11 ms·
I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?
- venturefizz 15y agoWell done!
- TomGullen 15y agoVery good and articulate. Good job!
- zooz 15y agoGood talk.
- AHorihuela 15y agoNice work - you totally owned it.
- laserDinosaur 15y agoGood work :D
- squeee 15y agoI love how everyone keeps asking where is the compromise from the tech industry. This bill is like someone saying "Hi Bob, this store you have here is great, but sometimes someone comes in and steals one of my products off your shelves and since you can't guarantee me that I will get paid for every one of my products that walks out the door I'm going to have to shut down your store until you can." But, to answer your question; great job. Did you get the sense that she truly had any idea what would happen if SOPA/PIPA pass as they are written today?
- AlisdairO 15y agoYes, I find it very frustrating too. My response would probably be "The compromise was the DMCA. Usually when I make a compromise I try to stick by it." Nice interview!
- corin_ 15y agoThis analogy is as bad as people who say that piracy is the same as stealing from a shop - in your story, the content producer does get paid for that product, it's Bob the store owner who loses money. You think shops can turn around to their suppliers and say "hey, a few things got stolen so we'd like a refund for them"?
- JoshTriplett 15y ago> I love how everyone keeps asking where is the compromise from the tech industry. Politics lives by the fallacy of middle ground: the compromise is always right, and anyone refusing to compromise is always wrong and can be safely ignored. Put that together with the Overton window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window), and politics compromises its way towards whatever position it wants. Zeno's Paradox, applied to law.
- jiggity 15y agoLooking sharp. We're lucky to have a charismatic figure from our demographic who can articulate the issues that matter to us. - From the outside-in perspective, you carry the impression of being a young, successful, and likable Silicon Valley entrepreneur. - From the inside-out, you have the ultimate cred, not just for starting one of the most influential online communities but imbuing it with your distinctive ethos of caring, humor and nerd. With these two identities, you're in the position to really help influence how the future is shaped.
- kn0thing 15y agoThank you. reddit was started and sold from Somerville, MA though ;) It's going to take much more than a few TV news appearances, though. It's on all of us to motivate our friends & family to educate their representatives about the horrors of these bills. We're on the right side of this, but it's going to take a concerted effort from all of us to win the day. I may be getting another chance to return to Washington later this month to meet with decision-makers. I'll be back here to solicit feedback on my testimony. https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmovJ1 https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo... Oh, and be sure to check out http://engineadvocacy.org http://engineadvocacy.org
- JonathanBouman 15y agoGood job Alexis :)
- carlsednaoui 15y agoVery well said. And nice suit! ;)
- miles_matthias 15y agoNice suit and great job!
- ynniv 15y agoQuite a grilling from the nice lady. As usual her facts were shaky, and this might be an important time to adopt more mainstream arguments. We're familiar with the nuances, but often miss the important points. 1) These laws will not prevent IP infringement. They might not even reduce it. They will definitely not increase profits. 2) These laws will hinder domestic innovation in software, but will not stop innovation - it will just happen elsewhere (probably China). 3) Enforcement of these laws is extrajudicial. If someone does not like something on a site, they can claim IP infringement and have the site removed without a trial. That isn't even prudent, never-mind upholding the ideals of Americans. SOPA and PIPA won't help Hollywood, will cripple Silicon Valley, and will create a means of silencing unwanted speech. I can't see how anyone who understands the reality of the situation could support them. You might as well legislate sunny days and outlaw umbrellas. I'm glad that you spoke for all of us in such a public manner. It takes nerve and resolve to stand in front of that camera.
- swalsh 15y agoIt's an achievement when you have better presence then the reporter!
- JacobIrwin 15y agoGreat performance! For the amount of time they gave you to speak, you hit most of the main points (and notably, using specific examples we've seen lately). It's too bad she didn't open the window for you to stick a jab out at the film/music industry - but you pretty much covered it [politely] by saying it's up to them to innovate. We all know the speed at which updated encryptions techniques are created and then cracked. Thus, the film/music industry should not be looking to secure their work (i.e. Blu-ray), but should instead explore and create new models for distribution. "Invent."
