4 ms·

Just because a congressman opposes SOPA doesn't make his statements magically profound. Although the direction of his statement is intelligent, his four points

by yangez 15y ago

Just because a congressman opposes SOPA doesn't make his statements magically profound. Although the direction of his statement is intelligent, his four points at the end are far too vague to be useful. Phrases like "consider instead promoting approaches that empower users" and "promote innovation over litigation" are nice sound bites, but they're very "safe" opinions. No one's ever going to disagree with them. That makes them lose their usefulness, however, as proponents can easily twist logic to claim that SOPA satisfies those four points. Not trying to disparage Wyden, but his statement here would be far more useful if it drew a clearer line in the dirt.

mattdeboard 15y ago
>they're very "safe" opinions. No one's ever going to disagree with them. This is baldly, unequivocally false. There are PLENTY of senators and other opinion leaders who would nod at these points then immediately start to spit out arguments that would sound distinctly like they were arguing against them (while in their mind they were agreeing with them). There is not a "clearer line in the dirt." These are fundamental, ideological differences in what "promoting innovation over litigation" means. I think you're either trying too hard to be cynical or simply have a poor understanding of how deep the divide is on this issue (among others, of course).
- yangez 15y ago
  Do you really think that any SOPA supporter is going to say they want to stifle innovation in favor of more litigation? "There are PLENTY of senators and other opinion leaders who would nod at these points" This is exactly what I'm saying. While WE know what Wyden intended, the fact that he stated them in the form of vague feel-good platitudes means that it's no different than if he were to just simply say "Be careful with SOPA," which is unhelpful. In contrast, Zoe Lofgren's early statement that SOPA would be the "end of the internet as we know it" was an admirably bold statement that promoted discussion and rallied opposition. "I think you... have a poor understanding of how deep the divide is on this issue." The divide is over whether SOPA is beneficial for the country, not whether innovation or litigation is better. You think congressmen who support SOPA are actually trying to maliciously stifle innovation and suppress rights? I don't know if I'm the cynical one here!
  - sp332 15y ago
    Do you really think that any SOPA supporter is going to say they want to stifle innovation in favor of more litigation? Well yes, although they wouldn't use those words. They would say something about "defending artists' right to control their music." As you can see, this is completely equivalent to supporting increased litigation at the expense of innovation.
    - Confusion 15y ago
      They would simultaneously say they also 'promote innovation over litigation'. When pointed at the contradiction, they'll see no generalization will ever cover every case. Soundbite dismissed. And they are right, because Wyden also prefers litigation over innovation in some cases. Almost everyone prefers that, in specific cases. That's why it's a completely safe opinion to state.
- philjr 15y ago
  I don't think he's being cynical. The points smell of rhetoric. "We must be mindful of the precedents set" "Avoid collateral damage" "Promote innovation over litigation" None of this is actionable against the legislation in it's current form. What you're doing is interpreting actions based on your own bias and joining the dots in your own mind as to what these things mean. You're not seeing the other side, which is frequently the problems with these debates. Bottom line - I think his heart is in the right place, I just don't see these points as being particularly poignant given the context in which they are being seen from the other side of the debate.
jbooth 15y ago
His 4 points are MILES closer to common sense than the majority of what was said at that committee hearing. It sounds obvious to us.. and the committee hearing sounded insane to us.

by yangez 15y ago

mattdeboard 15y ago

>they're very "safe" opinions. No one's ever going to disagree with them. This is baldly, unequivocally false. There are PLENTY of senators and other opinion leaders who would nod at these points then immediately start to spit out arguments that would sound distinctly like they were arguing against them (while in their mind they were agreeing with them). There is not a "clearer line in the dirt." These are fundamental, ideological differences in what "promoting innovation over litigation" means. I think you're either trying too hard to be cynical or simply have a poor understanding of how deep the divide is on this issue (among others, of course).

yangez 15y ago
Do you really think that any SOPA supporter is going to say they want to stifle innovation in favor of more litigation? "There are PLENTY of senators and other opinion leaders who would nod at these points" This is exactly what I'm saying. While WE know what Wyden intended, the fact that he stated them in the form of vague feel-good platitudes means that it's no different than if he were to just simply say "Be careful with SOPA," which is unhelpful. In contrast, Zoe Lofgren's early statement that SOPA would be the "end of the internet as we know it" was an admirably bold statement that promoted discussion and rallied opposition. "I think you... have a poor understanding of how deep the divide is on this issue." The divide is over whether SOPA is beneficial for the country, not whether innovation or litigation is better. You think congressmen who support SOPA are actually trying to maliciously stifle innovation and suppress rights? I don't know if I'm the cynical one here!
- sp332 15y ago
  Do you really think that any SOPA supporter is going to say they want to stifle innovation in favor of more litigation? Well yes, although they wouldn't use those words. They would say something about "defending artists' right to control their music." As you can see, this is completely equivalent to supporting increased litigation at the expense of innovation.
  - Confusion 15y ago
    They would simultaneously say they also 'promote innovation over litigation'. When pointed at the contradiction, they'll see no generalization will ever cover every case. Soundbite dismissed. And they are right, because Wyden also prefers litigation over innovation in some cases. Almost everyone prefers that, in specific cases. That's why it's a completely safe opinion to state.
philjr 15y ago
I don't think he's being cynical. The points smell of rhetoric. "We must be mindful of the precedents set" "Avoid collateral damage" "Promote innovation over litigation" None of this is actionable against the legislation in it's current form. What you're doing is interpreting actions based on your own bias and joining the dots in your own mind as to what these things mean. You're not seeing the other side, which is frequently the problems with these debates. Bottom line - I think his heart is in the right place, I just don't see these points as being particularly poignant given the context in which they are being seen from the other side of the debate.

jbooth 15y ago

His 4 points are MILES closer to common sense than the majority of what was said at that committee hearing. It sounds obvious to us.. and the committee hearing sounded insane to us.