
SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA - antoviaque
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/sopa-supporting_news_outlets_arent_covering_sopa_s.php
======
walru
This is why we're left with a 'Vocal Minority' as Lamar Smith stated when
pressed about the opposition. What he should have called us was the
'conscious' and 'educated'. With a near media blank out, he thought this was
going to be a walk in the park.

More people would be outraged if they only knew about the bill, or once they
were told about it believed in the power that it wields.

I tried to educate my family over the X-mas holiday about the recent poison
legislation being put through our government, but it was met with blank
stares, followed by, "our government would never do that". In a way I don't
blame them, because this all sounds so crack pot. A simple personal can't
fathom why the media would be in cahoots with government and not cover
something that could change the foundation of the rights this nation was
founded on.

The 'Vocal Minority' must begin to educate, the media will never do it for us.
Sadly you can't just throw a book at someone, or a wall of text to do it
either. Many on Reddit have had the right idea by creating memes and such, but
the real power needs to come from the Google and those who oppose it. Put it
front and center in the masses faces. They need to show them what a post-SOPA
world looks like, and they need to do it before they get back into session to
vote again.

------
ck2
Start asking on all their twitter and facebook feeds why they aren't covering
SOPA

Cover both the channel and all their anchors. Be polite.

MSNBC constantly proclaims how progressive they are but they sure don't act
like it.

------
wrath
I was talking to my father over the holidays about SOPA. He's an avid FOX news
and CNN viewer. He had no idea what I was talking about. After our
conversation he took it upon himself to search Google on the subject to
educate himself on it. I'm from Canada so all I can do is keep an eye on this
at the moment, but it goes to show you that everyone in the US need to spread
the word.

~~~
orenmazor
your dad would be the first canadian I've heard of that is an avid FOX news
fan. how can you even catch fox news up here? (I dont have cable, but when I
did I dont think we had the news…)

~~~
nitrogen
Hypothetically, if you're close enough to the border, you can pay for e.g. a
DISH Network subscription at a US address and bring the equipment across. I'm
neither Canadian nor a border patrol officer, so I can't say how common or
effective this strategy would be.

------
pivotal
This is precisely why a blackout day of major web sites is necessary. If
Google, Yahoo, Bing and Facebook are all down for the day, not only would the
users be made more aware of the issue, but the media would be forced to cover
the blackout and subsequently SOPA, lest they appear completely out of touch
with the world.

------
thebigshane
I've read the bill at least twice now and I still don't see the doomsday
scenario described many times here on HN.

I get the slippery-slope argument, that SOPA is just one step closer to true
censorship and control over the internet, but I don't think that is enough to
get so upset about (its a very small step, with obvious workarounds)

Somebody please point out to me:

1) Where it says that Youtube, Facebook, Google are affected by this bill. --
It looks to me like it only affects sites on foreign domains or foreign
servers. They explicitly say that these popular sites are not affected.

2) Where it says that ISP's, hosting companies, domain registrars or even
sites focused on user-generated content are required to actively monitor their
data and their customers' data for infringing content and are held liable if
they fail to monitor. -- It appears to me that the bill specifically says they
DON'T have to do this; that they only have to make reasonable attempts at
prevention and then are required to take data down when given a take-down
request.

3) How tor would be made illegal under this bill. -- It looks like only tools
designed or marketed for the primary purpose of circumventing _this bill_ are
made illegal. That means DeSOPA and MAFIAAfire, but tor seems to be out of
reach.

Back on topic of the article, perhaps there isn't a conspiracy here, perhaps
media outlets genuinely don't see what the big deal is.

I agree that the bill is mostly useless and mostly supported by an aging
industry, and I don't support it. But I don't see the big deal either. So,
somebody please enlighten me because the sensational fog is obstructing my
view.

~~~
sp332
SOPA doesn't require sites to monitor their users. The complaints I've heard:

1\. It requires sites to be removed from DNS if a copyright complaint is made
against them. Specifically, the removal avoids due process. The copyright
holder doesn't need a court order to have the offending site taken down.

2\. Sites are held responsible for content their users upload. So e.g.
Mediafire would be taken down because of content the users uploaded.

