

Ask HN: Legality of a Jan 18 SOPA blackout on Google? - goodweeds

I heard some people at a coffee shop today discussing the possibility of convincing facebook and google to shut down all of their services for a day because of SOPA, including google apps. While the anarchist in me was momentarily giddy at the whole idea, the realist makes me assume that there must be SLAs and service contracts for their commercial customers and their larger content providers and advertising partners. As awesome as it would be for Google to shut down everything and confuse the heck out of the world I'm sure the losses due to lawsuits and SLA fines would be massive.
======
tikhonj
I really doubt Google would do this, not just because of potential contracts
or even the lost revenue but mainly because of how tentative their market
share is.

The only thing locking most people into Google search is _habit_. If Google
were to not work for a day, a ton of people would start using Bing and
friends; a significant proportion of these would indubitably continue using
them forever. Most people don't really care about which engine they use--until
it fails. Once it fails, they'll flail around for a bit then use somebody
else.

I think the damage to Google's reputation and market share would be too big
for them to consider killing search for a day. I could see them doing a doodle
or something though.

~~~
nestlequ1k
I totally agree. Blacking out is just stupid. Raising awareness via splash
page or messaging is effective and important.

Please, let's not be retarded. If things black out one day, it'll just piss
people off and the next day it'll be back to normal.

Let's encourage Google / Facebook / Twitter to use their huge audiences to
spread awareness of the issue. When the public hears what SOPA is, they will
reject it. The only way this thing will pass is if its sneaks in by the
special interests.

Stop the blackout talk though

~~~
dvdhsu
Please don't toss the word "retarded" around. Retards can't help being
retarded. Using it as a synonym for "stupid" is crass.

It's no different from saying "SOPA is gay!!!"

~~~
Shenglong
_Adjective: Less advanced, esp. mentally, than is usual for one's age.
Synonyms: backward - delayed_

Seems fine to me, especially considering it's no longer socially acceptable to
use the word to describe the mentally disabled. Using _gay_ however, is a
completely different scenario. _Retarded_ reflects on mental performance,
while _gay_ reflects on sexuality.

English already has so few words - we might as well use the ones we have.

~~~
dvdhsu
> _Adjective: Less advanced, esp. mentally, than is usual for one's age.
> Synonyms: backward - delayed_

The OP doesn't use it to mean "backwards" , "delayed" or "less advanced". He
means "stupid" and should just say so.

> _it's no longer socially acceptable to use the word to describe the mentally
> disabled_

Looking on Wordnik [1], four dictionaries out of five list "retard" as having
to do with mental retardation (Wordnet 3.0 actually doesn't mention it
according to Wordnik, but a quick search reveals that it actually does [2]).

Wikipedia [3], in fact, argues that "mental retardation" is on a "euphemistic
treadmill" [4]. I'll allow Wikipedia to take it away:

 _The terms mental retardation and mentally retarded were invented in the
middle of the 20th century to replace the previous set of terms, which were
deemed to have become offensive. By the end of the 20th century, these terms
themselves have come to be widely seen as disparaging and politically
incorrect and in need of replacement._

The term "mentally retarded" is no longer "socially acceptable", precisely
_because it perceived to be "disparaging"_.

> _Using gay however, is a completely different scenario. Retarded reflects on
> mental performance, while gay reflects on sexuality._

People who are mentally disabled are unable to change it. As far as I know,
the same applies to one's sexual orientation.

The OP uses the word "retarded" by saying "let's not be retarded". My state of
retardation doesn't change from second to second; it's fixed at birth.
Insulting what one can't change is the most powerful type of insult. If you
call me "stupid", I can always work to be less ignorant. If you call me a
"chink" because I'm Chinese, I can't change that, and I feel more insulted.

> _English already has so few words - we might as well use the ones we have._

That's a horrible reason. Simply using the word "idiotic", "dense", or any
other works just fine in the OP's sentence. None of those refer to immutable
characteristics such as "gay", "retard", or "chink".

When communicating, there isn't any reason to use a _potentially offensive_
word, especially when there are a plethora of less insulting ones available.

Edit: Changed "sexual preferences" to "sexual orientation". Thanks emmapersky!

\-------------------------------------------

1\. <http://www.wordnik.com/words/retard>

2\.
[http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=retarded&su...](http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=retarded&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=)

3\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#cite_note-
is...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#cite_note-
isbn0-415-95086-4-1)

4\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism_treadmill#Euphemism_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism_treadmill#Euphemism_treadmill)

~~~
VMG
> When communicating, there isn't any reason to use a potentially offensive
> word

Unless you want to offend. You might want to offend to signal the intensity of
your rage. Minor range can warrant words like idiotic or stupid, major range
calls for words like "fucking retarded git"

> The OP uses the word "retarded" by saying "let's not be retarded". My state
> of retardation doesn't change from second to second; it's fixed at birth.
> Insulting what one can't change is the most powerful type of insult. If you
> call me "stupid", I can always work to be less ignorant. If you call me a
> "chink" because I'm Chinese, I can't change that, and I feel more insulted.

Unless you really are retarded, he clearly meant that you shouldn't behave
_like_ somebody who is mentally disabled, so I don't see the similarity to the
word "chink".

------
Natsu
I doubt they'll really black it out. However, I could see them doing a doodle
or something like that.

Or maybe they could have something that draws black censor bars all over
random words in your results that fade away after a few seconds and put up a
link explaining what's wrong? That would be relatively easy, especially for
Google.