- JacobIrwin 15y agoGreat performance! For the amount of time they gave you to speak, you hit most of the main points (and notably, using specific examples we've seen lately). It's too bad she didn't open the window for you to stick a jab out at the film/music industry - but you pretty much covered it [politely] by saying it's up to them to innovate. We all know the speed at which updated encryptions techniques are created and then cracked. Thus, the film/music industry should not be looking to secure their work (i.e. Blu-ray), but should instead explore and create new models for distribution. "Invent."
- edw519 15y agoAlexis, you did great. Cool, calm, collected, and sharp. You did a great job advocating what most of us here understand and champion. But here is the problem I see with this whole SOPA debate... I didn't see anything that would help my Uncle Art understand what this is all about in his language and why he should care. This is what he sees: - There is a bill in congress. - It's to stop people from stealing other peoples' stuff. - There are strong opinions on both sides. - The old companies I love (movies, etc.) support it. - The Chamber of Commerce (mother, apple pie) supports it. - This young guy was very articulate; I like him. - I don't understand the Constitutional argument. - He says this new stuff wouldn't have happened. So what? - What is reddit? - I thought Facebook was for kids. - Who is Louie CK? I really don't understand what he did. - Why is the internet so afraid of ethical behavior? There is another comment in this thread by squeee which is the first one I read that my Uncle Art would understand, something like, "If someone shoplifts in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." I could just picture my uncle raising holy hell if that ever happened. I read the comments in this thread before I watched the video (like I usually do), so I was waiting for Alexis to say something like squeee said. Something that would get the great mass of those who don't understand the argument to take notice and take action. Alexis, keep up the good fight. And find a way to get our aunts, uncles, and grandparents to "get it". I believe that will be the turning point of the battle.
- sc00ter 15y ago> "If someone shoplifts in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." I like the analogy, but it's off by a mark. "If someone leaves stolen goods in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." would be a closer match, but misses a nuance. "If someone post a notice advertising stolen goods on the community noticeboard in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." would be even closer, but is a little harder to grok.
- joshklein 15y agoThe best I could come up with is: "It's like if you were a landlord renting one apartment in a large building to someone you thought was a guitar teacher giving private lessons, but he turned out to be selling stolen jewelry; your whole apartment complex could be shut down by the government before the trial of your tenant took place, even if you evicted the tenant as soon as you discovered criminality."
- shaggyfrog 15y agoJust in case anyone else is wondering, the video won't load if Ghostery is running. Incredibly lame.
- graywh 15y agoI had no problem with click-to-run enabled in Chrome.
- MikeCapone 15y agoYou did an excellent job, Alexis. Thank you for being out there. I hope that other big media outlets are calling!
- InclinedPlane 15y agoNotice the blatant verbal blunder the reporter makes in the first few minutes, she says: "SOPA would allow the government and private companies to shut down websites enabling copyright infringement..." Is there a word missing there perhaps? A word that we've become accustomed to in its routine presence in the media? When members of the media talk about crimes the word "alleged" might as well be "uh" given the frequency it drops from their mouths. But not here. Even a news outlet as savvy as Bloomberg is utterly clueless about the pitfalls of erasing the presumption of innocence and due process for the online world.
- msb 15y agoThat was one of the most rational discussions about the SOPA debate that I have seen. There is far too much vitriolic debate over the extremes of this type of legislation, it was nice to see you avoid that entirely. Your reference to Louis C.K. managed to subtlety communicate why SOPA is more about power than preventing piracy, a focal point that is often missed. Well done.
