There must be an alternative to SOPA/PIPA/NDAA, we must push for "Free and open Internets Act" - fair game for all, "Packet Network Liberty Act" - no to government protecting failing business models/corporations, and "Liberties of the internets Act" - unsupervised liberty to connect and communicate unless there is strong court order for surveillence.
I sympathize with the sentiment, but I think that saying "what's even more important is that you start paying attention and demand better from your government" is a little antagonistic and will raise conspiracy nut bells. Despite it being absolutely true. And even if they do pay attention most people are defeatist on politics changing.
I am no patio11, but they should be stressing SOPA/PIPA as an anti-jobs bills that will destroy Silicon Valley and won't even protect Hollywood jobs. Perhaps employ the fear of China or terrorism to make it seem important too. And most of all, Silicon Valley should be sending highly paid lobbyists too to make laws in their interests.
Maybe I'm overly cynical, but relying on public engagement in the long-term is folly.
But a intermediate stance, such as "you should use more than just mass media to learn your issues: consider these five websites" could be an effective message (if people actually browsed those websites / got informed)
Mainstream news channel didn't cover SOPA/PIPA until very late; the press didn't know what they were about, and when they did they just kept mum out of self-interest. Nevertheless, a very large mass of people noticed, enough to make extremely powerful congressmen like Smith sweat cold -- that's a very significant number of people who clearly rely on "alternative" online sources for their news and entertainment right now. Are they majority? The next few months (and votes) will tell us.
15 years ago, the DMCA passed with no real opposition. Now, this bill could actually be defeated. The shift might have already happened, and if not, it's really, really close. One day we'll look back trying to find a turning point (the rise of Google? Wikipedia? Facebook?), but I bet historians will set it before 2012.
Reposting my blog comment here (because I know people don't read all the way down):
I agree and we need to all become more vigilant. I also implore you, as a member of the news media who is paying attention - please help us stay informed. Government is big and complex and we laymen have work to accomplish day-to-day. Help us find information, point us to new sources, new ideas. Challenge us. Its not that we can't think, but simply that we are busy producing and I personally feel their are few news sorces that give me the facts, respect my intelligence, and dig in deep.
We can get Congress to vote down SOPA/PIPA, or alternatively get the next Congress to repeal it, but there's a fundamental flaw in the way that we, the consumers, do business. Yes, our Congress is taking severe steps in the wrong direction, but we contributed significantly to that direction as well.
The permanent solution is not to stop one law or even a multitude of laws in perpetuity. The permanent solution is to change the methods by which we create (and allow to be created) copyrighted material. That means encouraging the use of Creative Commons and Free Software licenses like the GPL, Apache, BSD, and WTFPL (to name a few). We, as consumers, need to make shifts that not only deny these laws to affect us to our detriment, but also deny the companies supporting these laws the money to push them through.
In short, America and the rest of the world contributed heavily to these actions by Congress. Even as these laws get voted down, we must start to take steps that prevent them from happening again.
Perhaps the threat will dissipate over time, despite the electorates limited attention span, since the electorate is continually voting with its eyeballs and brain space?
Murdoch (and ilk) are terrified of the Internet, as it dilutes their influence. Once their influence dilutes past a certain point, people and politicians will stop listening to them. Is SOPA the beginning of the end, a final effort at shoring up their power base before reaching the point of no return to influence?
The fundamental problem is the US government has essentially unlimited power (despite the legal basis for its existence, the constitution) and has manipulated the courts and the elections process such that there's little anyone can do about it.
Many of these really egregious bills are unpopular with the majority of americans, but their opinions are not represented by the actions of government. There's little they can do to get real reformers elected because the "two party" system focuses on immaterial differences between the parties and on these issues the parties are pretty close. Most democrats and republicans voted for the PATRIOT ACT (and its renewal and extension under Obama) as well as NDAA, etc.
I'd love for someone to find a way to make democracy work. If there were a way to keep the US government constrained to the powers enumerated for it by the constitution, then we wouldn't have these problems.
But the only "checks and balances" on the government are all part of the government, and thus have long ago been compromised, there's no real oversight.
That's the fundamental problem.
If SOPA is "defeated" it will just rise up under another name in a few months.
SOPA itself is only the latest attempt to do this- they've been attempting to gain this level of control over the internet using the excuse of fighting terrorism for several years now.
The two party system is an inevitable outcome of the election system we have. The game theory dictates it. Switch to approval voting(http://www.electology.org/approval-voting) and we'll have a much more responsive and ethical government.
In a winner take all system, if there are more than two candidates, the dominant effect is the spoiler effect, where having more similar candidates makes it less likely that any will win. This means that anything more than two parties is degenerate, which implies that only the dominant eigenvector of political opinion will ever be reflected in an election. (Which in the US is typically the culture wars/identity politics, unless the economy is falling apart.)
If I'm guessing correctly what you mean by spoiler effect, I guess a 2-stage election does minimize its effects. For instance, in Brazil, a presidential (or gubernatorial, etc) candidate must have a majority (that is, more than 50% of the votes) to win. Suppose in the first-stage we have candidate A with 30%, B with 20%, C with 15%, etc. Then a couple of months later we have a second-stage with candidates A and B. So it's possible that B wins.
