

SOPA Opponents May Go Nuclear - thematt
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57349540-281/sopa-opponents-may-go-nuclear-and-other-2012-predictions/?tag=mncol;topStories

======
DennisP
Hollywood has political power far beyond its financial power because of its
ability to influence voters. The internet industry has that power too, but
it's afraid to use it.

If Google and Facebook were to demonstrate that power once, on an issue that
most of their users will agree with, the industry would get a _lot_ more
respect in D.C.

~~~
statictype
Your comment made the line "Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and
operational battle station!" run through my head.

More seriously, Facebook alone doing a single-day blackout would be powerful.
I guess its a question of how much money they'd be losing by doing it.

~~~
maqr
It might be a question of how much money they would lose by not doing it. SOPA
enforcement would be insanely expensive for a site with as much user
generated/linked content as Facebook.

~~~
sgk284
The thing to keep in mind is that SOPA, if I understand correctly, only
applies to foreign entities. As it stands, FB won't be impacted substantially
by the legislation.

That said, it'd be in their best interest to stop this now, because even if
this doesn't impact them, slowly but surely the laws will be amended to apply
to everyone.

~~~
buff-a
Foreign entities don't have Facebook pages?

~~~
dangrossman
Foreign entities refers to the website operators. SOPA creates new rights of
action against site operators and their domains, not individual URLs.

~~~
buff-a
Observe that the definition of "foreign Internet site" does _not_ state that
the site is located outside the USA, owned by a non US Citizen, or any other
commonly understood meaning of the word "foreign". All "domestic" sites also
meet the definition of a "foreign Internet site" "for the purpose of this
section":

[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112dI2...](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112dI23h5:e11714):

(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or
portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--

(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used
by users in the United States;

(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating
the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319,
2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and

(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be
subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney
General if such site were a domestic Internet site.

~~~
dangrossman
Seeing that kind of doublespeak codified into law is downright frightening. I
watched that SOPA markup hearing a while back and all the reps were talking
about foreign this and foreign that and how these targets of prosecution were
in other countries so most wouldn't even show up in court... yet the
definition of foreign is a US-directed site?

------
jxcole
I think that the general suggestion of a more tepid response (that is,
blacking the background of google/facebook but leaving everything else
usable), would probably be completely ineffective. Most people are incredibly
unconcerned with things on the internet that they might have to read, so if an
ad comes up or something that you can click through, people will click through
without reading it because they've been to Forbes enough times to have that
behavior trained into them. Unless they commit to a total blackout of their
usual features, you can expect very little response from users.

~~~
zeteo
Blacking the background is enough to make it a top TV news story, and that's a
medium politicians understand very well.

Whereas removal of functionality will irk uncaring users and may turn them
_against_ the SOPA opposition.

~~~
Joakal
It will certainly turn more against SOPA supporters.

I'm still finding so many that are unaware about SOPA and upon understanding
that it's far-reaching attempt to control the Internet, they're not SOPA
opponents. However, the older generation doesn't quite get it until I mention
restricting Radio stations (They were familiar with the Pirate Radio in past).

------
Joakal
Watch out for movement fatigue. The Internet Filter/Censorship blackout
happened in Australia; it was partially successful in the filter not being
mandatory. But the biggest ISPs are pushing filters on their customers
'voluntarily' with government money (Capitalist take: Internet Censored
cheaper than Internet Freedom) taking after UK.

Unrelated to blackout, but the other big ISPs not forcing the filter on
customers decided to police users for copyright infringement.

Such unrelenting copyright industry anti-Internet parasites.

------
feriksen
In the short term: instant win. really. as stated by others in the thread,
practically 100% of the internet start their days in one of these core
services, google, facebook, yahoo, tumblr, twitter, etc.

In the long run though, dangerous move, as every politician alive in every(!)
nation would start work on curtailing the obvious power in these companies
hands demonstrated by such an event. but win? hell yes. no question.

Someone likened it with a "6k km meteor", aka world-killer, and that was
probably spot on. On one hand I would love seing it, and think of how
powerless all these politicians would feel, but fear indeed the results
further down the line. politicians like power...

