View Single Post
Old 12th July 2012
Gear Addict

Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Thanks for that link -- I don't think I had previously read that Wikipedia retrospective. I was really struck by one passage in particular:
Originally Posted by Sue Gardner, Wikipedia
That’s precisely why MPAA chair and former longtime senator Chris Dodd called the blackout an “abuse of power,” and characterized it as “technology business interests resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into corporate pawns.” He can only see the issue as a clash of moneyed interests, because that’s how things normally have worked.

That’s why NPR, the Associated Press, Fox News – all label this fight as Hollywood versus Silicon Valley. It’s why stories like this one from Bloomberg compare how much money television, movie and music companies are spending in Washington, versus what Google and Facebook are spending. People are imagining that post-blackout we are playing the same game, just with new participants.
I don't know if I had ever reflected on this perspective before, which is a shame because it's an intriguing one. My experience concurs with the author: I did very frequently the issue framed as a "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" battle, and I did very frequently see opponents of SOPA maligned as pawns of "Big Tech." But as this Wikipedia blog points out, this is a greatly demeaning characterization which is equally greatly useful as an attempt to discredit the opposition through the pretense that the debate is simply one of moneyed interests just doing what they do. It's a distortion of the truth, though: the "tech giants" and their lobbying arm -- the Business Software Alliance -- supported SOPA until public pressure forced them to withdraw that support. Attempts to frame opponents of the bill as uncritical pawns should then be so seen as the historical manipulation that it is; it was only public pressure that compelled the tech giants to adopt their eventual stance against SOPA.

Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Not to rehash this whole discussion again, but... if you had read it, you'd know that the bill did EXACTLY that and nothing more..
This claim is quite false, and to borrow your own line: if you had read the bill with even a basic foundation of technical knowledge toward the systems that it would manipulate, you would readily know how falsely you speak. SOPA was anything but exact; the language was vague to the point of absurdity and could potentially be abused to an oppressive degree. I may be willing to discuss this further via private message, if you are so interested in a genuine (I wouldn't want to waste time with dogma) exchange.