Hacker News Reader

Comment by edw519 | Hacker News Reader

Alexis, you did great. Cool, calm, collected, and sharp. You did a great job advocating what most of us here understand and champion.

But here is the problem I see with this whole SOPA debate...

I didn't see anything that would help my Uncle Art understand what this is all about in his language and why he should care.

This is what he sees:

  - There is a bill in congress.
  - It's to stop people from stealing other peoples' stuff.
  - There are strong opinions on both sides.
  - The old companies I love (movies, etc.) support it.
  - The Chamber of Commerce (mother, apple pie) supports it.
  - This young guy was very articulate; I like him.
  - I don't understand the Constitutional argument.
  - He says this new stuff wouldn't have happened. So what?
  - What is reddit?
  - I thought Facebook was for kids.
  - Who is Louie CK? I really don't understand what he did.
  - Why is the internet so afraid of ethical behavior?

There is another comment in this thread by squeee which is the first one I read that my Uncle Art would understand, something like, "If someone shoplifts in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." I could just picture my uncle raising holy hell if that ever happened.

I read the comments in this thread before I watched the video (like I usually do), so I was waiting for Alexis to say something like squeee said. Something that would get the great mass of those who don't understand the argument to take notice and take action.

Alexis, keep up the good fight. And find a way to get our aunts, uncles, and grandparents to "get it". I believe that will be the turning point of the battle.

View on HN

Despite my differences with much of the Republican party platform, one thing that they are damn good at and I respect them for is an ability to communicate with their target base.

Where's there's a hot topic issue, the Republicans will come out in lockstep with voices on the same wavelength. They use clear and simple language with a single antagonist. In the really big battles they even coin phrases like 'Obamacare', 'Death tax', & 'energy exploration', that succinctly convey their point of view. Each of those phrases will be used repeatedly by every Republican on TV, until their opponents (Democrats) even adopt the same language they've invented.

This why I like that 'shoplifter in the store' analogy. Its pretty simple and relatable to just about anyone. On the topic of language though, the opponents of SOPA should be creating their own word/phrase. If we refer to SOPA as 'online piracy', then we've already conceded more ground that we need to.

"Despite my differences with much of the Republican party platform, one thing that they are damn good at and I respect them for is an ability to communicate with their target base."

Yes- they are so good at this, its a great lesson in conveying with power.. George Lakoff beautifully explains how they do this in his book- "Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate".. You also mention they get the other political parties to use "their" terminology as well, George Lakoff goes through this in the book as well. I found a ton of communication lessons in the book, and I dont think the tone will alienate anyone, even though its clear the author doesn't lean too far to the right. A great book to read if anyone is at all interested in how the Right owns the game...

It doesn't hurt that they have a 24hr propaganda network dedicated to repeating these catch phrases and sound bites over and over again.

That came later after talk radio built the audience. The political messaging came first, over decades, to whip up a base of support. Fox is the number one news channel in the US because it resonnates with the receptive base audience.

"SOPA is the Great Wall of America"

"SOPA is Internet Mutilation"

People generally think the Great Wall is pretty cool, and also that it was effective and did good things.

I agree, tacking on "of America" only makes it sound more positive to most people. Even I'm having a hard time thinking "SOPA is the Great Wall of America" doesn't sound really awesome.

Agreed. So here's how we do it.

This is the word: Prohibition. It's our "death panels".

This is how you tell it to grandma:

  - The music & movie industries want a Prohibition on user-created content.
  - When radio was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
  - When cable TV was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
  - When the VCR was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
  - Now Youtube and many other websites have been invented.
  - Youtube is very entertaining; you can watch funny cat videos all day long.
  - They want the Government to create a Prohibition on Youtube.

I went and found my password for this account which I haven't used in an age just to say this is a really good idea, I hope other people who get a chance to talk on TV about this pick up on it.

I don't think that's accurate enough. 'Prohibition' is better for the War on Drugs, which draws a more meaningful connection to the 20s.

If I had to paint in broad, evocative strokes, I'd claim the industries are using the government to prop up their outdated business models by destroying competition from users.

So I'd suggest 'Monopoly.'