~~~
ori_b
An alternative outcome is that they would start realizing who they had to suck
up to in order to get power, and that it's not _JUST_ media companies any
more.

------
danenania
Why leave it to the big guys to take the initiative? Larger players only
jumped aboard the godaddy boycott after the grassroots push gained enough
momentum that they'd look bad if they sat on their hands.

We should take the same approach here. Set a day, then gather as many
companies and individuals as possible who will pledge to shut down their sites
and replace them with anti-SOPA information and calls to action. Once momentum
is established, _then_ call out the big corporations and challenge them to
stand up for their supposed values alongside the rest of the web. They will
find this much more difficult to decline.

~~~
jbjohns
So you want little guys who are struggling for market share to risk it all for
a fight they may not win in the end (and if they even survive, this losing
stance could be held against them)? Companies like Google and FB could shut
their entire US sites off for a week and wouldn't lose more than a few
percentage of market share if anything at all.

~~~
danenania
Maybe so, but the big companies don't have sincere values beyond financial
self-interest. They'll only act if pushed into feeling that their credibility
is at stake. Otherwise they'll pursue more conservative paths that benefit
them and other large entities exclusively, like lobbying for carve-outs and
exemptions, to the detriment of everyone else.

Individuals and small companies actually have the ability and willingness to
act decisively according to real principles and moral values. It may be unfair
for the little guys to shoulder the burden at first, but the sad truth is that
if we don't, no one else will.

------
InclinedPlane
That's not nuclear.

Nuclear would be: you vote for SOPA you will be blacklisted from ever using
google, gmail, facebook, twitter, aws. Your campaign, personal, and business
websites will never appear in google searches. Your books will never be sold
on amazon. You will never be allowed to have a google account, upload videos
to youtube, or own an android device.

That is nuclear.

~~~
pzxc
I don't dislike fighting dirty when it really counts, but realistically this
strategy would never work. First, such actions would not stand long-term,
because the government can merely prohibit withholding services from
government agents, and sanction any companies who do. You delist certain
senators from google? That is (insert violation of law or ethics here, real or
conjured), you are fined $1 million a day until you de-de-list us. And they
could make the fine as big as they wanted, and google (or whomever) would
buckle. Make no mistake: the government has the power over long-term behavior,
not corporations. And second, the government knows such a boycott would not be
able to stand up against their power, that it is an idle threat, and so they
would call their bluff and vote for SOPA anyway.

You can't win a fight by threatening to beat the bully up tomorrow and the
next day and the next day for taking your lunch money today. You have to win
the fight now, before the damage is done.

Add in the additional problem that it is much easier to pass (or block)
legislation before it passes than it is to repeal, and I don't think this
strategy is viable. If it were, google and other companies could get together
now and force the repeal of legislation already in place that is distasteful.
How likely is that? On the other hand, the original nuclear strategy mentioned
in the article would indubitably have an immediate and unbelievably tremendous
impact. We're talking shock and awe here, folks. If google didn't work for a
day, every voting person in America would know about it.

And that's the way they pass legislation that the majority of people wouldn't
like if they knew the truth about it -- by sneaking it through because,
frankly, most people are just too busy or too apathetic to not fall asleep
when someone mentions the word "politics". The actual nuclear strategy
mentioned in the article would certainly wake them up, and in a big way.

That said, unfortunately I doubt google or any other publicly traded company
has the balls to do it.

~~~
oozcitak
I believe there is a way around this. Google doesn't need to hide or remove
pro-SOPA search results. Making them harder to find would be equally
effective. Something like this perhaps?