- Alex3917 15y agoI think the one weakness was using the phrase 'user-generated website' out of context, because understanding what this means is really the key to getting people to understand the implications of the bill. I think most people probably have a vague idea of what user generated content is, but I'm not sure they would have connected all the dots from just this phrase, in terms of understanding why exactly the bill would cause sites like reddit, ebay, google, etc. to get shut down. Overall pretty good though, especially considering how insane live TV is.
- kn0thing 15y agoHow wrong is it to just simplify and say "websites?"
- libraryatnight 15y agoGreat job, it's really refreshing to hear this sort of interview :) Thanks for doing it.
- narrator 15y agoOne thing to remember when arguing about SOPA in a forum that encompasses a broader audience than Hacker News or Reddit is that not everyone is involved in the internet industry or even primarily a knowledge worker. Think about how to appeal to someone who is retried or involved in managing a bakery or who runs a flower shop. We don't want to come off as a bunch of elitist nerds. We want them to understand that we're concerned about the future of innovation in this country and the preservation of free speech. We should focus on explaining how SOPA wildly oversteps the bounds of reasonable measures to prevent piracy and causes an enormous amount of collateral damage to the rest of the economy and innovation. The store analogy was a pretty good start, IMHO.
- kn0thing 15y agoYes, I think we're cooking up the perfect analogy in this thread. It needs to be as honest as it is relatable as it is succinct :)
- ashcairo 15y agoGreat job with the Louis CK example, highlighting the solution being innovation not castration. Might be good to add how hysterical the music industry was with piracy a few years ago and how the problem was solved legitametly by the innovation provided by Apple's iTunes store.
- bad_user 15y agoWell, actually iTunes is not such a great example for the music industry because iTunes got them by their balls with Apple having significant leverage when it comes to negotiating with music labels. Not only that, but the music industry lost significant control over what hits to promote - because the iTunes chart is now an important validator of hits. But the music industry is to be blamed for this - for a long time all the music you could buy from iTunes was DRM-enabled. This worked in Apple's favor, contributing to the popularity of iTunes, because once hooked, the millions of iPod customers couldn't switch to something else easily without losing the music they've bought. So who pushed DRM on (honest) customers, punishing them for not pirating? They made their own bed, now they are bitching about it.
- diminoten 15y agoThe argument that a company might not have started if this law were in effect isn't a valid one, as the fact that a company exists in no way has an impact on whether or not something is good or bad. Otherwise, I like how you mentioned PIPA at the beginning as well - too many people are forgetting what else is going on behind SOPA.
- aidenn0 15y agoFrom my point of view, the 3 important points on SOPA, and your grade on them: 1) This will kill innovation in the US, hurting job growth. Mentioned 2) This will not prevent rogue sites from operating on the internet, meaning we pay the cost of #1 without any real gain Not mentioned at all 3) There are good technical reasons why this is a bad idea Not mentioned at all.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago0) The utter destruction of due process and freedom of speech (most of the bill of rights) with respect to the internet, which is rapidly becoming the dominant means of political and private discourse and business in the 21st century.
- fenugeek 15y agoWhat are the good technical reasons? Quick, give a canned 1min response ...See I thought so. There are good technical reasons but I would probably not mention this in a 3 minute tv interview where I couldn't expand
- aidenn0 15y agoThe good technical reasons are "Vint Cerf says so"
- kn0thing 15y agoI should have stressed #2 but deliberately left out #3 because my audience was Bloomberg. I'm really keen on finding a great, honest analogy that we can tie this all together with.
- DrHankPym 15y agoI really like your comment about more money being spent on legislation than innovation. I really wish this could be emphasized because this models the real cost of this bill. Should web companies invest more in technology or lawyers? A better service or stricter laws?