'Monopoly' is a good one too. I don't think the terms are mutually exclusive:

"They want the Government to create a Prohibition so they can have a Monopoly on content"

That said, I do think 'Prohibition' is an accurate description. SOPA may well be the first step in a 'War on Piracy' that does have strong parallels with '20s prohibition and the drug war. SOPA is a futile attempt to stop normal human behavior - sharing of content. It won't work. The fact that it won't work could lead to even more draconian blocking measures, creating a self-reinforcing loop of ever-escalating restrictions and punishments. 'Prohibition' conveys that futility and extremeness pretty well for a single term.

I don't like 'Monopoly' because most people don't recognize that as a fundamental problem. In fact in the case of media, monopoly is assumed as necessary to provide you with what you want (hundred million dollar blockbuster films).

The key thing to focus on is the imbalance of power SOPA creates and how that will end up getting in the way of Uncle Art's evening entertainment. So far the shoplifting shutting down the store analogy is the most pointed I've heard, but still not a catch phrase.

I find the shoplifting analogy decent, but the main flaw I see is that it keeps the discussion framed around crimes being committed and what is the punishment. Even if the punishment is seen as really extreme, centuries of legislation have shown that being "tough on crime" is extremely popular.

My hope with the term 'Prohibition' is to turn it around and put the focus on the evil being done by the media companies. They want the government take away your rights, because they don't want to compete fair and square with web technologies.

Fair points on Prohibition. It definitely has the negative-only effect that you'd want; I'll have to think about it.

Here's an analogy I've been using that might work: "They're tying your hands behind your back so you have to pay them to feed you."

I agree with you to some extent. However, one of the problems with how the Republican party communicates is that, amomg their target base, they will often conflate "memorizing and regurgitating" talking points with understanding/groking the issues. They may not know why they don't like Obamacare, but they can memorize that catchy word and they know it spells trouble. But later when/if their party decides to change positions on the issue, a new catchy term with a positive connotation is coined for the masses to latch onto.

I think this runs at odds with what some people are trying to do, which is educate the electorate on why this kind of thing is a bad idea so that these types of issue branding tricks can't get past the public.

All that being said, I'm not sure that much of the electorate can be educated in this way, which probably does account for the success of this sort of thing.

> They may not know why they don't like Obamacare, but they can memorize that catchy word and they know it spells trouble.

Not to get to OT with politics, but another important part of the "Republicans are better at messaging" thing is that in general conservative positions tend to be very simple, e.g.

"drill for more oil" vs. "if we create a market for greenhouse gas emissions we can incentivize a market-based transition to a cleaner...."

"get tough on crime" vs. "focusing on incarceration ratherthan rehabilitation for certain classes of crimes actually increases crime by decimating minority communities and perpetuating a cycle of...."

"the government is bloated" vs.

Etc.

I always though it was interesting how the right is very good at sounding authoritative, but when they try humor it comes across poorly or obviously self serving. The left however is very good with humor and satire, but when they try and speak strongly it more often comes across unclear or whiny.

Call me crazy, but Reagan was a pretty funny guy.

SOPA is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

(And you never throw the baby out with the bath water!)

The shoplifting metaphor might be simple and relatable, but it's inaccurate because it's not just someone stealing in your store, it's other people putting stolen merchandise in your store to be re-stolen by someone else.

The real metaphor is, "If you own a pawn shop and let obviously dirt broke people come in and sell you stolen Rolexes all the time, you may be shut down."

No, that's not it either. It's not that your letting people do stuff you know they can't legally be doing. It's that your pawn shop is so incredibly huge that you can't be sure what's happening everywhere at any given time. By the time you get to one side to see what's happened, the other side has turned into Somalia. You put up signs, hire security guards but the floor space is so enormous it would be prohibitively expensive to keep any wrong doers out and trying to do so would cost more than the whole thing is making in revenue.

It's not that mine is incorrect. It's that we're both correct, plus a whole other slew of equally plausible scenarios. In plenty of cases it is what I described, plus the owner is painfully aware that his shoppers mostly only buy from the fake watch guys, and they hide behind a description like the one you've crafted, crying "poor me, my job is so hard."

I would put i like this:

It is like you own this huge supermarket. Lately some shady guys have started putting flyers with information on where you could buy pirated merchandise from China for cheap.

With SOPA this would mean the Governmnet could shut down _your_ supermarket because someone found one of these flyers at your place.

Another take: in this huge supermarket two random people talk about drugs, and a police officer overhears their ramblings, so the supermarket gets shut down.