    
    
        In order to show you the highest quality results, we have omitted some entries.
        If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.

~~~
sukuriant
I don't like this stance at all. Give the user free access to information,
even if you don't like that information, you need to serve it just the same.
You won't find any compelling arguments about SOPA on anti-SOPA sites, you
need to go to pro-SOPA sites for pro-SOPA material and anti-SOPA sites for
anti-SOPA material :/ They misrepresent each other (and sometimes themselves)
because of their biases. For an informed decision, you need all the
information.

------
barrkel
Taking a devil's advocate perspective: this would be perceived as corporate
blackmail, an attempted takeover of the democratic process by industry.

Even though such an approach may have plenty of support, especially in our
communities, I wonder if it wouldn't turn off non-technical moderates in a
much bigger way.

~~~
jballanc
The problem with SOPA is that the vast, vast majority of non-technical
moderates are _completely unaware of it_. Honestly, I don't think I've ever
seen this large of a disconnect between the tech community and "everyone
else". If you don't believe me, next time you run to the supermarket or the
drug store, just politely say to your cashier, "Excuse me, I was just
wondering if you knew what SOPA is?"

~~~
botker
It's only anecdotal counter-evidence, but my cousin, who's a non-technical
owner of a kite surfing business, has expressed concern about SOPA on
facebook. He doesn't normally post about anything political, but he's worried
it will destroy the porn industry. The percentage of non-technicals concerned
about SOPA is nonzero.

------
joezydeco
Are we talking about just painting those websites black, or turning completely
off for the day with a directed message telling you where to contact your
representatives?

The latter option would truly be "nuclear", but would Google/Facebook/et al
put up with a day without those ad revenues? Would it be worth the loss in the
long run?

~~~
gecko
Well...if I were one of those sites, and I really believed that SOPA was an
existential threat--which I think is a very reasonable position for any of
those sites--then a day's loss of revenue is absolutely worth it, because the
alternative is _no_ , or _greatly_ reduced, revenue. I'd take a known loss of
~1/365th (~.3%) of revenues over a probable loss of 100% of revenues any day
of the week.

~~~
scarmig
I hate SOPA, but I've got to wonder how much of this is actually driven by
concern for the bottom line. Hollywood and Big Media are very happy to work
with established, institutional partners. Indeed, the types of partnerships
that'd be formed, backed up by federal force, would serve to drive off
potential competitors.

Would it really damage advertising revenues that much? If the fear is that
Google would be hit by large lawsuits from some twelve year old posting a
music video on YouTube, or that Facebook would be liable for a link to it, I
expect that media conglomerates would be happy to give de facto immunity, so
long as Google or whoever is willing to put Viacom's commissars in charge of
which content is allowed and which isn't.

Obviously it's good that Google is on the side of angels on this, but if it's
actually in their best interest is a relevant angle for analysis. It also
would tell us how hard they're actually willing to fight to block SOPA.

~~~
mquander
The law doesn't say, Viacom may make a claim on your content, so make a deal
with Viacom and you're golden. It says that any rights-holder can make a claim
on your content.

There's a big problem with patent trolls right now making totally frivolous
claims based on patents that they bought up, right? And yet many companies are
paying oodles of dollars to pay them off and to try to avoid future trouble
from essentially ridiculous patents. I would expect exactly the same thing to
arise under SOPA, but with ridiculous copyright claims instead of ridiculous
patents. Entities with no actual concern about their IP will start knocking at
the door looking for shakedown money when it allegedly gets posted on Youtube.

------
flueedo
Nuclear is a excellent metaphor. Because Google, Twitter and Amazon actively
doing something similar to what Tumblr did(instigating their users to protest)
would be too extreme. Tumblr has only a few million users; Google and Amazon
together have much, much more. I can hardly wrap my mind around the
implications and ramifications of such a move.