~~~
thebigshane
Regarding your #1: My interpretation (which may very well be wrong of course,
IANAL), is that the copyright holder DOES need either a court order or
Attorney General intervention to remove a site from DNS.

Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to
foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)

~~~
dissident
I wouldn't use "there isn't enough due process" to describe why SOPA is a
terrible bill, or any similar legal argument. Besides, many of those problems
have been fixed in the Manager's amendment.

DNS blacklisting as a concept is simply unacceptable. The way it is applied in
SOPA requires that a certain classification of DNS caching servers must
pretend like a website does not exist, which reduces trust in domestic caching
servers and stifles DNSSEC.

If people move to foreign DNS (or local caching servers), which is incredibly
easy, the entire thing is circumvented. But a tricky side-effect takes place:
the system is now balkanized. Servers in the U.S. believe the naming system to
resolve to one IP, and servers everywhere else resolve to something completely
different.

This balkanizing effect can break the effectiveness of CDNs, can congest
Internet traffic, and overall reduces the credibility of the naming system.
Passing SOPA would mean other countries would follow in the same footsteps.
Once every country believes the delegation chain can resolve to whatever they
want to, what is the point in an international naming system?

These are only some of the problems with DNS blacklisting -- nevermind the
security problems -- which are not worth it especially considering it is so
easily circumvented.

Additional problems with the bill, such as the vague wording which may
consider Tor a tool for "circumventing" DNS blacklists and, therefore,
illegal, demonstrate a huge lack of forward thinking and an unsustainable
approach to copyright enforcement.

The doomsday scenario is that government sticks its foot in Internet policy
and communication and pretends it actually has the reasonable capability to
prevent piracy. It will _never_ have that capability without large-scale
violations of privacy.

There are also a good amount of talks regarding the precedent SOPA may have
for general purpose computing and a whole host of other sensitive topics. I
don't think it's responsible to just point at provisions in the bill and say
"well it seems to add enough oversight".

Besides, the bill encourages preemptive takedowns by providing immunity. The
tech industry behaviors that will result would be devastating.

~~~
thebigshane
I think you have great points but I don't believe they sufficiently support
the doomsday freak-out I'm witnessing.

DNS blacklisting is already happening in the US and all over the world (ICE:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_En...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Intellectual_Property)
and DNSBL: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL>). I admit we are already on a
slippery slope here with blacklisting, but I think most of your DNS comments
could be attributed to failures in the design of DNS (and CDNs) themselves. If
you want trust, security, and prevention from censorship (as I do too), DNS is
not your answer. I hope namecoin better address these issues
(<https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin>).

If you are scared of censorship, don't rely on infrastructure that is owned by
parties you don't trust.

SOPA supporters must know this will not _stop_ piracy (the bill is
contradictorily named, I know), but surely, it would minimize the piracy and
counterfeiting that effects the non-tech-savvy American masses. And I truly
believe that is their intent.

Personally, I don't think we should be legislating the Internet at all, but
we've already started, and although future legislation on this slippery slope
could be devastating, _this_ bill seems to be fairly neutered. Good issues are
being brought up with the discussion of SOPA, but SOPA itself is _not_ the end
of the internet.

~~~
dissident
Couldn't be more wrong, sorry.

The ICE seizures are perfectly fine because they target the delegation chain
directly -- they are _actually_ seizing the domain from a registrar or TLD
authority with control over it within the chain. They are _not_ a DNS
blacklist and it does not interfere with caching servers.

SOPA attempts to target names which are not within U.S. jurisdiction by asking
caching servers maintained by ISPs to refuse resolution of names where the
delegation chain does not cede authority to entities within U.S. jurisdiction.
This is an unprecedented technique for censoring content online.

DNSBL is absolutely not what you think it is, I'd recommend reading that
wikipedia article more carefully. It is a voluntary blacklist which is
implemented by IRC servers and mail software, but does not force cache servers
to resolve names differently or anything close to what you're suggesting. It's
just a list of names "you shouldn't trust" but not a censorship/redirection
system.

There are no design flaws in the way CDNs work either, I don't know where
you're getting that. SOPA harms CDNs by removing the efficiency achieved
through geotargetted name resolution (something provided by caching servers).

