Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poll: Do you think HN should go dark in protest of SOPA?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 294 posts

Re: Poll: Do you think HN should go dark in protest of SOPA?

#141

Post by JshWright »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #110
zerostar07 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: Poll: Do you think HN should go dark in protest of SOPA?

#142

Post by Joakal »

huhtenberg wrote: post #52
cdonnellytx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe instead of "going dark" that should be what the homepage redirects to for that day. That way it raises awareness and provides reading material.

I think it is safe to assume that everyone on HN is fully aware of SOPA by now.

Not about the other anti-Internet attempts. I hope that the Internet Freedom message is displayed broadly alongside support for the SOPA protest movement.

Re: Poll: Do you think HN should go dark in protest of SOPA?

#143

Post by abibibo »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #10

1) The more sites decide to shut down on the 18th, the easier it becomes for major websites like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to join. It also increases the chances that this is going to be covered by the mainstream media. 2) Perhaps a blackout will give some HNers the final push (and time) to make some phone calls to their representatives. 3) It can serve as a demonstration of what the web will be like if SOPA kick…

>> 2) Perhaps a blackout will give some HNers the final push (and time) to make some phone calls to their representatives.

I think far more effective than a complete blackout would be requiring HNers contact their representatives before they can access HN content. Not sure how best to implement, but a email form that grants a token upon completion should be feasible (you'd need to decide how to handle non-US based IPs).

I have my doubts regarding the effectiveness of form emails on congresspeople, but I imagine those HNers who were going to call or write a more personal letter still will, with the added benefit of massive form emails from those less motivated to do so otherwise.

edit: grammar

Re: Poll: Do you think HN should go dark in protest of SOPA?

#144

Post by ImprovedSilence »

Voted no. I think we here all know. The bigger issue is, did the tens of thousands of us call our senators and congressmen and tell them what we think. We can try to make news headlines all we want, but their phones are ringing off the hook will cause a much bigger disruption. If you want action here it is. Please.

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...

Re: Poll: Do you think HN should go dark in protest of SOPA?

#145

Post by rcthompson »

Maybe an HN blackout won't directly raise awareness, since you can't really be an HN participant and not know about SOPA. But having another site join the blackout may help raise exposure among those who run other websites, so it may help expand the blackout to other sites whose absence will be noticed by the people who need to know about SOPA.

Re: Poll: Do you think HN should go dark in protest of SOPA?

#148

Post by steve-howard »

eob wrote: post #50
Apreche wrote: post #24

No because anyone who already reads HN already knows SOPA. The only thing that will be effective is if sites that normal non-tech people visit go dark.

Making a public stand isn't just about using shock-and-awe to create an educational moment. It's also about making headlines and showing solidarity. Despite the fact that the majority of HN readers already know about SOPA, I think it's an excellent idea for these other reasons. It might also be an opportunity to get some of us off our butts and use the time we spend reading HN each day to call our representatives in…

But where am I going to find the headlines?!

Re: Poll: Do you think HN should go dark in protest of SOPA?

#149

Post by tzs »

cheald wrote: post #138
tzs wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how. The meat of SOPA is sections 102 and 103. Section 102 only applies to foreign sites so is not applicable. Section 103 applies to any site, foreign or domestic, that is a site "dedicated to the theft of US property". What it means to be "dedicated to the theft of US property" is defined in 103(a)(1), and can be found here at loc.gov: http://tinyurl.com/3lvuqc4 (I used tinyurl.com because the real URL…

The grammar is exceedingly thick and difficult to parse, but if you look closely, you'll see: "the U.S.-directed site...enables or facilitates (a violation of USC Title 17, section 501 and section 1201/ title 17; loosely, the copyright infringement code and copyright protection circumvention code)" Basically, what this means is that if the core functionality of your site even enables copyright infringment (by, say, s…

Here's how 103(a)(1)(A)(B)(i) starts:

   the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed
   or operated for the purpose of, has only limited
   purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its
   operator or another acting in concert with that
   operator for use in, offering goods or services in
   a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
That looks like a three way "or" to me. If the three branches were separated, they would come out like this:

   the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or
   operated for the purpose of offering goods or
   services in a manner that engages in,
   enables, or facilitates--

   the U.S.-directed site has only limited purpose
   or use other than offering goods or services in
   a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--

   the U.S.-directed site is marketed by its operator
   or another acting in concert with that operator for
   use in offering goods or services in a manner that
   engages in, enables, or facilitates--
To fall under that section, a site has to meet the conditions of at least one of those branches.

All three of the branches have conditions that would not apply to HN. The first requires that the site be primarily designed or operated for the purpose of enabling or facilitating infringement. That's not the case for HN.

The second does not have an intent requirement, but requires that the site has only limited purpose or use aside form infringing. Again, that does not apply to HN.

The third requires that HN be marketed as offering goods and services to aid infringement. I don't think it has ever been so marketed.

Your point on "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement looks interesting. That one may be a problem.

Re: Poll: Do you think HN should go dark in protest of SOPA?

#150

Post by jeffem »

The only guaranteed outcomes of a blackout are:

1) site owners forego potential revenue that day 2) customers cannot do business with them that day 3) users cannot access those sites that day

Depending on which sites participate, the immediate effects on the lives of those owners, customers, and users can range from trivial to very meaningful.

Will this be a worthwhile "investment" in the long run?

I can believe that a blackout will increase media coverage. I can believe that a blackout will result in more calls, emails, etc. to representatives.

What's tough for me to believe is that any of that will do any good if the end goal is to stop this type of legislation. I would genuinely like to see evidence that similar protests have historically been effective.

Until then, I can't help but think this is just the wrong tactic that punishes the wrong people. I hope I'm wrong.

Post reply on HN