I don't think they're gonna do it. I think they're gonna choose a subtler
strategy.

~~~
p4bl0
I don't understand your reasonning. Why do you think it is "too extreme"?
Politics is struggle. You can't win if you don't fight. First it's SOPA, and
if it passes then what?

The thing here is that nuclear is actually a poor metaphor. Because it would
imply that the menace of Google, Amazon etc. doing something similar to what
Tumblr did would be enough. It's not. Politicians don't understand the web,
that's why they want SOPA. They surely did not understand nuclear weapons
before a few of them had tragically been used.

That said, I also think that it would be preferable that big internet
companies do not get to do what is described in the story. But not for the
same reason as you seem to think. Here is my sweet dream: What I would like is
for _people_ to go on strike and to get down in the streets until SOPA is
dead. Because that way politicians and all those who/which are backing SOPA
knows what the web is capable of, without the web needing big private
companies to back people up. Because some companies may be on the web's side
for now, but everybody should keep in mind that these are companies, which
mainly want/need to make profit. For this fight and for now the interests are
the same so it's okay to use them as objective allies. It's never okay to
really depend on them.

------
lhnz
In the fantasy land of my mind, I'd prefer it if some of those large companies
could cut deals with other governments to create pro-Internet laws and then
move their headquarters abroad. If SOPA is passed the US deserves no less than
total decimation of their position as a technological leader.

Who is John Galt?

------
gjulianm
Never thought about Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc, going black and telling
you to contact representatives. But it would be not "nuclear", it would be
"6000km diameter meteorite". Think about it: almost 100% of people connected
to the Internet would be concerned about SOPA. Really, really concerned. I
don't think neither representatives nor Hollywood industry would support this
pressure.

~~~
coreyrecvlohe
Forget meteorite, it would be a Suprnova.

------
leeoniya
what would happen if Google, Bing (and by association Yahoo), made all SOPA-
supporting properties disappear from organic and ad-sponsored searches.

my bet - the bill would be be dead within _days_ , they have no obligation to
service SOPA supporters.

~~~
JeffL
While that sounds cool, such blatant non-neutrality from search engines sounds
almost as scary to me as what they're protesting.

~~~
redthrowaway
Agreed. "Free speech (so long as we agree with it)" is exactly what we're
opposing, here.

~~~
kevinh
What we're (or at least I) am opposing is government regulation of free
speech. Corporations are allowed to regulate speech on sites that they own.

~~~
redthrowaway
Fair enough. We can at least agree, I hope, that tactically it would be a poor
choice.

------
mike-cardwell
If Google and Facebook are going to start using their websites to influence
politics, maybe it's time for companies to start lobbying them instead of
Washington directly.

~~~
Joakal
Very unlikely; the SOPA bill will impose significant costs to their operations
compared to the reputation loss of publicly political to protect their bottom
line.

------
andrewflnr
Couldn't they just devote, say, half the above-the-fold screen space to a
banner about SOPA for a couple days? Definitely gets people's attention,
especially if coordinated across the internet, without pissing them off too
much. It would link to a page that names names and gives action steps for
users.

Is there a compelling reason they couldn't do this or that it wouldn't work?

------
mwsherman
I’d like to see something with more teeth, and less potential for antagonizing
disinterested users (which most are). I fear that this would satisfy us
emotionally more than it would effect change.

Which is an occasion for more creative thinking. The most important point,
which the article mentions, is that Google et al have a direct relationship
with users, and goodwill.

It needs to speak to users in non-strident tones, and engage on a level that
users might care about. In turn, it must engage those users to do something
that politicos will actually fear.

Perhaps something like “click here and Google will donate $1 to [politician’s
rival]”. Or, Google simply gives $1 to an _effective_ organization for every
unique SOPA search.

~~~
zem
the problem is that the users aren't disinterested - they're uninterested.
blacking out google and facebook would go a long way towards changing that.

------
johns
Hopefully the threat is enough. If I'm Google I'm strategically going to leak
out plans (memos, design mocks, etc) for a blackout to see if it makes a
difference without actually having to do it. They just have to be ready to
back it up if it's not enough.