I think this would work best in communicating with an older audience. It's like shutting down the whole store because the customers are sharing illegal information with each other.

One more suggested metaphor -

If some kids at a mall talk about shoplifting, all the malls that company owns get shut down without a trial.

We know and understand user-created content because we've been using it (and creating it) for years. That's the thing we need to get across to the great masses - not that websites should be penalised for giving out unauthorised copies (which they'll largely agree with), but that a huge percentage of the websites they use and love are no more in constant control of what appears on every page of their websites than malls are able to control every last thing that happens within them, and that the penalties should be organised accordingly.

We really need to do a better job arguing this case. This is about justice vs. injustice, not jobs in tech vs. jobs in movies/tv.

Here's the analogy I tweeted a couple weeks ago: "SOPA is the equivalent of allowing Disney to shut down a restaurant because a customer drew Mickey Mouse on a napkin."

I think anyone can recognize the injustice in that.

I've been offline for the last few hours, just came back to start picking through the notes. I like this Mickey Mouse analogy most of all the ones I've seen so far. Concise and relatable (and accurate).

I agree that the Mickey Mouse analogy is probably more accurate than the shop-lifting analogy but I can't help thinking that it sounds a bit frivolous and contrived on first listen (if you analyze it then it makes perfect sense, but soundbytes shouldn't need analysis).

The shoplifting analogy seems more immediate and straight-forward to me. I understand that the shoplifting analogy equates piracy with theft but the distinction isn't really all that relevant to SOPA. Uncle Art probably equates piracy with theft anyway, so why fight the battle on two fronts?

One final point on this, by indirectly conceding the piracy/theft point you're less likely to step out of alignment with Uncle Art thus making it easier for him to agree with everything else you say. :)

P.S. I know we're all probably focusing too much on that killer soundbyte but I do think it was the missing ingredient. :)

I guess my analogy is a bit contrived, but definitely less than this legislation ;)

If we abstract analogies too far, I worry that people will ignore them. I tried to leave Uncle Art with very few dots to connect by only changing the "host" business in my analogy.

How about this slight modification: "SOPA is the equivalent of allowing the US Government to shut down a restaurant because Disney thinks a customer may have drawn Mickey Mouse on a napkin."

Thanks. I love this feedback and agree that connecting with normals is vital; it's something that comes up again & again with my girlfriend as I "pitch" her on how to discuss these bills.

The struggle I have with metaphors like yours is that it doesn't accurately describe piracy (because it's not the same as theft). This feels a bit disingenuous, but definitely makes for a great soundbyte.

It's a catch-22: the thoughtful, reasonable explanation of why it's a terrible idea will never get through to anyone except the people who already know.

Have you tried Graffiti analogy?

Imagine you are a shop owner and someone writes something offensive on the outside of your building without you even knowing about it. This bill would allow the government to shutdown your store before you even knew the writing existed.

Today we already have in place a mechanism to notify the store owner, but SOPA changes that. It makes it possible to shut down entrepenuers, the store owners and wealth creators on the internet, before they even have a chance to get started helping to revitalize the American economy.

(Devil's advocate)

"But how would you not notice someone graffitied your wall?"

I dig this analogy: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3426990

I think that one is better too.

I was picturing an outside wall with the shop owner inside all day behind the counter. The Mickey Mouse one is more concise though.

A better base for the analogy might be a mall, since there are a variety of situations where SOPA could result in a slew of virtual storefronts being taken down due to the actions of a customer in a single store that wasn't doing proper policing of its customers (never mind whether the stores should be responsible for policing their customers, attacking this at the domain level is like shutting down a mall because of the nonviolent actions of a few customers, and blaming it on the mall.)

'The government could shut down your pub cause 2 old guys were at a table bitch'n about Obama.'

Related to Graffiti, I came up with this:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3427835

A better analogy might abstract away the merits of copyright infringement, and focus on who got punished for that infringement. Maybe something like: "Imagine if the government shut down Walmart because one of its customers was caught handing out ripped Beyonce CDs."

Yes.. I like this. What do you think about this one? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3426990

I don't think it's a correct analogy, since the copyright infringer isn't doing any possible (or perceived) damage to Disney. I think the pattern should be: "Company X gets shut down because one of its customers broke Law Y at the expense of Company Z".