- aspir 15y agoIt was really strong! However, since that's not the most constructive line, I'll try to point out a few things :) 1) Some would recommend not saying "I think" or "I feel" in interview situations. You're the expert -- what you say is fact and the truth. It simply is, not what "you think." I know this is a belligerent, but his is a big issue, so don't forget to pull out the rhetorical stops. However, "we think" may work in these instances. It's congenial, yet conveys that you have the backing of many (and you do, quite frankly), and that you are a thought leader. 2) You need to begin to build some sort of presence in Washington. You're well positioned to do so, and it's the most likely way to stop SOPA/PIPA. Get meetings with as many elected official there as you can, and educate them. It's what Big Media does, and its how they wrote SOPA/PIPA. If you don't think our policymakers know enough about the internet, teach them -- they're smart people, all in all. IIRC you had some success with individual meetings during the first SOPA/PIPA hearings, so you know what I mean. Bloomberg interviews, boycotts, and blackouts are incredibly valuable, but they all pale in comparison to meetings with people who vote on the policy. Point 2 will of course prompt the question "How the heck is Alexis supposed to meet with these guys, cmon?" My answer: you're an entrepreneur. Hustle. Do what it takes :)
- kn0thing 15y agoThanks! I prefer the constructive stuff. 1) Yes, you're absolutely right - it matters and I've gotta break the habit. 2) I actually had a really productive set of meetings with a bunch of reps, sens, and their staffs back in Nov. One of whom, Chaffetz [R-Utah], has been a good voice of reason in House Judiciary Committee Meetings: https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmovJ1 https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo... I'm doing everything I can to go back - and early signs are looking promising.
- joshu 15y agoHa ha, you had to wear a tie for the exchange floor. Also, wadsworth constant applies.
- chrisclark1729 15y ago"We have been spending our money innovating instead of lobbying." I'm happy you got this in there. Even though it's mildly elitist it's very true.
- therandomguy 15y agoYou did great. And you looked sharp. Good job. For the next interview it would be great if you could paint a picture of post SOPA internet. Try to say, "if it passes we will HAVE to shut down reddit and most likely facebook, twitter and youtube will be gone as well".
- rabidonrails 15y agoGreat job, and much thanks for representing the collective! The most influential single line in the entire interview -- "...we simply have been spend our money innovating instead of lobbying."
- markkat 15y agoVery nice job. I like the 'no need for more government' tack. This is the language that catches people's ears. If I don't understand the issue, my first impression in "Looks like the government is keeping these smart tech kids down." I think one or two more simple 'take-aways' would help. I also think people want to know why a company Facebook would be against SOPA. If they understood that in the form of a simple example, that would go a long way. Everyone uses Facebook. Really great job. Very articulate. I would have added 50 ums. :/
- fonzie 15y agoI've been keeping my mother updated with the whole SOPA thing and sent her this video too. She's 'very impressed that people so young can be so eloquent and steadfast'. I think you did great and stood ground with poise, confidence and intelligent arguments. Well done.
- kn0thing 15y agoYay! I love moms. Thank her for me. We need to help more people like her realize how awful this legislation is.
- etz 15y agoI thought you did little to address the real issue, which is the lack of judicial oversight or input to the process of taking down a website, and the economic effect that it has on the owners. Lack of recourse or due process is already hurting the US, look at Russia's new law bannning using foriegn websites. There should be a way to adjudicate these matters, and the government should have to take responsibility for first amendment concerns by taking down website by decree not by actions of parties that have more at stake than the copyright or other issues.
- etz 15y agoI thought you did little to address the real issue, which is the lack of judicial oversight or input to the process of taking down a website, and the economic effect that it has on the owners. Lack of recourse or due process is already hurting the US, look at Russia's new law bannning using foriegn websites. There should be a way to adjudicate these matters, and the government should have to take responsibility for first amendment concerns by taking down website by decree not by actions of parties that have more at stake than the copyright or other issues.
- etz 15y agoI thought you did little to address the real issue, which is the lack of judicial oversight or input to the process of taking down a website, and the economic effect that it has on the owners. Lack of recourse or due process is already hurting the US, look at Russia's new law bannning using foriegn websites. There should be a way to adjudicate these matters, and the government should have to take responsibility for first amendment concerns by taking down website by decree not by actions of parties that have more at stake than the copyright or other issues.