~~~
thebigshane
I didn't realize the process used by ICE was different than what SOPA
suggests, but that makes sense now that you've explained it.

I don't understand how DNSBL is different though for the end user. I realize
DNSBL is voluntary and SOPA would mandate/force, but I don't see how the
effects are different. For a DNS server that uses a DNSBL, does it regard a
blacklisted domain name through DNSBL differently than one that blacklisted
through SOPA?

Regarding CDNs, for a user initiating request for a non-blacklisted site, why
would the CDN be now less efficient in its response?

I have no idea if there is a design flaw in DNS or CDNs. My point is that if
DNS and CDNs become drastically inefficient by having to ignore certain names,
then it sounds like it could have been designed better to handle such cases.

~~~
dissident
> I realize DNSBL is voluntary and SOPA would mandate/force, but I don't see
> how the effects are different. For a DNS server

Bam, stop right there. DNS servers do not use DNSBL. There's your answer.

DNSBL is used in circumstances like this: You're connecting to an IRC server.
It does some tests to make sure you're not spoofing your host, like using
reverse DNS (PTR records). IRC servers will also try to prevent spammers and
flooders by denying access to hosts that are in a DNSBL -- likely open
proxies.

Here's some IRC software which does specifically that:
<http://www.blitzed.org/proxy/>

I am running some mail servers which are having trouble delivering mail to
gmail right now. gmail is returning back this error:

    
    
        The IP you're using to send mail is not authorized to
        send email directly to our servers. Please use the SMTP relay your
        service provider instead.
    

Turns out, it's because the IPs I've been allocated are in Spamhaus, which is
an implementation of DNSBL that specifically targets spammers.

Again, this is an action by the server software itself. It is not a mandate,
and is not actually a restriction on DNS. It is nothing like blacklisting
cache servers. The name has confused you.

> Regarding CDNs, for a user initiating request for a non-blacklisted site,
> why would the CDN be now less efficient in its response?

If you're trying to access Google, their nameservers may give your ISP's
caching servers a different resolution if you're in California rather than in
the UK, usually to resolve to closer servers. This is only effective because
nameservers can target cache servers which are specific to geographic areas,
and is a great side-effect of the current structure of the naming system and
of the Internet.

By forcing people away from domestic nameservers, this targeted effect fails.
A foreign cache server will return inefficient resolutions to queries compared
to a domestic one operated by an ISP.

Aside from being terrible for the end user, it also begins to put stress and
congest different areas of the global Internet unexpectedly. Though
arrangements can be made to compensate, it's pretty annoying and will never be
as efficient as before.

> My point is that if DNS and CDNs become drastically inefficient by having to
> ignore certain names, then it sounds like it could have been designed better
> to handle such cases.

The only real "design flaw" in DNS is the inflated trust in cache servers.
DNSSEC tries to resolve this by attaching a chain of authentication alongside
the delegation chain which can be verified. SOPA breaks DNSSEC entirely
because it cannot return these authenticated messages (it is resolving
incorrectly or lying about the delegation chain).

DNS was not designed to be censored in the way proposed by SOPA; it is not a
design flaw in SOPA, it's a flaw in the legislation.

~~~
thebigshane
This is a fantastic response and I'm glad you took the time to write it. I'm
sorry I misinterpreted DNSBL, I guess I read "either as a zone file that can
be used by DNS server software" and assumed they meant the main DNS servers
really _do_ use them.

