5 ms·

Personally, I think the true intent of SOPA is to prevent a Jasmine Revolution happening in the US (or Europe), and to prevent sites like WikiLeaks from spreadi

by ajays 15y ago

Personally, I think the true intent of SOPA is to prevent a Jasmine Revolution happening in the US (or Europe), and to prevent sites like WikiLeaks from spreading. The US saw that Twitter and Facebook were key driving forces behind the events in Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. Today they have not much control over these sites (other than politely requesting Twitter to delay a system upgrade[1] because Iranians were using it to coordinate their activities). Thanks to SOPA, they'll have a sledgehammer in their arsenal to knock these sites around. Similarly, they could just talk to Amazon to not host Wikileaks[2]; but if Amazon had refused to comply, they couldn't have done much (OK, other than maybe quickly imposing a federal sales tax). Now, thanks to SOPA, they can completely shutdown AWS should the next Wikileaks crop up. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/16/us-iran-election-twitter-usa-idUSWBT01137420090616 http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/16/us-iran-election-t... [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-websit...

nextparadigms 15y ago
That didn't work so well for Amazon, since they got the sales tax anyway. So they ended up with both a bad reputation and a sales tax. I wish they would've at least refused to take down Wikileaks. When in doubt, do the right thing.
- azth 15y ago
  if you know how Amazon works internally you wouldn't be surprised of their action. They're just another business with no concern about 'doing the right thing' unfortunately.
snowwrestler 15y ago
How would SOPA give the U.S. govt. any more power over Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon? The DNS blocking is basically the same power as domain seizing, which the feds already have today. In other words if the U.S. govt wanted to try to take down Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon today, they could already do so by trying to seize their domains. There's no difference in the process or standard of proof. The only thing SOPA adds is DNS blocking since the feds do not have jurisdiction over domains registered outside the U.S. It is great to stand up to bad legislation, but it is not great to be hyperbolic and inaccurate about the bill.
- feralchimp 15y ago
  "The DNS blocking is basically the same power as domain seizing, which the feds already have today." A similar point was made during the SOPA congressional hearing (sorry I forget by whom). The problem with that argument is that it mischaracterizes recent government behavior with powers that the government actually has a well-established legal right to assert. As I understand it, they "have the power" to seize domains in the same way that they "have the power" to attach surveillance devices to your car without a warrant. i.e. "Because they're doing it and we haven't successfully sued them or otherwise forced them to stop."
  - snowwrestler 15y ago
    Whether or not one thinks the feds should have the power to seize domains, my point is just that SOPA does not expand that power w/respect to U.S.-based sites.
    - RobertKohr 15y ago
      You are right, it doesn't expand power, but it legitimizes it. When questioned years later by some potential opposition, they can can state that they were on the right side of the law.
      - snowwrestler 15y ago
        Fair point, I hadn't looked at it that way.

by ajays 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago

That didn't work so well for Amazon, since they got the sales tax anyway. So they ended up with both a bad reputation and a sales tax. I wish they would've at least refused to take down Wikileaks. When in doubt, do the right thing.

azth 15y ago
if you know how Amazon works internally you wouldn't be surprised of their action. They're just another business with no concern about 'doing the right thing' unfortunately.

snowwrestler 15y ago

How would SOPA give the U.S. govt. any more power over Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon? The DNS blocking is basically the same power as domain seizing, which the feds already have today. In other words if the U.S. govt wanted to try to take down Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon today, they could already do so by trying to seize their domains. There's no difference in the process or standard of proof. The only thing SOPA adds is DNS blocking since the feds do not have jurisdiction over domains registered outside the U.S. It is great to stand up to bad legislation, but it is not great to be hyperbolic and inaccurate about the bill.

feralchimp 15y ago
"The DNS blocking is basically the same power as domain seizing, which the feds already have today." A similar point was made during the SOPA congressional hearing (sorry I forget by whom). The problem with that argument is that it mischaracterizes recent government behavior with powers that the government actually has a well-established legal right to assert. As I understand it, they "have the power" to seize domains in the same way that they "have the power" to attach surveillance devices to your car without a warrant. i.e. "Because they're doing it and we haven't successfully sued them or otherwise forced them to stop."
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  Whether or not one thinks the feds should have the power to seize domains, my point is just that SOPA does not expand that power w/respect to U.S.-based sites.
  - RobertKohr 15y ago
    You are right, it doesn't expand power, but it legitimizes it. When questioned years later by some potential opposition, they can can state that they were on the right side of the law.
    - snowwrestler 15y ago
      Fair point, I hadn't looked at it that way.