And the best Company X I can think of is a sports franchise. (A customer base that is too large to monitor in real time, and that forms a community that would get shut down along with the business.) So what are Y and Z? I don't think they even have to differ from the reality. "Imagine if the government shut down the Boston Red Sox because one of its fans was handing out ripped Beyonce CDs." Or maybe the fan should be selling fake Rolexes, since that probably actually happens.

Unfortunately, while you may stumble upon an analogy that describes what could happen to some "poor business", they will all be disingenuous because your analogy leaves out the scenarios that Uncle Art would probably want to see action taken on.

What is happening in many cases is the Boston Red Sox gave the guy selling the Rolexes a booth to sell them in, and directed people searching for "Rolexes" to his booth. The Red Sox hung up ads along the way and made money from all the people who walked past those ads on their way to get Rolexes. Someone reported those Rolexes stolen, so the Red Sox kicked the guy out with no penalty to the guy or the Red Sox, and then let some other fake watch seller setup shop in the same booth. This kept happening for years, and Rolex had to lay off 4000 people, while the Red Sox made a killing.

I think the annology needs to be as close as posible to relating to "real life" and products and services being infringed. How about:

SOPA is like a law that would allow your local bar to be shut down if some of its customers meet there to swap pirated Music and Films, only the bar is website on-line.

Right there is why the bad guys always win - they don't care that an effective metaphor is not strictly accurate. We are ham-strung by our integrity, which is a sad state of affairs.

Hey, what about this?

I think a very accurate, yet simple metaphor would be something like:

Imagine this: If a man sings a Lady Gaga song in a park, then Universal Music Group will be able to close the park.

(Turn it into: "If a girl sings a Lady Gaga song in her school, then Universal Music Group might ask to close the school." and you may win every mother's support =P )

Or also: If a thief tells someone where he left a stolen wallet, government may close the buidling where the talk took place.

PS: Hi everyone, I'm from Argentina, but I really care about SOPA because it may set a very bad precedent in Internet legislation. Right now, in a lot of countries, this kind of bill would make the proponent look like someone come from Iranian or Chinese government. A fascist person looking for a way to censor the Internet. But if this bill passes, a GLOBAL consequence will be that politicians in other countries (like Argentina, in my case) will say: "Look, this law was approved in the USA. And they care about Freedom of Speach, so, it's not a big deal. -End of story-". And of course, they will use laws like this, to censor much more than just piracy. I dont want to sound fatalistic, but if this bill passes... well, we can start saying goodbye to the Internet as we know it.

It might feel disingenuous, but an analogy does not always have to be perfectly aligned with reality (since, of course, it just an analogy).

If the analogy is somewhat askew, but still suitable, just beginning it with "A _crude_ analogy would be ... " should amend that.

Either way, I do not believe that the faults in analogy would be any real disadvantage in a debate. Here's why:

• Old Grandpa would not be tech-savvy enough to notice the flaw at all, but he would still understand the intended message of the analogy

• The knowledgeable people that support you would understand what you really mean, and either way would have no interest in pointing out flaws in your arguments

• The knowledgeable people that oppose you (e.g Hollywood) would not want to point out the flaw for anything in the world, because then they would have to concede that piracy is not theft (a notion they are working very hard on establishing).

But if you want a more fitting analogy, how about something were people plan illegal activities in the store, instead of shoplifting? The police finds out that some customers have been discussing smuggling in a toystore that you own - the whole store gets shut down without anyone contacting you first.

>"The struggle I have with metaphors like yours is that it doesn't accurately describe piracy (because it's not the same as theft). This feels a bit disingenuous, but definitely makes for a great soundbyte."

Most older people seem to think piracy=stealing, and I suspect any argument designed to make a distinction will probably just steel their resolve.

The only way to explain how its bad is to latch onto examples of things that were made possible by the DMCA, and would no longer be possible under SOPA. So I would focus on internet stuff most people DO know about. Basically what you said about reddit, but applied to even more mainstream 2.0 sites. The obvious ones-

"If SOPA had been in place, youtube would never have existed, and if SOPA passes, youtube will probably shut down."

"If SOPA had been in place, WIKIPEDIA could easily have been shut down for something as simple as a user uploading a picture of a celebrity for their entry"

Those sites are big enough that they're known even by older people. At the very least they've heard about them. And if not you can talk about how amazing they are to warm them up.