Final question for you: Do you believe that if SOPA passes, it would really
have drastic effects to the internet functionally? So, besides censorship and
liability, do you think there would be a noticeable difference for tech-savvy
internet users and website operators in regards to things you mentioned above
(or perhaps haven't mentioned yet)?

~~~
dissident
> Do you believe that if SOPA passes, it would really have drastic effects to
> the internet functionally?

Yes. Things would have to shift around the compensate, but the real problem
begins when SOPA justifies similar legislation in other countries, especially
ones being bound by trade agreements which call for this type of stuff.

In the U.S. they claim "oh, but we're just going to target people who violate
the law. You know, copyright infringement." Even if that were true, other
countries have a long history of applying _their_ laws, which usually suck and
go much further to stifle speech.

SOPA legitimizes this method of blacklisting, thus leading to a balkanization
of the naming system. People begin to move away from the cache servers,
causing slowdowns in resolution and CDNs. Once this proves ineffective, the
U.S. will want to censor any DNS server that resolves an IP to something they
don't want. Then we have deep packet inspection.

It really will not end unless we force it to end. SOPA takes a drastic step
that even the DMCA didn't do. DMCA targeted activities under U.S.
jurisdiction. The next chapter in the global censorship game is the attack on
websites outside jurisdiction, which is not feasible without immense privacy
encroachments.

I don't want to see us going down that path. We need to go the complete
opposite direction when it comes to copyright. SOPA also places way too much
of a legal and logistical burden on companies within the U.S., which is going
to lead a lot of people toward countries with progressive outlooks on
copyright, like in some places in Europe.

------
smokeyj
It seems as if our representative government only represents money. Yet again,
the profit motive prevails.

------
bediger
Ben Bagdikian called. He wants his truth back. [http://www.amazon.com/New-
Media-Monopoly-Completely-Chapters...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Media-
Monopoly-Completely-
Chapters/dp/0807061875/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325861031&sr=8-1)

------
warmfuzzykitten
Clicking on the "developing apps" link gets to a reference to a "NoSOPA"
chrome app. I installed it and went to Lamar Smith's website. Nothing. Went to
Kirsten Gillibrand's. Nothing. NoSOPA noWorka. But it did have access to all
my web content. Uninstalled.

------
jaequery
The same goes for Ron Paul. Google for "Ron Paul ignored by media". US does
the exact same thing the China, N.Korea does to brainwash their civilians, and
yet, they accuse the others for doing so.

~~~
jaylevitt
Ron Paul's been on the front page of the Washington Post web site nearly every
day. And they're kinda mainstream.

------
jader201
I wonder if they will continue to remain silent if this happens:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3429145>

------
InclinedPlane
They aren't covering NDAA either. Or the Mexican civil war.

It's not necessarily because of a conflict of interest, I think it's more down
to failure of competence.

~~~
jjackson21
There is a clear agenda, the only failure is journalistic integrity.

They have to keep the masses ignorant of SOPA, Patriot Act, and NDAA, wouldn't
want people to be upset with the destruction of the Constitution.

They are expecting the worst and so are now preparing for the worst. I am
scared of things to come.

~~~
InclinedPlane
You imagine that the media takes its purported role of keeping the public
informed on the most important news of the day seriously. That hasn't been
true even moderately for the last decade at the least.

It's infotainment. There is no fundamental difference between CBS, ABC, NBC,
CNN, and techcrunch, or TMZ. The biggest differences are primarily stylistic.

------
tomelders
Freedom of the press... to do whatever the fuck they want.

I propose they lose that freedom and instead we burden them with the
"Responsibility of the press".

That should grant them the same privileges and protection, but also makes them
accountable when they pull crap like this.

~~~
cellis
I propose you should be _downvoted_ for promoting the same type of
authoritarianism that you claim to hate. Instead of trying to enforce some
highly subjective rule, why not just start your own new disruptive news
services?

~~~
tomelders
I propose you think before you type and stop looking for things that aren't
there. You're the tyrant here.

~~~
cellis
How about instead of snide remarks and name calling, you actually give a
decent rebuttal to my argument?

How on earth would a "responsibility of the press" law make things any better?
By reporting on things tomelders likes to hear about? It sounds like an
authoritarian lockdown and your cavalier suggestion of it implies you haven't
done much research on _why_ freedom of the press actually works.

~~~
tomelders
I refer back to my original rebuttal that was down voted. I never mentioned
anything about creating a new "Law". You made that up and inserted it to suit
your own agenda.

As far as I'm aware, there is no definition of a "Freedom of the press" law
here in the UK, or in the US. It's often assumed that Freedom of Speech (or
the first amendment) ensures Freedom of the press, with a few other laws and
rights tacked on specific to publications and journalisms. Which implies you
yourself haven't done much research. I'd go as far to say that you've not a
single buttery fuck of a clue what you're talking about if I'm honest.