I believe in the approval voting that you mention, there's a situation where candidate C would be able to win, which is also interesting.
I've thought a system like this would be great, but it seems like we would end up with so many candidates that it would be difficult to make informed decisions for every one. Then congress would become fragmented with dozens of factions that don't work together. It seems like a system of a small number of large parties (but more than 2, perhaps) would be most efficient. I suspect that there's a solution but couldn't find one in the link.
> Then congress would become fragmented with dozens of factions that don't work together.
That sounds like an excellent outcome. They might actually have to talk to each other, work out solutions that work for everyone, and refrain from doing things they can't all agree on.
This is a pretty empty rant. Nothing about SOPA/PIPA is the product of the government overstepping its Constitutional powers. Whatever else it might be, the internet is a medium of interstate commerce, squarely within Congress's power to regulate. Moreover, the regulation in question concerns a property right created by the Constitution itself.
There are certain due process, etc, arguments you can make at the edges, but the fundamental idea of SOPA/PIPA are squarely Constitutional.
Commerce is legal jargon which doesn't carry the same meaning as regular English. You're misinterpreting it because you're not treating it in its legal context.
There is no magical legal context. What you're referring to is people being dishonest and trying to cheat and get away with violating the constitution by pretending words mean different things. For instance, the power to "regulate" is not the power to ban, though politicians and judges have pretended it is, and many people have been tricked into believing it.
The constitution does not give the federal government the power to limit interstate commerce, only the power to prevent states from imposing tariffs on it.
The regulations in question allow the government to censor websites, something that they are not given the power to do in the establishment clause, and are also strictly forbidden from doing in the first amendment.
If the bills simply entailed the power to require websites to take down IP violating content, then what you say would be true.
The fundamental ideas are not constitutional. I suggest you read the constitution. (Seriously, it was meant to be read. It doesn't take lawyers or judges to interpret it, it is written in pretty plain language.)
> not given the power to do in the establishment clause
What does a prohibition on establishing a national religion have to do with DNS blocking? Perhaps metaphorically, unlimited-copyright is the religion of many politicians, but legally that seems like a stretch...
SOPA has relieved me of any illusion that the Democratic Party is at all useful or decent. They're just as bad as the other guys.
I will be likely voting Republican (for the first time in my life) for at least some of the 2012 elections, out of my commitment to vote against any incumbent who supports or votes for SOPA. Vote the bastards out. #FireSOPA #FirePIPA
"I will be likely voting Republican (for the first time in my life) for at least some of the 2012 elections, out of my commitment to vote against any incumbent who supports or votes for SOPA."
You've got to try to understand the kind of message seeing more Republican votes sends the Democrats.
When they see the Republicans get more votes, their strategy over the last 20 years is to move more to the "center" (ie. more to the right). By voting for Republicans, you are helping no one but the Republicans/conservatives. If that's what you want, then go for it. But if you want a more liberal/progressive government, voting for the Republicans is counterproductive, even if you do help to vote a bunch of spineless Democrats out.
The real way to combat the Democrats' shift to the right is to vote for a more liberal/progressive party, like the Greens. This strategy has worked wonders for conservatives, when they started to vote en-masse for Tea Party candidates. Now the Tea Party, an extreme right wing group, is an influential member of the right wing landscape, even if there's no Tea Party president yet and the vast majority of right wing congressmen are not Tea Party members yet either. The Tea Party still has a significant influence on policy, and on shifting the Republican party to the right. A similar strategy can work for progressives who want to push the Democrats more to the left.
I tend to vote Green or leftist in not-close elections just because I figure the marginal effect of 1 vote is higher. The difference between 5 and 6 percent is a lot bigger than that between 30 and 31 percent, or 69 and 70 percent.
When they see the Republicans get more votes, their strategy over the last 20 years is to move more to the "center" (ie. more to the right).
That's because they're bought and paid-for by the same people as the Republicans. Almost all politicians are vector sums of corporations; you're just voting for one portfolio over another.
Democrat or Republican, as soon as they get invited to assholes' parties in Aspen and Easthampton, they fall in love with the asshole world and do whatever they can to stay connected to it. This social phenomenon has a technical name: goatsefication.
While I agree with your sentiment that the Democratic Party isn't useful or decent, they are not "just as bad." Both parties are full of slimy politicians, admittedly. But if given the choice, I will continue to support the slimy politicians who protect a women's right to choose and start less wars in general. It might not be a grand ethical stand, but these issues matter to me.
That being said, I understand people's frustrations with the system and wish there was a legitimate way to support third parties in a way that felt effective.
"That being said, I understand people's frustrations with the system and wish there was a legitimate way to support third parties in a way that felt effective."
That makes no sense. What better way is there to support third parties than voting for them?
Your vote isn't going to be the deciding factor in the election, so why not vote for the third party candidate who most closely matches your views?