- etz 15y agoI thought you did little to address the real issue, which is the lack of judicial oversight or input to the process of taking down a website, and the economic effect that it has on the owners. Lack of recourse or due process is already hurting the US, look at Russia's new law bannning using foriegn websites. There should be a way to adjudicate these matters, and the government should have to take responsibility for first amendment concerns by taking down website by decree not by actions of parties that have more at stake than the copyright or other issues.
- etz 15y agoI thought you did little to address the real issue, which is the lack of judicial oversight or input to the process of taking down a website, and the economic effect that it has on the owners. Lack of recourse or due process is already hurting the US, look at Russia's new law bannning using foriegn websites. There should be a way to adjudicate these matters, and the government should have to take responsibility for first amendment concerns by taking down website by decree not by actions of parties that have more at stake than the copyright or other issues.
- AdamFernandez 15y agoI see a lot of discussion about analogies to help explain to everyday people the problems SOPA (and PIPA) would cause. Let's get some PSA style analogy videos and pictures up for everyone to distribute to their friends and family via (fill in social network here). I'm sure the Reddit community can get the ball rolling with their meme prowess. It's very simple, but it could be very effective.
- kevinalexbrown 15y agoSome criticisms on style: - You said "you know" reflexively while she asked questions. - You look young. The cool hair (which I like, personally) makes you look even younger. - You bob your head. - You mentioned PIPA without defining it. Most people you need to convince won't know what you're talking about. - Emphasizing "One Million Dollars!" doesn't sound too huge compared with how often we hear "Billion" and "Trillion" thrown around in the news. LouisCK was great, and it's a good point, but I think it doesn't make the point you want to the people who don't already understand. Some suggestions on content: Play up "government intervention is bad" even more. The conservative electorate might be tough on crime, but they're also pro-business. Paint SOPA as a government-subsidized bailout intervention evil that is anti-business and taking away our constitutional rights. People respect Google, and at least go "those people are smart!" even if they don't get the internet. A lot of conservatives got traction against Obamacare by saying "Doctors hate it, and we trust doctors." Play that up: Smart, innovative businesses like Google oppose this government intervention in the free market. We trust Google, etc. etc. If I had one sentence to suggest it would be: "SOPA lets the government intervene to take away the right to free speech from trusted businesses like Google that are the future of our economy, just to bail out the movie industry." That's one hell of an oversimplification, but I think it's enough to perk up ears. This isn't defense spending - conservatives don't necessarily have any love for "Hollywood liberal PETA supporters" (as my mother puts it). In Hollywood versus Google, Google at least has "pro-business" points. The thing to remember is that if they don't get the internet, the won't get your explanation of any nuances.
- sc00ter 15y ago"SOPA lets the government intervene [...] just to bail out the movie industry" The implication here is that he movie industry is in trouble, and needs bailing out. And no-one wants to see the movie industry go under. Does Hollywood really need a bail-out?
- tomsaffell 15y agoFantastic job. I have three suggestions on how to be even more fantastic next time. These are all about presentation; I'm not suggesting any changes on position. 1. At 3.27 she asks, "..where's the compromise in-between, is there one?", and you reply "Unfortunately, the way this technology works....", so three seconds into your answer, applying a binary filter, your answer is "no". Assuming your objective is to move the 'swing voters' towards your position, that's probably not ideal. A more politic thing would be to say "Yes, there is.. <details...>". Even if those details don't pertain to legislation at all, you can still present it as a compromise in the sense that it gets the other party the thing they ultimately want. 2. Distance yourself further from the real bad guys and the prime targets of this legislation (some extreme example like counterfeit manufacturers of safety equipment). You did this once or twice, but I think this point needs hammering. Most people don't know that Reddit isn't some sketchy movie sharing site. Do this in a way that demonstrates empathy for the other side. I want to help solve their problem, but this isn't the way 3. While I love what Louis CK did, and it is a good example of the type of innovation big media should be trying, I don't think it's a great example to bring into this debate - it's just too complicated for most people to understand.
