5 ms·
I think that the general suggestion of a more tepid response (that is, blacking the background of google/facebook but leaving everything else usable), would pro
by jxcole 15y ago
I think that the general suggestion of a more tepid response (that is, blacking the background of google/facebook but leaving everything else usable), would probably be completely ineffective. Most people are incredibly unconcerned with things on the internet that they might have to read, so if an ad comes up or something that you can click through, people will click through without reading it because they've been to Forbes enough times to have that behavior trained into them. Unless they commit to a total blackout of their usual features, you can expect very little response from users.
- TWAndrews 15y agoThe response rate could be hundredths of a percent of users and still generate a massive number of emails/calls/faxes.
- jxcole 15y agoYou are absolutely correct. However, representatives are not idiots and I think that it's likely that they will be aware, just like you are, that despite the incredible number of faxes/calls/emails they receive the number of people who actually care are likely to be only hundredths of a percent. Since it is unlikely that the politician will lose an election due to hundredths of a percent of a drop in their ratings, you can bet they will just turn their phones off for a few days rather than actually changing their political stance. Keep in mind a company like Fox or Universal is in a position to offer them what amounts to free commercials on their networks. That is what this potential black out is competing against. Update: I was unaware of this rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule. However, studios could still offer things like interviews for candidates that it doesn't offer to other candidates, which may not exactly be a commercial, but would have a similar effect.
- fennecfoxen 15y agoAh, the good old equal-time rule. Because if the media could do whatever they wanted with their air time, that would be some sort of "freedom of the press" and we can't have that. It might be "unfair". </bitterness>
- fragsworth 15y ago> despite the incredible number of faxes/calls/emails they receive the number of people who actually care are likely to be only hundredths of a percent No. Regardless of volume, for everyone who makes a fax/call/email, there are dozens or hundreds who still care but did not contact their representative. Instead, they vote against them later.
- zeteo 15y agoBlacking the background is enough to make it a top TV news story, and that's a medium politicians understand very well. Whereas removal of functionality will irk uncaring users and may turn them against the SOPA opposition.
- Joakal 15y agoIt will certainly turn more against SOPA supporters. I'm still finding so many that are unaware about SOPA and upon understanding that it's far-reaching attempt to control the Internet, they're not SOPA opponents. However, the older generation doesn't quite get it until I mention restricting Radio stations (They were familiar with the Pirate Radio in past).
- jcitme 15y agoExcuse my language, but that's fucking genius. I am going to call my parents ASAP and connect this with the jamming of VOA back in the cold war by the USSR. They can probably understand that.
- jbjohns 15y agoPeople are lazy creatures. If something happens that inconveniences them in some way they will first hate the thing that caused the block (i.e. Facebook itself), but once they see that the initial target won't move they will hate the other party (i.e. SOPA)
- fecklessyouth 15y agoBut how often does someone have to click through an add to get to Facebook?