Internet blackout against U.S. law fails to enlist big sites | Hacker News Reader

Internet blackout against U.S. law fails to enlist big sites

reuters.com

30 pointseplanit27 comments

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yet another example of awful reporting. All the press coverage I see on SOPA calls this a battle between anti-privacy advocates and Internet supporters.

Wrong. This is a battle about whether we will allow a few large companies to let their commercial interests regulate Internet access for the entire US (and rest of world as a result).

I hope the Wikipedia, reddit and google education efforts finally explain the problems with SOPA to the public

How much did the MPAA pay for this article?

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

Reuters classifies Wikipedia as "the online dictionary Wikipedia"?

Yep. Wiktionary is the online encyclopedia.

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...

> "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!

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

So Wikipedia and Reddit aren't big?

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

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...

"SOPA protest swells as Google, Scribd, and Wordpress join" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/google-scrib...

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

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

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".

Apparently Wikipedia is not a big site.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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.

I thought Mozilla was blacking out?

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com