kn0thing
How wrong is it to just simplify and say "websites?"

------
JacobIrwin
Great performance! For the amount of time they gave you to speak, you hit most
of the main points (and notably, using specific examples we've seen lately).

It's too bad she didn't open the window for you to stick a jab out at the
film/music industry - but you pretty much covered it [politely] by saying it's
up to them to innovate.

We all know the speed at which updated encryptions techniques are created and
then cracked. Thus, the film/music industry should not be looking to secure
their work (i.e. Blu-ray), but should instead explore and create new models
for distribution.

"Invent."

------
mashkeyboard
I know I'm late to the party, and I know you're looking for a sound bite, but
here is how I would put things. It might be a mouthful, but it is an actual
explanation (more or less) that relates to censorship in a concrete sense. I
think a lot of smart but less technically inclined people might appreciate
that.

Computers are like people that can talk incredibly fast. Two computers can now
exchange the contents of an entire book in the time it takes a person to speak
a single word. "Piracy" on the internet is the equivalent of declaring it
illegal to say certain combinations of words without permission.

A website is like a building where a very large number of visitors can talk to
each other using their computers. This is what makes the internet great. SOPA
will make it possible to shut down such a building if a single visitor says
one of the forbidden word combinations. If SOPA passes, such websites will be
forced to either forbid talking entirely, or attempt to prevent a huge number
of people from saying the forbidden word combinations, which would be
incredibly expensive and essentially impossible to do.

Thus, SOPA would make it legally possible to shut down virtually any website
that permits talking, effectively destroying the thing that made the internet
great in the first place.

Even with SOPA, people could still speak the forbidden words to one another in
the streets or in private buildings, so what was the point of SOPA again?

------
markkat
Very nice job. I like the 'no need for more government' tack. This is the
language that catches people's ears. If I don't understand the issue, my first
impression in "Looks like the government is keeping these smart tech kids
down."

I think one or two more simple 'take-aways' would help. I also think people
want to know why a company Facebook would be against SOPA. If they understood
that in the form of a simple example, that would go a long way. Everyone uses
Facebook.

Really great job. Very articulate. I would have added 50 ums. :/

------
shaggyfrog
Just in case anyone else is wondering, the video won't load if Ghostery is
running. Incredibly lame.

~~~
graywh
I had no problem with click-to-run enabled in Chrome.

------
jarrettcoggin
I really do agree with a lot of the points you made. The one thing I think you
failed to mention was that the in the past, these same companies that are
backing SOPA/PIPA fought previous technologies, such as public radio, VCRs/DVD
Burners, and DVR/TiVo. Ultimately, those channels did not hinder or kill the
industries they are fighting to protect, but rather provide them new methods
of distribution and new sources of revenue. They can choose to spend that
money on technological improve rather than on lobbying/litigation/drafting
legislation. We already see companies embracing the new technology and making
great improvements (Apple with iTunes, Pandora, Spotify, etc.), but the other
companies aren't keeping up with or using the technology to remain in the game
and/or relevant until they have no other choice.

Another point a coworker made is that we are squeezing the inefficiency out of
these systems. Models of business that worked well 10-50 years ago don't work
nearly as well or at all now because there is technology in place that
eliminates the need for some or all of the distribution methods in place that
they are trying to protect.

------
bictorman
Is denying the entertainment industry crisis out of the table?

You could mention the recent study from the swiss government:
[https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Juristische_Infos/e...](https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Juristische_Infos/e/press_releases/Medienmitteilung_Savary_e.pdf)

Interesting quotes: \- "in spite of numerous media reports and public
awareness campaigns, a majority of internet users still do not know which
offers are legal and which are not." \- "The percentage of available income
spent in this area by consumers remains constant. However, shifts can be seen
within this budget. For example, money saved by consumers at exchange
platforms is still being spent in the entertainment sector. However, that
available amount is now being put towards concerts, going to the cinema and
merchandising instead of music or film recordings."

------
mckoss
Why is copyright infringement a crime? It seems to me we should be asking
Congress to recategorize copyright as a civil matter; companies and
individuals would be able to sue for damages, but we should get the precious
resources of our police force and justice department out of this dispute.

When someone makes a copy, they do not deprive anyone of their own copy - so
it is unlike stealing a physical good. It may cause some harm to the copyright
holder, but only incidentally, and with difficult to calculate damages. Rather
than have blanket, one-size-fits-all criminal penalties, we should require
parties prove the damages in court in order to receive compensation.

Doing so would put MPAA and RIAA back in their place; let THEM bear the cost
of fighting infringers of their copyrights - I don't want them sucking up the
resource of my government just to benefit them.

------
ashcairo
Great job with the Louis CK example, highlighting the solution being
innovation not castration. Might be good to add how hysterical the music
industry was with piracy a few years ago and how the problem was solved
legitametly by the innovation provided by Apple's iTunes store.

