Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevinalexbrown | Hacker News Reader

I wanted to vote no, because it seems so Pyrrhic, maybe a little gimmicky: "See, we shut down a site you don't use!"

But if you're asking people to make a sacrifice you're not willing to make yourself, you're a bad leader, period. I'm not saying HN is the bastion of the tech world. But if we're upvoting the Reddit shutdown (at least I did), and we can't turn around and do it ourselves, well, we're not made of very tough stuff after all.

View on HN

I don't think it's gimmicky at all. There's a very real threat that SOPA or whatever comes after that will de juro or de facto allow old media to end the internet as we know it.

Blacking out sites ahead of that only helps illustrate to people the harm the law will do.

That's only true if you illustrate the harm to people who aren't already aware of it. I contend that almost everyone who visits HN is already aware of said harm. Thus blacking out HN will have limited impact.

There are different types of awareness though. Having your homepage actually shut down for a day is completely different than understanding something at the intellectual level.

I say come january 18th HN should either black out, or focus discussion on SOPA entirely in solidarity with reddit.

HN is a niche community with members who have a much greater capacity to influence the outcome of SOPA than a general populace. In some sense, a black out would inhibit the community's ability to affect change with respect to the issue.

If every active member of HN pledged to spend their available resources on the 18th towards working on SOPA, I suspect the outcome could have effects reaching further than even the championed reddit black out.

It's mostly a matter of deciding to place our money where our mouths are and collaborating effectively.

I too agree with your view point. While it may seem like it would be a loss, it may be a first step in getting larger sites on board. It would seem impossible for sites like TechCrunch not to cover a Reedit blackout, as well as HN. If more momentum is gained perhaps the attention of congress could be reached and we can feel like we stood together.

I see your point, but disagree. I think it makes a lot more sense for HN to do whatever HN believes is the most effective thing, rather than do what reddit did.

I see it as fake work. We would being doing something ineffective to prove a point and distracting from something potentially more useful (which may or may not also prove that point).

HN needs to be "follower #1". This is how a movement and momentum is built.

(http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movemen...)

There are many other sites that will black out, not just HN... Reddit itself is follower #50 or so.

And you believe the most effective thing it can do is...?

Pragmatically speaking, maybe YC could come up with a statement threatening to move businesses outside the US to circumvent some of the provisions of the law. Shutting down HN - i doubt any congressman is in here to notice. In any case i could use a daily detoxification, so yes.

p.s. Pyrrhic is not the right word, maybe futile

The expression "Pyrrhic victory" is also used to describe a triumph of little consequence. I'd say the way GP used it is correct. If you unroot a tree in a forest with your bare hands, but there's no one around to see it, will you get applause?

Edit: Blah, I couldn't find any sources to back up my earlier statement. It's just how I've often used the phrase. My bad, I stand corrected.

Here's a source to back up your "little consequence" use of pyrrhic...

http://gyazo.com/7ac0551554255bd91bac6600ad9b9647

Wikipedia summarizes it well:

A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with such a devastating cost to the victor that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

the point isnt, necessarily, to block sites the congressmen use; the point is to get enough people angry so that they call their respective congressman

threatening to move businesses outside the US

This should be investigated more by tech companies. Perhaps US policymakers will sit up and listen then

I agree with you and although I am not U.S. citizen and I read HN several times a day (so it will be a hard day without it) I give you full support in this action. Just go ahead and fight!

I want to know how the press, politicians, corps, individuals, the internet 'community' all are responding. Without Hacker News up I don't think I'll be well informed.

I vote for no shutdown.

You make a great point and I changed my vote because of this. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

I voted 'no' but I think Hacker News is driven by fads to a degree - you see one story on the site, then a few hours later there's a load of others with slightly different views. A few hours/days/weeks later, all is forgotten.

So 'yes' will win. It may happen. Few people will remember it a year from now.

I'm for shutting it down.... but...

I suspect there is a strong correlation between IE users and people who don't know about SOPA... So maybe HN should "Shutdown" the IE user agent...?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com