------
coreyrecvlohe
Huge play if they pull this off. This could really set the stage for increased
leverage as we move into 2012. There must be a show of strength that strikes
at the core of the D.C. machine. This isn't just over people downloading
Ashton Kutcher movies, this is about taking down startups that are in direct
competition with the distribution players, this is about going for the juglar
and using Congress to pick winners. Google, Facebook, Ebay, Twitter, Paypal,
Wikipedia and everyone else needs to step their game up; this is going to be a
long haul.

------
plink
Google, Apple, Facebook, etc., should just buy these media giants. The RIAA
and MPAA would become like cockroaches ripe for stomping upon. That would be
the real and permanent nuclear option.

------
Anechoic
Wouldn't this just invite retaliations in the form of a massive deluge of pro-
SOPA television commercials _? There are a lot of folks who use
Facebook/Google/Wikipedia, but I'd bet there are many more who watch TV,
especially among the demographic who will fall for the "we gotta stop the
pirates or the terrorists/drug dealers/child molesters will win!" tactic.

_ I know there is a pro-SOPA commerical going around, but given that I've only
seen it aired once, it doesn't seem

------
a_a_r_o_n
I wonder how effective it might be, in addition, for major sites to point
directly to user generated content on their sites, posted by both well knowns
and unknowns, and assert that that specific content would cause trouble for
both the poster and the site.

Bonus points if someone points to all infringing content on members of
Congress sites, a la the recent Congressional torrent torrent.

------
rwhitman
There are far more elegant, insidious ways to destroy SOPA using the powers
that SOPA opponents possess than something as cheap as a blackout.

I do like the idea of PR hype surrounding the threat of blackout though. Just
publicizing the potential threat of the 'nuclear option' in the press for a
week should be enough to get congress to back off.

------
snowwrestler
Nuclear war isn't the sort of thing that usually produces winners.

I have a hard time seeing Google in particular starting a nuclear war over
this. They value relationships with big content providers and have done a lot
to build them. If a drastic action leads content providers to pull out of
YouTube, Google Music, Google TV, etc., it would hurt Google quite a bit.
Users care a lot less about YouTube than they care about what they can watch
on YouTube, and the most popular videos are "official" music videos.

It is rare that huge consumer companies allow legislative fights to spill over
and impact their core business. It usually just annoys customers rather than
generating any sort of meaningful grassroots bump.

~~~
ypcx
Where would they go if they pulled out of YouTube etc.? Do you think they are
there because they like Google? No matter what product you have, if you don't
market it, it's the same as if you didn't have it. Marketing is Google's other
name, they are a marketing giant. There's an awful lot of extremely talented
people floating in the wild, who are not under mega-labels because the mega-
label business model only allows a handful few. Imagine what could Google do
with its marketing power and this available talent - they can literally create
a new mainstream music industry almost overnight.

Regarding annoying of customers - when fascism was on the rise in Germany, lot
of people should have been annoyed but they were left in ignorance, and that's
why eventually Hitler succeeded in the takeover, before turning the country to
ashes.

When your government breaks the law, and then under the disguise of copyright
infringement they take down any website that reports about it, the last
working piece of the responsibility feedback loop is completely destroyed, the
citizen is fucked, and the country eventually ends in ashes. That is the true
danger of SOPA, and that is what SOPA is _all_ about.

------
colinprince
Upvoted for some honest-to-god, decent insightful writing. (not something I
normally expect when I click a cnet link)

------
zwilliamson
SOPA is all over hacker news and other tech feeds, but I have seen nothing on
the television news outlets (CNN, FoxNews). Obviously, they want to see this
slip through... they are all owned by big media business who are probably
supporters.

------
RobertKohr
Join in the Google Bomb of GoDaddy:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3393177>

~~~
rhizome
Actually it's the link farms and spammers who should be linking to GoDaddy
rather than giving free pub to Namecheap. I can't link to every provider on
the right side of this issue.