~~~
andrewflnr
I like your idea of blacking out random words. I don't think just a doodle is
enough though. They do enough of those all the time that I usually just tune
them out.

~~~
Natsu
I haven't done any JavaScript for a while now. I should see if there's a
sensible way to hack something like that up. Maybe via lettering.js?

EDIT: Apparently Tumblr did something like this. That must be where I heard
about the idea.

------
51Cards
If Google wanted to do something visible they just have to flip the search
page to a black background. Doesn't affect access to products but people will
certainly notice.

------
Joakal
Wouldn't there be lawsuits against Google when content is taken down to comply
with SOPA and other anti-Internet bills? Not to mention extra costs in
complying, both in reputation loss and revenue.

I believe they will run it by the legal team anyway.

------
carucez
If Google shut off only it's search in protest of SOPA, wouldn't they run into
anti-trust issues? I know technically, there's still Bing, but since they
command the majority of the market, isn't this essentially the same as
Rockefeller's give oil away for free to harm competition? Now, for sake of
argument, the competition could be defined as any web company that happens to
be pro-sopa, and Google's shutting down search could be viewed as malicious
acts against a competitor ... you see where I'm going with this. IANAL.

Screw SOPA! If we lose this, we lose the internet... and we built the damn
thing... each in our own small way.

------
pbreit
I don't think Google would do a complete or even extensive blackout but I
don't think SLAs would be the deciding factor (if Google has (m)any). I
suspect if there was semi-consensus internally for Google to do something, it
would figure out a clever way to participate.

This is why something like HackerNews deciding to participate matters. Not
because of the HN audience but because of the momentum needed to get the
bigger guys to go along.

------
tar
I don't think a Google blackout would be a good thing. They already make many
Doodles for their home page. They can make one for SOPA to raise awareness.

------
mcarrano
If Google does indeed do a complete blackout, it will cause chaos. Many people
pay for Google services, many people use Google APIs. Then again a draconian
bill like SOPA / PIPA may call for drastic measures such as a Google blackout.

I do feel that Google (along with other major Internet companies) should take
a more active approach in opposing SOPA.

------
positr0n
I think their most effective move would be to black out google.com search,
because that's what most people see. I see diminishing returns in shutting
down their advertising and enterprise services.

~~~
nextparadigms
I don't see how the API's would be affected in any way. They wouldn't shut
down all their servers to do this. They'd just have to take down their home
page and replace it with something else, like a message against SOPA. Only
Google.com users wouldn't be able to use it.

------
nextparadigms
I was wondering about this, too, if some people won't just sue Google.

~~~
astrodust
People will sue Google anyway. They get sued over indexing embarrassing things
that people have inadvertently published all the time.

------
gojomo
Separate from contractual issues, the cost in terms of lost revenue for Google
would be enormous. I suspect Google would have more of a positive effect
donating a day's profits to the right organizations/candidates.

This 'race-to-imagine-the-most-widespread-blackout' can make people giddy,
with thoughts of solidarity and grand symbolic gestures. But giddy is not
necessarily effective or lasting.

Shoot for an obtrusive anti-SOPA Google doodle – with links to both examples
of government-takedowns gone-mad worldwide, and ways to fight SOPA. That'd
make more sense (and might convince more 'normals') than a showy bit of
profit-destroying self-flagellation.

~~~
bfung
a monetary payout to stop SOPA doesn't really work in the long run. It
promotes the behavior we have today where the most money wins (usually), and
doesn't disincentivize future attempts.

I agree more with the doodle idea, or that every click to a search result
brings up a modal dialog with a "contact your congress members" button.

------
funthree
They are obviously not going to willingly violate any SLAs. Also the gov't is
never going to shut down Google. Their site being offline would not be an
accurate preview of any blackouts to come. SOPA is going to cost google money
and headaches because they will have to deal with so many upset users. It is
our websites that don't have billions of dollars that are actually under
threat of being completely shutdown.

~~~
mdda
> Also the gov't is never going to shut down Google.

Also the CHINESE gov't is never going to shut down Google.

Just adding a little perspective...

~~~
funthree
comparing the American gov't to the chinese gov't is jsut ridiculous in this
context. american gov't cares too much about it's economy to do such a stupid
thing

------
mahmud
Google has been shutting down services to protest SOPA for _years_.