But let's take a look at what Freedom of the press actually means, and
hopefully you'll learn something. It originated with John Milton in 17th
Century britain who argued that the individual is capable of using reason and
also distinguishing between right and wrong, good and bad. In order to be able
to exercise this ration right, the individual must have unlimited access to
the ideas of his fellow men in “a free and open encounter."

That, you ignoramus, is Freedom of the press in a nutshell. Note that it
implies a burden of responsibility when it mentions "Free and open" encounter.
Such things don't simply magic themselves into existence. This is not a fairy
tale world we live in. People actually have to work hard at breathing life
into such things.

But no one can say that this "free and open" exchange of ideas and information
is taking place in this day and age. This entire comment thread is dedicated
to the very fact that news organisations are wilfully and nefariously stifling
the "free and open exchange" of information to suit their own individual needs
and goals. They are wilfully abandoning their own responsibility to report the
news and will undoubtedly use a "freedom of the press" argument to defend
their indefensible actions. All while slack jawed brain donors such as
yourself argue to your blue in the face in defence this "Freedom". A freedom
unlike any other. A freedom which yields hitherto unheard of powers of
influence, but requires not one jot of responsibility or decency in order to
maintain. We should expect those which shield themselves with such a freedom
to be held to higher standard, and for a time they were. But today? I fear
they are not.

It's also worth noting that it took some 200 years from John Miltons campaign
against government censorship until "The Truth" became an admissible defence
against accusations of libel (hence the phrase, "The bigger the truth, the
bigger the libel"). To think that we have somehow managed to strike the
perfect balance between an individuals right to privacy, the publics right to
know and the press's right to report as they see fit stinks of both arrogance
and laziness on your part. There's work still to be done and I propose you
pick up the mantle by responding to every news organisations wail of "Freedom
of the Press!! Freedom of the press" with the counter question, "What about
the Responsibility of the press!?".

But if you want the ultimate example of why Freedom of the press is bullhunky
and Responsibility of the press os sorely lacking, consider this. Michael
Jackson died on June 25th 2009. Tell me, what was happening the day before
Wacko Jackco popped his rhinestone encrusted moon walking clogs?

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jun/24/iran-crisis>

That news story all but disappeared the second the King of Pop breathed his
last. Lot's of people died. Iran seized the opportunity and while no one was
looking, it violently crushed the opposition and no body cared.

Freedom of the press? I wouldn't wipe my arse with it. Hows that for a fucking
rebuttal.

~~~
cellis
Got to this late, but you raise some points I'd like to address. And thanks
for the history lesson. But, you can't keep calling your opponents names and
expect to retain legitimacy. As to your accusation that I'm creating a "law"
strawman of "responsibility of the press", please refute it. Once you start
defining constructs that others must abide by, you're well on your way to
creating laws.

The key you're forgetting about freedom of the press is that it cuts both
ways.

The contract the press has with the public is "Sure, you're allowed to print
whatever you wish, but don't expect us to BELIEVE you once you've exhausted
all your credibility (and we don't believe you by default)". Likewise, if you
continuously deliver relevant information and editorial you will be rewarded
with higher readership/viewership and _trust_. No, this isn't perfect, but it
beats the bejeesus out of a state controlled news service (which, btw, we DO
have , it's called CSPAN and NPR but the masses here in the U.S. can't be
bothered). What I'm saying is essentially to let the free market do it's job.
It won't always be perfect, but at least if you hate it you can try to change
it without cutting through loads of bureaucratic tape.

Now on to this _law_. What? Yes you want a law. You want to _force_ the
"press" to abide by a subjective regulation of reporting on the "truth".
Leaving aside the obvious axioms of math and physics, "truth" is different to
many people. My truths may not be your truths, so I'd like "truth" presented
in a way that reflects my bias. And that is all the press is doing.

------
4tacos
"There's no conspiracy" he said sarcastically. Screw the "International
Banker" Media. Think for yourself!!!!!!!!

------
davehod
No surprises here

------
the_tubes
I want to call my representatives but I feel they will give me a hard time and
use that politician improve skill to make it seem like I don't know what I am
talking about. Give me good ideas on what to say when I don't support SOPA and
PIPA that they can't fight back. Ideas why I don't like it while playing
devil's advocate

    
    
      +policing my web site to a point I can't manage it.
      -well your website can't be controlled and needs to be shut down
    
      +Small time businesses use user created content to advertise cheaply and won't
      be able to when these sites shut down or big business shuts you down with the excuse
      of violating their IP
      -Sites and small businesses will only be taken down when they are obviously
      designed to infringe on others IP
    
      +The security of the internet will crumble with DNS blocking from other countries
      -How?
    

I want wording to the point where they say, "Well, damn! I guess you're
right."