Then, you can explain that wikipedia has millions and millions of entries by tens of thousands of people, and if the laws are that brittle and unforgiving, collaboration on that scale simply becomes impossible.

To be fair to Alexis, this was for BloombergTV so I think his emphasis on the creation of wealth (or lack thereof) and the economic impact of SOPA was appropriate.

It's true indeed that this wouldn't be helpful for your Uncle Art.

I was trying to hit my audience of bankers, daytraders, and wealthy people, but I'm very mindful of these Uncle Arts, because in the end they're the ones who will win the day: http://navantigroup.com/content/world-changing-power-reasona...

I think you did a very good job shoehorning the key phrases 'wealth creation', 'big government' and 'private sector' into your appearance so that you could get the bloomberg audience on your side. Nicely done.

Thanks. Not my usual crowd, but we've certainly got common ground here.

My favorite analogy on the DNS and monitoring problems:

Since shoplifters use roads to make their getaway, SOPA would have us set up roadblocks to catch all the thieves.

Could we catch more thieves by setting up roadblocks? Of course! So why don't we? For the same reasons SOPA would be bad law: we don't stop and search people in roadblocks (4th amendment prevents unreasonalbe search and seizure). Also, as a practical matter, roads, like DNS, are shared resources and the collateral damage to transportation (and internet routing) would be massive.

Doesn't work very well, because police do in fact set up roadblocks for any number of reasons, such as drunk driving "checkpoints", and for that matter borders. Anyone using that analogy would just trigger a response of "but SOPA only targets foreign companies, and we do set up roadblocks on our borders".

Using an analogy to aid understanding can seriously backfire when your opponents make fallacious arguments from analogy, because the audience doesn't actually understand the issue so they go with whatever the analogies makes believable.

> "If someone shoplifts in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store."

I like the analogy, but it's off by a mark. "If someone leaves stolen goods in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." would be a closer match, but misses a nuance.

"If someone post a notice advertising stolen goods on the community noticeboard in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." would be even closer, but is a little harder to grok.

The best I could come up with is: "It's like if you were a landlord renting one apartment in a large building to someone you thought was a guitar teacher giving private lessons, but he turned out to be selling stolen jewelry; your whole apartment complex could be shut down by the government before the trial of your tenant took place, even if you evicted the tenant as soon as you discovered criminality."

"If anyone posted a classified ad for stolen goods in your local newspaper, this bill allows the government to shut down the newspaper."

I think this is the best fitting analogy so far... You can extend it to further talk about content owners, publishers, user-generated content, paid subscribers and free readers, etc. Newspapers also deal with existing regulations that address the same type of issues, such as first amendment rights vs. libel laws and the public's right to know vs. need for privacy.

Here's one I just thought of. Maybe not entirely serious:

Prostitution is illegal in most states. SOPA is nearly equivalent to shutting down a bar because somebody went into the bathroom and scrawled "For a good time, call XXX-XXXX" on the wall.

Here is what Alexis seemed to be saying in the interview.

- SOPA is bad for websites that rely on user-generated-content (and entrepreneurs like him)

- We (i.e. tech community) intimidated GoDaddy and forced them to back away from their support for SOPA

- One guy made a million dollars by requesting donations on PayPal instead of demanding payments from all users. This is a great example of innovation. The private sector should innovate like this guy (i.e. they should rely on business models that request payments, not require payments)

I realize that SOPA has zero support on HN and that my criticism of Alexis' interview-responses won't be popular. However, imo, a better approach to win public support would be to come up with specific solutions for the copyright problem and also acknowledge that copyright holders do have some legitimate concerns.

SOPA may have zero support on HN (it's not a well-written law) but the MPAA and RIAA have more support than you might assume.

`come up with specific solutions for the copyright problem and also acknowledge that copyright holders do have some legitimate concerns`

As Alexis said that's a problem for their industry. It's quite a false flag to say that the tech sites need to come up with a solution. Additionally, DMCA is already one solution.

I don't want karma, I want useful criticism. We need to win public support. Granted, BloombergTV is far from mainstream, but we're taking babysteps.

We aren't for piracy, we're just aware of how futile trying to legislate against it is. I think we can make a case for this that articulates the genuine problem and still resonates with the average American.

Noam Chomsky once noted that the problem of the soundbite age is that some questions don't have simple answers that fit inside 30 seconds or 2 minutes.

