Hacker News Reader

Comment by gojomo | Hacker News Reader

I have mixed feelings about this idea. SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle.

Perhaps formal neutrality could be maintained by simply offering an awareness banner: replace the fundraising insert with informational links to both pro- and anti-SOPA websites. The readers will be able to figure out the right position, for their own interests. (Perhaps, even, any pro-SOPA site would be toppled by the natural clickthrough traffic.)

Even if a protest displaces the fundraising banners for a day or more, the added attention to Wikipedia might boost the overall fundraiser.

View on HN

SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle.

When a law threatens the existence of your organization as we know it, what else are you supposed to do? Would you rather have:

a) a completely politically neutral organization that has silently been neutered such that it cannot fulfill its mission

b) a mostly politically neutral organization that only expresses political views when the issue directly impacts their ability to fulfill their mission

The readers will be able to figure out the right position, for their own interests.

I don't think the problem here is whether people would be able to make up their mind if they had all the facts. The problem is that this issue has not received enough media attention and as a result very few people are even aware of it, let alone aware of its repercussions.

National media outlets certainly have a reason to avoid coverage of this issue since most of their parent companies support this legislation.

Some roles are not 'neutered' by their commitment to various standards of neutrality, but strengthened by it.

Many journalistic organizations forbid their reporters from making political donations, or holding shares in companies on which they report. This is considered a good thing.

Public defenders take on clients without regard to the heinousness of their alleged crimes or the attorney's personal opinions of the defendant. This is also considered a good thing.

I don't think SOPA even in its worst form would actually 'neuter' Wikipedia. In particular, if the US government ever did censor Wikipedia with force of law, that would generate even more sympathy and uproar than a merely simulated blackout. And that might be the necessary test case to get the SOPA law struck down (by the courts) or repealed (by a later Congress).

That is, I don't think you can be sure that dropping one principle (political neutrality) in a dramatic gesture now will be better for the stated goal (defeating legalized censorship) than just diligently continuing to be a principled, NPOV source of reliable information.

Certain activists-by-temperament always want to politicize everything – "you're with us or against us, solidarity, unity, this issue is so important everyone must take sides!"

But society can often be more robust against injustice and oppression when some key institutions zealously cherish their duties of neutrality, and stay above the dirty business of politics, without applying any self-interest calculations.

It's funny. You hold a very positive view of the people of this country. I sincerely believe that if SOPA passes and Wikipedia is taken down* that American citizens will bend over and take it. They'll cry and be sad, but they. will. do. nothing.

* Wikipedia probably won't go down. It's probably too big to fall. If a just looked at exactly what the law said and completely disregarded their reputation, they would take it down, but that probably won't happen. And, this is under the assumption that RIAA lawyers would even dare go against Wikipedia. If they think they're God, they might.

Switzerland has the luxury of remaining neutral because when they are not shy about their willingness to act in their own defense.

If Wikipedia is too cowardly to defend itself, I fear it will not be around long enough for it's "principles" to matter in the long run.

>I have mixed feelings about this idea. SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle.

I have a hard time seeing why "political neutrality" is ever an important principle, but especially in this case, Wikipedia would be acting in what it considers to be it's own self-interest. What merits are there in any entity remaining "neutral" in circumstances like that?

It sounds like you have an activist/politicking mentality. That's fine, but it's not for everyone or every institution. One of Wikipedia's pillars, "written from a neutral point-of-view" (NPOV), considers neutrality (including about political controversies) an important principle.

Political neutrality is also considered a good thing for judges, various public officials, and many journalists. If you have a diversity of strong political opinions in your family or workplace, keeping the shared spaces/events/organizations politically neutral is also usually a good idea.

Defense is not "activism", but rather "reactivism".

And nothing about "neutrality" suggests that you should not act in defense.

If SOPA passed, and then either some copyright-holder or prosecutor tried to use it against Wikipedia – then opposing that action would be a 'defense'. This is specific preemptive WP:ADVOCACY.

And as bad as SOPA is, there are many worse laws proposed or existing around the world. Should every Wikipedia in countries that already have far worse free-speech laws be constantly blinking out in intermittent protest, once this threshold for 'stop-the-service' activism is set?

That is an unnecessarily and unjustifiably limited definition of defense. The mere proposal of legislation is an attack. "WP:ADVOCACY" is not a convincing argument for that viewpoint. Furthermore, defense can certainly be preemptive, so we have multiple levels of 'wrong' here.

" Should every Wikipedia in countries that already have far worse free-speech laws be constantly blinking out in intermittent protest, once this threshold for 'stop-the-service' activism is set?"

Arguably, yes. They should always do this in response to legislation that so directly effects them. Doing it after the fact is obviously of much more limited utility.

"activism"

Again, this is a silly accusation.

Judges, public officials and many journalists are politically neutral on many if not most issues but that doesn't mean that they are and should be politically neutral on any issue.

If something threatens the basic rules our society is build upon such as the constitution of the country you live in or human rights, as I believe SOPA does, political neutrality stops being worth maintaining, in fact I think it is actively harmful.

Neutrality and pacifism are not the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com