

Internet blackout against U.S. law fails to enlist big sites - eplanit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/18/us-internet-protest-idUSTRE80H01U20120118

======
hornokplease
I resisted submitting this story because of its baiting headline, although I
won't be surprised if it gets a lot of attention.

Setting aside the fact that the headline is demonstrably false (Wikipedia is
certainly a 'big site'), it is curious to me how the language of the headline
actually validates the 'internet blackout' even as it appears to disparage it.
I don't believe that you typically see reports in major newswires when a
petition 'fails' to succeed, as Reuters appears to be defining it here, and
yet here we are.

------
freejack
This "stunt" has been solely designed to raise awareness and mobilize support.
It doesn't take Google or Facebook blacking out their site to accomplish this
- simply running a text link or a banner on their sites would go a long way
towards helping a huge audience understand the heinous demands of the IP
Lobby. By that same stroke, the more dramatic blackouts will also raise a lot
of awareness. Despite the differing tactics, hundreds of thousands, if not
millions, of people will be exposed to these important issues tomorrow.

I call that a success.

Reuters story was just another example of the thinly researched, hastily
prepared and barely coherent writing that passes as journalism nowadays.

~~~
toyg
Reuters is part of the establishment, and is acting the part, so no surprise
there.

The truth is that opposition to this bill is multi-layered: the masses of
Wikipedia and Reddit walk the networked streets shouting with their
megaphones, while Google and Facebook quietly cut checks to people in suit who
know how to talk to congressmen.

This is why Big Media actors, like Murdoch and Reuters, are so angry about it
all: they thought they only had to deal with Occupy-style "crazies", and
instead they find themselves challenged on their own ground as well. They are
trying very hard to frame the protest as a "failure" even though it's being
wildly successful. I wonder what will happen if/once PIPA is voted down.

~~~
freejack
Thinking out loud, I wonder how effective the tech counter-lobby can be in a
situation like this. Google and Facebook can cut all the checks they want, but
if the congress critters have made up their mind about this bill, it would
take a huge lobby to make even small differences. I mean it can't hurt - every
little bit helps, but it would be super-interesting to know which tactics were
most effective compared to everything that's been done to defeat these
proposals.

~~~
moe
To me this is one of the rare cases where technology really is the answer (or
rather: where technology dictates the answer).

SOPA-proponents can pass any bills they want, nothing can push the cat back
into the bag.

Filesharing is easy now. People like it. The tech is out there and can't be
blocked (see magnet links). Even if the laws pass; for every file-sharing
"terrorist" they put in jail there are 10 more. And they're losing mindshare
with every action they take. Bills like SOPA are merely delaying the
inevitable, they can't turn back time.

Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't front them, as we are.

------
timjahn
How much did the MPAA pay for this article?

No, seriously. Re-read the first 3 paragraphs. That is 100% paid for press.

------
ndefinite
Reuters classifies Wikipedia as "the online dictionary Wikipedia"?

~~~
baddox
Yep. Wiktionary is the online encyclopedia.

------
Samuel_Michon
Wikipedia now serves a tasteful dark page. The page has a link thats reads
"Learn more" [1], but since it links to a page on Wikipedia, it's blacked out
as well. I'm not so sure whether that is intentional.

Edit: they fixed it, so apparently it wasn't intentional.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more)

------
steve-howard
> "This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear
> instead of facts," said Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary
> Committee and a sponsor of SOPA. "Perhaps during the blackout, Internet
> users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy."

I'm sure the MPAA's Web site will be online!

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Or just use Encarta 1996 on CD-ROM, as I'm sure Mr. Smith does. How much could
the world have possibly changed?

------
brcrth
So Wikipedia and Reddit aren't big?

~~~
charliesome
Reddit is big, but it's not very well known compared to the likes of Wikipedia
or Google.

~~~
Retric
It's probably in the top 100 websites with ~1-2 billion page views a month.
Having said that I don't think most journalists look past the top 10 when they
are look for "major" players in large part because the leaders are simply so
dominate. Facebook clocks in at something like 1 trillion page views a month.
(Note: that would take 500 million active users * 30 days * 66 page views a
day which seems ridiculously excessive, until you consider how addicted some
people are to that site.)

(1b) <http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/reddit-billion/> (2b)
[http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-05/tech/30592220...](http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-05/tech/30592220_1_site-
blog-post-unique-visitors)

------
vm
"SOPA protest swells as Google, Scribd, and Wordpress join"
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/google-
scrib...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/google-scribd-and-
wordpress-to-join-sopa-protest.ars)

Same set of facts and two polar opposite opinions. The conglomerate spin
machine (which Reuters is part of) is already in motion

------
rckrr
Reminds me of this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GME5nq_oSR4>

------
silverlight
As of right now I'm seeing a Google logo which has been entirely blacked out
and links to their take action page. I think the Google logo changing for
major events is pretty well-established even outside the "tech elite"
community, so while they didn't black out the whole site, I'd definitely say
Google is "enlisted".

------
Vivtek
Apparently Wikipedia is not a big site.

------
tikhonj
Oh, yeah no big sites. Wikipedia is one of the top ten or so sites and
probably bigger than Twitter. And Google, the biggest site _period_ is also
pitching in, if not so dramatically. Reddit is smaller but still very big.
Really, the headline should be the opposite...

------
grandalf
Blacking out your own site to protest a law is as silly as cutting off your
ear to woo a lover. I like Google's approach.

~~~
bmelton
If that law threatens your ability to do business, then it could be seen as
worthwhile. As Ohanian has said, if SOPA passes, it will likely be the end of
Reddit.

NOT being willing to lose a day's revenue to something along those lines
illustrates, to me, a lack of forethought.

~~~
grandalf
Google's daily revenue is more money than all congress members combined
receive per year in donations.

~~~
bmelton
All the more reason I'd think they'd want to protect it, going forward.

~~~
grandalf
My point is that they should spend it in ways that create incentives for
politicians, not confusion and annoyance for their customers.

If a stop SOPA/PIPA vote was held today, less than 10% of the people raising a
stink about it on the internet would show up at the polling place.

------
SoftwareMaven
I thought Mozilla was blacking out?

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Yes, but only for 12 hours, starting tomorrow at 8am ET:

 _"Reddit will not be offering its regular service between the hours of 8AM ET
and 8PM ET, which is also when Mozilla will be redirecting the Mozilla.org and
Mozilla.com English webpages to a similar "action page" inviting users of its
software to voice their concern."_

[http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/18/2715300/sopa-blackout-
wiki...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/18/2715300/sopa-blackout-wikipedia-
reddit-mozilla-google-protest)