~~~
mr_luc
I agree with you, it's hard to explain. Here's a sketch of how to frame the
discussion, just for fun:

WHAT WILL SOPA DO TO THE INTERNET?

The Internet is the Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs, and this bill wants to
let Hollywood perform surgery on it. Every tech expert and internet company
agree that this would be a drastic, disruptive shift. I say, the Internet's
been working pretty good for [country] so far. Don't break it by putting more
paperwork and gatekeepers in there.

HOW, IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, IS SOPA HARMFUL?

Imagine you're an entrepreneur. Your small business is disruptive and
different and successful.

But your big, slow, powerful competitors get worried, and suddenly, your
shop's lights and water are turned off. Crazier still, your shop is physically
relocated back away from the street, with no signs and no way for people to
find you. Your bank has closed your account and frozen your funds.

This is all because of a letter, not a court order. Your providers and
suppliers and utilities, they got a letter that claims that you're infringing
on other company's trade secrets. And the law says that they're _guaranteed
legal immunity_ , only if they stop doing business with you.

Most people would say that could never happen in this country. It'd be crazy!

But _every_ reputable Internet expert, and _every_ Internet company agree that
this is what SOPA will do to the Internet.

SOPA provides incentives to service providers to shut down businesses based on
unsubstantiated claims. And it could bring free-market innovation on the
Internet -- the one thing America still does well, the one thing pulling the
economy forward -- to a screeching halt.

WHY IS SOPA BAD FOR THE ECONOMY?

Making new internet businesses vulnerable to immediate and brutal closure
(usually, for their user's actions, not their own!) unless they work out deals
with Big Content in advance would be a terrible drag on innovation.

WHY WOULD THEY WRITE SUCH A BILL?

Because SOPA and PIPA are actually industry-wide power-grabs, a power-play by
the Content Industry Dinosaurs to give themselves the keys to the tech kingdom
under the guise of 'fighting piracy'. This is backed up by how google, Amazon,
Facebook, Tumblr, Youtube and Twitter are all banding together with the Net
Coalition. But the new, growing sectors of the economy aren't as good at
gaming politics as the old, stagnant sectors.

The old sectors see disruption in their future, and this bill would give them
the upper hand in negotiations for how people consume content. In the process,
they would make themselves kingmakers and protection-money-collectors of
startups and services that let users interact and connect in ways that could
be claimed to be 'infringement'. Like sharing a link, or posting a youtube
video.

WHY IS THE BILL SO WELL-SUPPORTED?

It's got scary, bipartisan support, because Big Traditional Business is for it
on the Right, and Big Hollywood Labor is for it on the Left.

...

Just a sketch. ;) This is just for fun -- but if you want to explain it to
someone, I think the shopkeeper-gets-shut-down analogy is a powerful one. Ever
since Rick's Cafe getting shut down in Casablanca, or Jimmy Stewart's S&L,
it's resonated.

------
maeon3
In case you didn't already know, all news stations are agenda driven
propaganda machines, that means they get paid to cause people to have certain
opinions, desires, fears and knowledge. It is a brainwashing engine that takes
every measure to make sure it doesn't look like that. The same can be found in
China, Russia, Iran, Japan. stations that install complete fabrications of
reality in the viewers minds for profit.

Getting fox news to report sopa is a lost cause. Even if we were to riot and
set half the country on fire against sopa... All news stations would have
their own narratives and spin the hell out of it to make it seem like the
terrorists are winning because there isn't enough censorship.