The better way to support third parties is to vote for them in a system where votes for smaller third parties actually make some form of difference, like a proportional representation system.
I disagree. Not voting for a major party is little better than not voting, when it comes to effecting change.
If there's ever to be hope of voting reform in this country, it has to be done by getting a major party to adopt it, presumably by convincing them that they'll gain a lot of supporters by doing so.
I'm not sure that's true, because they will still have to appease their other constituents in the existing base by making compromises (that will make you not want to vote for them again)
Well, it wouldn't be easy, and I think there's a reason we don't see any meaningful electoral reform, but I don't see another way.
Perhaps one could convince the major parties to support electoral reform by constantly hitting them with spoiling candidates. Run left-wing independents in districts which are typically safe for Democrats but still reasonably close. Run right-wing independents in districts which are close but Republican. If you can get both major parties to get fed up with losing seemingly safe seats due to the first-past-the-post system, that might get them to change it.
I count nine Republican initial supporters and four Democrat initial supporters. Where are you getting the "...illusion that the Democratic Party is at all useful or decent" part at all?
from Wikipedia(you know how to get there still):
The Stop Online Piracy Act was introduced by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and was initially co-sponsored by Howard Berman (D-CA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), John Conyers (D-MI), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Elton Gallegly (R-CA), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Timothy Griffin (R-AR), Dennis A. Ross (R-FL), Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Lee Terry (R-NE). As of January 16, 2012, there were 31 sponsors.[82]
> I count nine Republican initial supporters and four Democrat initial supporters. Where are you getting the "...illusion that the Democratic Party is at all useful or decent" part at all?
The OP's whole point is that the Democratic party is arguably less bad than the Republicans, but that they are still very bad and deserve no loyalty. Your pointing out that more Republicans initially supported the bill does not conflict with this.
Here is a list by propublica.org which lists likely supporters and opponents for SOPA/PIPA.
I understand that they are about equally as bad; I don't understand the conclusion: "vote republican because those democrats are bad." If anything vote libertarian or independent to show disapproval. Vote against the people in your congress/senate that support it.
I am not going to argue here which one is less bad because that's pointless and off topic. I am merely pointing out the logical disconnect that I saw.
Well, you misinterpreted. The conclusion of michaelochurch was decidedly not to "vote republican because those democrats are bad." He said
> I will be likely voting Republican (for the first time in my life) for at least some of the 2012 elections, out of my commitment to vote against any incumbent who supports or votes for SOPA
This is the important point - the US doesn't have a strong party system. Senators aren't evicted from their party when they cross the party line like they are in other countries.
Outside of the presidential election, voters in the US don't vote for the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, they vote for their electoral reprentative. The party of the representatives on offer might be a decent heuristic for their policies and values, but the informed voter has a lot more information at their fingertips than just that.
Worse, with a 2 party system you can't necessarily vote for your preferred candidate. In most cases, elections are so skewed toward Democrat/Republican candidates and often are so close between the two that you have no short-term effect unless you vote for the Democratic or Republican you hate the least.
I'm a conservative, so I normally vote Republican, but it's not hard to recognize the corruption this represents. Everybody on that list, regardless of party, needs to be run out of office. The more tar and feathers involved the happier I'll be.
Perhaps, but the incumbent-victory rate in national elections is very high. I think it's about 95%. That's incredible job security. It might make sense to vote for a not-bad Republican (maybe not Paladino) just to get new blood, and replace him with a real Democrat in 2-6 years.
A consequence of the two-party system (and the lack of will of the political parties to challenge their own incumbents) is that shitty Democrats are more damaging than equally shitty Republicans, because they take up that "slot" (usually; credible primary challenges are really rare) can only be replaced by Republicans.
Getting into office is really, really hard. But once these people are in, they have a sub-5% per year chance of getting fired. That's ludicrous given that (a) positions of power should be harder to keep, and (b) their performance has been awful for the past few decades.
I heard that legislators in North Korea have a lower chance of getting re-elected than U.S. legislators.
If I was the dictator of the U.S., I'd change the constitution so that Congress gets drafted. People would get selected to be Congressmen by random lottery.
I'd imagine that a good fraction of Americans chosen randomly would be corruptible, but a good fraction of them would be incorruptible, and it would be too dangerous to recruit corrupt legislators: you'd have too high of a chance of having somebody (i) call the cops, (ii) pull a gun, or (iii) punch you in the face.
The current selection process selects for :Respectable people for whom being :Respectable is accepting that other people are :Respectable. Many ordinary Americans, be they "good ol boys" or inner-city blacks, won't play that game.
Uhm, a 95% re-election rate is not a 5% chance of getting fired ever. The chance of being re-elected N times is (1-0.05)^N, so the chance of not being re-elected N times is 1 - (1 - 0.05)^N. For N = 10 (a nice twenty year run in the House), that's only ~ 60% chance of being re-elected each time. For N = 15, it drops to 46%. I think that's actually pretty reasonable, you've got enough security at the beginning to allow you some latitude but not so much that you stop caring.