The main problem with SOPA is that it is not possible to solve a market problem with legislation. Copyright infringement is a market problem, and markets are a lot more effective in delivering solutions than Governments. Consequently, SOPA will utterly fail to prevent copyright infringement, resulting in even MORE draconian laws sometime in the future.

Specific to the problem of music and film is that these markets are highly regulated oligopolies that use their market power to engage in price fixing. Unlike efficient markets, in which there are a range of different prices, the music and film markets only have two prices: Idiotically expensive and free (illegal).

Personally, I would LOVE to pay $1 per episode to watch my favourite HBO series at a time, and in a place of my own choosing. Sadly I cannot. Hence, I either don't watch it at all, or I obtain it by 'other' means. Monopolies/oligopolies only offer one price, and they are free to gouge their customers as long as they can prevent any competition in the market.

In other words, SOPA is NOT about preventing piracy (because that is a hopeless cause, much like the war on drugs), but about protecting the music and film industries illegal, anti-competitive price fixing practices (by way of preventing any other production/distribution of that type of media). Illegal price fixing is a small price that all Governments will gladly pay, as music and film support the propaganda/mythology creation industry of Government.

The simplest solution to prevent piracy would be to open the music and film markets to competition, but that is exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are trying to prevent.

> However, imo, a better approach to win public support would be to come up with specific solutions for the copyright problem and also acknowledge that copyright holders do have some legitimate concerns.

The types of solutions that are possible are the types they are least inclined accept. Piracy is not killable without taking away the ability to communicate privately and probably not even then. Soviet attempts merely lead to Samizdat, in spite of going to extreme lengths to track people down. Also, prior to the internet, copyright infringement was widespread over sneakernet. Attempts to control that via technical means merely taught a generation of kids how to crack software.

That's not to say there are no solutions. William Patry has a new book about copyright reform. There are new ways of doing business. For example, iTunes proved successful, in spite of the fact that anyone who wanted to could have downloaded the same songs for free. None of those things are stuff they want to hear, though. They don't want to change. They don't think they should have to change. But reality has the last word and reality has no qualms about being unfair.

Why not take a more radical approach, and deny that there is a copyright problem. The supposed losses of the entertainment industry are all based on the argument that whatever is downloaded is lost revenue. In fact revenue should be compared to sampling - you try out a lot of stuff, and only buy the best. But you do buy. I download hundreds of e-books that are not locally available in bookstores, I browse through them, and purchase the best ones through Amazon. I do a lot more buying than if I did no downloading, so it's a net gain for the publishing industry.

Now, the evidence points to the fact that downloaders are also the biggest buyers of CDs and DVDs. If you look at it that way, there have been no lost revenues, and in fact the entertainment industry has benefited immensely from free downloading, which has helped it to reach a much broader market.

Agreed. The shoplifting analogy isn't even necessary, just an accurate depiction of what is so scary: "If just one user uploads copyright material to youtube, SOPA allows the government to shut down all of youtube. Even if youtube removes the material as quickly as possible."

This is similar to how I described it to my relatives as well. They know enough about Facebook to understand - I told them that if I took a picture of a painting in a gallery and posted it on my facebook wall, the government could take down all of facebook.

Another analogy: "If someone gets pulled over for speeding in their Ford Mustang, Ford is liable for their illegal behavior"

"The government could immediately shut down all Mustangs on the road"

Terrorists meet in your backyard, government takes your house.

"Chevy sends an email to the government and all Mustangs are immediately shut down."

Why is the internet so afraid of ethical behavior?

This is the problem with how these bills are named.

SOPA stands for "Stop Piracy Online Act". I.e., how can you be against something that stops theft?

It would have a completely different mainstream reaction if it were called the "Censor the Internet Act" or "Stop Free Speech Online Act".

It's a little more in depth than the shop lifting analogy.

I like to use the following: "A person tells the government that they saw a TV in the local pawn shop which is really theirs. They never asked the pawn shop owner for it back and they have no reason to suspect the pawn shop owner knows it is stolen. The government will then shut down the pawn shop without even talking to the owner first or having significant proof that the item was really stolen. Every phone book will be required to remove the pawn shop's phone number from it and maps will not be allowed to show the pawn shop. The pawn shop can then attempt to get their store back from the government but if it turns out that the item really was stolen then the government will not return it." In the analogy the pawn shop is a website, the owner of the item is the copyright holder, the item is copyrighted content, and the removal of the phone number and map info is dns-delisting and search-engine de-indexing.

