

GoDaddy, A Hapless Victim Of The Mob - richardburton
http://www.kernelmag.com/yiannopoulos/2011/12/godaddy-a-hapless-victim-of-the-mob/

======
macmac
That piece is chemically cleansed of any sense. The writer argues that it took
long for the campaign to work. Compared to what? "Holding authority to account
is an art best practised by professionals in the media." - why? It is quite
clear that the financial pressured exerted by customers leaving is a pretty
effective means of changing the "mind" of a corporation, which is exactly what
happend here. "Their customers were swept up in the flood. They had no choice
but to comply." - or they just happen to agree that giving their cash to a
Internet services company, that is clueless about the fundamentals of the
Internet is a pretty bad idea.

~~~
macmac
SOPA is apparently already here in the form of GoDaddy's "abuse department":
[http://david.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/godaddy-a-glimpse-
of-...](http://david.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/godaddy-a-glimpse-of-the-
internet-under-sopa.html)

------
richardburton
I submitted this article because it needs picking apart. Here goes:

 _Mob_

Let us look at the definition of the word _mob_ :

A large crowd of people, esp. one that is disorderly and intent on causing
trouble or violence.

Well I do not think that is a fair description of the people supporting this
campaign. I would say it looks more like this:

1\. A formal declaration of disapproval or objection issued by a concerned
person, group, or organization. 2\. An individual or collective gesture or
display of disapproval.

That is the definition for the word protest.

//The writer quite-rightly points out that the DMCA is US legislation. -
<https://twitter.com/nero/status/150529577020698624>

_In an objection vacuum, it becomes necessary to question whether the issue at
hand is a proxy for old wounds_

 _the objections to SOPA are sound._

So, just to be to be clear, when there is _an objection vacuum, it becomes
necessary_ for the writer to question the motives of the people objecting
despite the fact that the writer agrees that _the objections to SOPA [which]
are sound_ \- I am confused. Playing devil's advocate is often a useful mental
exercise - but the writer does not put forth a single argument in favour of
GoDaddy.

 _GoDaddy, we should remember, is the victim here_

I have always thought that an enemy of my enemy is my friend. The writer does
not like SOPA but does not- _not_ like supports of SOPA. How odd. One would
have thought that if the writer objects to SOPA he would also object to the
support of SOPA by a company that is part of the fabric of the web.
Thankfully, the truth finally comes forth, the writer is pro-journalists and
anti-amateurs:

 _Holding authority to account is an art best practised by professionals in
the media._

Interesting. Is the writer such a _professional in the media_? Is he great at
his _art_? If so, I would not pay for the canvas, let alone the painting.

 _This was a battle worth fighting. But the shock and awe of the mob becomes a
less effective method_

Call me stupid, but hasn’t _the mob_ just managed to affect change? Haven’t we
just proved that if people pull together through the Internet we can win?
Haven’t we just shown ourselves and the media that Twitter-campaigns can be a
very effective method? I guess the writer thinks not. The simple reason is:

 _Outrage is becoming passé_

Now I understand. We should all chill out. Well, I definitely need to after
reading this article.

~~~
starryknight
Your comment reminds me of my arguments with a friend who is a priest: we pick
apart each other's arguments until someone mentions that we've missed the
point.

Ignore the author's word-choice and try to imagine how you would frame his
thoughts should you be compelled to agree with him. From the article, I infer
a message from someone who laments the failure of what some schools of thought
predicted when the internet was publicly realized: a sort of information
revolution (but much broader) in which everyone would become well-rounded,
informed and activist-minded. Corrupt politicians would be outed. Corporate
greed and injustice would be exposed and ended in a fit of public outrage.

Instead, the minority sociologists were right: the internet expansion
represents the same shit in a different pile. We use our access to a wealth of
information to retrieve ideas that conform to our preconceived notions;
magnified confirmation bias on a massive scale. We have the attention span of
rabbits. And these bunnies want to do nothing but circle-jerk on
TwitterFace/Reddit/whatever.

Sure, GoDaddy sucks. So does SOPA. And you might frame this revolt in a way
that makes this a victory; the power of the people in the age of ubiquitous
information. But it might be that we never entered the fight in the first
place. Ask yourself, "Who's in power?" Ask yourself, "Why are they still in
power?" Ask yourself, "Are we really affecting change?" Those are simple
questions that marginalize complicated issues, but I think all the plausible
answers are somewhat depressing.

SOPA will pass. Either next month or next year or next decade. The people who
will make it happen have never heard of Reddit. They have someone else
checking their email and planning their schedules. And they will simply adapt
to the fact that large numbers of people are able to click a mouse or type
160-characters messages.

~~~
richardburton
This is a much more coherent argument. Why did you not post this?

------
teresko
It would be a bad joke, if that article was not meant so seriously.

~~~
richardburton
Agreed. It may just be link-bait (in which case, you WIN) but I had to submit
it and do my best to tear it apart.