~~~
bad_user
Well, actually iTunes is not such a great example for the music industry
because iTunes got them by their balls with Apple having significant leverage
when it comes to negotiating with music labels. Not only that, but the music
industry lost significant control over what hits to promote - because the
iTunes chart is now an important validator of hits.

But the music industry is to be blamed for this - for a long time all the
music you could buy from iTunes was DRM-enabled. This worked in Apple's favor,
contributing to the popularity of iTunes, because once hooked, the millions of
iPod customers couldn't switch to something else easily without losing the
music they've bought.

So who pushed DRM on (honest) customers, punishing them for not pirating? They
made their own bed, now they are bitching about it.

------
DrHankPym
I really like your comment about more money being spent on legislation than
innovation. I really wish this could be emphasized because this models the
real cost of this bill. Should web companies invest more in technology or
lawyers? A better service or stricter laws?

------
etz
I thought you did little to address the real issue, which is the lack of
judicial oversight or input to the process of taking down a website, and the
economic effect that it has on the owners. Lack of recourse or due process is
already hurting the US, look at Russia's new law bannning using foriegn
websites. There should be a way to adjudicate these matters, and the
government should have to take responsibility for first amendment concerns by
taking down website by decree not by actions of parties that have more at
stake than the copyright or other issues.

------
joshu
Ha ha, you had to wear a tie for the exchange floor.

Also, wadsworth constant applies.

------
TomGullen
Very good and articulate. Good job!

~~~
kn0thing
Thanks! Live TV is nerve-wracking.

~~~
TomGullen
Didn't get that impression at all from watching so well done

------
AdamFernandez
I see a lot of discussion about analogies to help explain to everyday people
the problems SOPA (and PIPA) would cause. Let's get some PSA style analogy
videos and pictures up for everyone to distribute to their friends and family
via (fill in social network here). I'm sure the Reddit community can get the
ball rolling with their meme prowess. It's very simple, but it could be very
effective.

------
msb
That was one of the most rational discussions about the SOPA debate that I
have seen. There is far too much vitriolic debate over the extremes of this
type of legislation, it was nice to see you avoid that entirely. Your
reference to Louis C.K. managed to subtlety communicate why SOPA is more about
power than preventing piracy, a focal point that is often missed. Well done.

------
kloc
Really appreciate what you are doing and you did good. I don't know if other
people noticed but I would have preferred you to not smile much( or at all)
while listening to her or answering her questions.This could be just my
personal preference.Smiling while talking about such a serious issue kind of
undermines the seriousness of it a bit.

------
diminoten
The argument that a company might not have started if this law were in effect
isn't a valid one, as the fact that a company exists in no way has an impact
on whether or not something is good or bad.

Otherwise, I like how you mentioned PIPA at the beginning as well - too many
people are forgetting what else is going on behind SOPA.

------
MikeCapone
You did an excellent job, Alexis. Thank you for being out there. I hope that
other big media outlets are calling!

------
fonzie
I've been keeping my mother updated with the whole SOPA thing and sent her
this video too. She's 'very impressed that people so young can be so eloquent
and steadfast'. I think you did great and stood ground with poise, confidence
and intelligent arguments. Well done.

~~~
kn0thing
Yay! I love moms. Thank her for me. We need to help more people like her
realize how awful this legislation is.

------
therandomguy
You did great. And you looked sharp. Good job. For the next interview it would
be great if you could paint a picture of post SOPA internet. Try to say, "if
it passes we will HAVE to shut down reddit and most likely facebook, twitter
and youtube will be gone as well".

------
libraryatnight
Great job, it's really refreshing to hear this sort of interview :) Thanks for
doing it.

------
swalsh
It's an achievement when you have better presence then the reporter!

------
rabidonrails
Great job, and much thanks for representing the collective!

The most influential single line in the entire interview -- "...we simply have
been spend our money innovating instead of lobbying."

------
chrisclark1729
"We have been spending our money innovating instead of lobbying." I'm happy
you got this in there. Even though it's mildly elitist it's very true.

------
secoif
Excellent work. My only feedback would be to look at the camera more, that way
you're talking to the audience, not just to the interviewer.

------
reading1
How about a 'stripped book' analogy?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripped_book>

------
boxysean
I feel you were lacking in the number of iPads you were carrying (compared to
her).

------
Maven911
Maybe the general-laymen catchphrase can be: shutting down internet freedom

------
miles_matthias
Nice suit and great job!

------
carlsednaoui
Very well said. And nice suit! ;)

------
AHorihuela
Nice work - you totally owned it.

------
JonathanBouman
Good job Alexis :)

------
pirtlj
wow she needs to learn how to use her words...

------
laserDinosaur
Good work :D

------
MaximusFubaris
Good Job!

------
zooz
Good talk.

------
venturefizz
Well done!