I think the above analogy holds up fairly well and clearly demonstrates the ridiculous measures SOPA goes to. It's also much more easily understandable by non-tech-savvy people. Please tell me if it is not accurate in some way or is unclear.

Thanks for writing this. While it's more thoughtful, it's also much more verbose -- deadly in our soundbyte-driven media.

also while all analogies have problems the verbosity here introduces more complications.

Technically the store isn't shut down it's only removed from the phonebook. At this point the analogy breaks down as that doesn't sound as drastic at all. However, on the web, being removed from DNS would be a death sentence to legitimate sites but ironically (and tragically) not for sites dedicated to copyright infringement.

It is definitely more accurate than the shoplifting story. However, pawn shops don't have the best reputations to begin with, so you'd be comparing yourself to something that people already find sleazy/sketchy/dirty/etc.

Edit: If you want to add some sympathy, replace pawn shop with Salvation Army and TV with pair of jeans.

The problem I have with the shoplifting analogy as presented is that someone unfamiliar with SOPA might conclude that the website at risk must also be the victim of the crime. How about analogies to other crimes like stealing from another customer, assaulting another customer, etc. What's ironic is that the bar/nightclub industry is effectively governed by such a law. It seems that, when patrons decide to do bad things in a bar, the government can revoke the establishment's liquor license. Even the number of police visits to an establishment due to customers' bad behavior has been used against the establishment. While I might have sympathy for the government if the bartenders were encouraging drunkenness, few other establishments must worry about their own culpability when a customer does something bad on premises.

Other analogies:

A car is used as a getaway vehicle in a robbery so the government goes after the car manufacturer.

A safety deposit box contains an illegal item, so the bank gets shut down.

Two people are overheard talking in a grocery store about how you can make your own orange juice at home from oranges. Tropicana shuts the store down.

I agree that getting our aunts, uncles, etc to "get it" is very important. But I wonder if most of them even know this is an issue. Time for an anecdote:

While visiting my parents for Christmas, I scoffed when we drove past a car with a Lamar Smith bumper sticker (they live in TX). My parents asked me why I didn't like him; he was a stand-up representative as far as they knew. I mentioned SOPA and how horrible it is and they both drew a blank...turns out they had never even heard of SOPA. I was shocked since they watch the local and national news almost daily and discuss any story they see regarding technology/the internet with me.

Actually, it's more like, if the government gets a tip that someone shoplifted in your store, the government can instantly shut your store down for a long period of time while it gets investigated.

I agree, make it simple and something the layman could understand. I'd adjust the analogy to "If someone shoplifts a DVD from Best Buy, this bill allows the government to shut down the store."

Is that really true (in the sense of being analogous to what the bill does)? I thought it was more like, "If someone carries a shoplifted CD into Best Buy and leaves it on a shelf, it allows the government to shut down all Best Buys".

Good point. Maybe this would be more fitting:

"If a store in a mall sells counterfeit goods, the entire mall gets shutdown"

Am I the only one that was upset at her seeming to dismiss you as a "hoodie wearing geek" at the end there?

I've been on a number of times (occasionally in a hoodie, which their producers really seemed to like and I'm certainly comfortable in) and decided I should dress a little better after my grandfather told me I "looked like a bum." He watched BloombergTV 24-7, so I figured he's a good representation of the demo.

She's just teasing - she's the one who invited me on as their tech contributor in the first place: http://search1.bloomberg.com/search/?content_type=all&pa...

I don't believe anyone should be judged on their attire, but if it'll get some people to listen, so it goes.

would go whole hog and get someone from the SOPA PR swat team to help you pick an interview suit/blazer - looked OK, but would get a solid red tie, and something about the shirt collar and suit looked a little out of whack. Only superficial people don't judge by appearances LOL (Wilde)

agree with what other people said about tightening up talking points - wouldn't hesitate to give specific examples about your own companies and the services people use that would be turned off if someone does something stupid, reviews, social networking sites etc.,

as other people said, would try to focus your attention on the interviewer and the camera like they're two friends you're engaging, avoid looking around into space.

good camera presence, good job!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com