- kn0thing 15y ago1) Gah, yes, I'm no politician, but there are better ways to pitch compromise. 2) I need to stress that this is well-intentioned legislation that is a problem I want to help solve, just not this way. 3) Sigh. Yeah. I didn't expect that question and through out the first example from recent history that came to mind. Thanks! I hope there'll be a round 2.
- MaximusFubaris 15y agoGood Job!
- Joakal 15y agoDoes anyone have a transcript for those that are unable to parse video content? Alexis, did you talk about Internet Freedom? How anyone in the world can use Internet to read about controversial topics, to share memories, etc. However, certain industries can not compete in controlling topics, memories, etc, so they are bringing the laws in, making website owners at the mercy of aging industries? Did you know that SOPA is just one of the many bills? I highly recommend adopting Internet Freedom movement that seeks to clearly say any SOPA-related restrictions are unacceptable. Otherwise, how do would you explain a bill titled "Stop Online Child Pornography Act"? Quite a mouthful, though. I'd say SOPA is giving corporations the power to control Free Speech on the Internet because it's illegal for the government to do so. If you don't want the government or big companies to read what you type online, then demand Internet Freedom.
- pirtlj 15y agowow she needs to learn how to use her words...
- jarrettcoggin 15y agoI really do agree with a lot of the points you made. The one thing I think you failed to mention was that the in the past, these same companies that are backing SOPA/PIPA fought previous technologies, such as public radio, VCRs/DVD Burners, and DVR/TiVo. Ultimately, those channels did not hinder or kill the industries they are fighting to protect, but rather provide them new methods of distribution and new sources of revenue. They can choose to spend that money on technological improve rather than on lobbying/litigation/drafting legislation. We already see companies embracing the new technology and making great improvements (Apple with iTunes, Pandora, Spotify, etc.), but the other companies aren't keeping up with or using the technology to remain in the game and/or relevant until they have no other choice. Another point a coworker made is that we are squeezing the inefficiency out of these systems. Models of business that worked well 10-50 years ago don't work nearly as well or at all now because there is technology in place that eliminates the need for some or all of the distribution methods in place that they are trying to protect.
- Maven911 15y agoMaybe the general-laymen catchphrase can be: shutting down internet freedom
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- secoif 15y agoExcellent work. My only feedback would be to look at the camera more, that way you're talking to the audience, not just to the interviewer.
- bictorman 15y agoIs denying the entertainment industry crisis out of the table? You could mention the recent study from the swiss government: https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Juristische_Infos/e/press_releases/Medienmitteilung_Savary_e.pdf https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Juristische_Infos/e... Interesting quotes: - "in spite of numerous media reports and public awareness campaigns, a majority of internet users still do not know which offers are legal and which are not." - "The percentage of available income spent in this area by consumers remains constant. However, shifts can be seen within this budget. For example, money saved by consumers at exchange platforms is still being spent in the entertainment sector. However, that available amount is now being put towards concerts, going to the cinema and merchandising instead of music or film recordings."
- boxysean 15y agoI feel you were lacking in the number of iPads you were carrying (compared to her).
- kloc 15y agoReally appreciate what you are doing and you did good. I don't know if other people noticed but I would have preferred you to not smile much( or at all) while listening to her or answering her questions.This could be just my personal preference.Smiling while talking about such a serious issue kind of undermines the seriousness of it a bit.
- reading1 15y agoHow about a 'stripped book' analogy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripped_book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripped_book
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- mckoss 15y agoWhy is copyright infringement a crime? It seems to me we should be asking Congress to recategorize copyright as a civil matter; companies and individuals would be able to sue for damages, but we should get the precious resources of our police force and justice department out of this dispute. When someone makes a copy, they do not deprive anyone of their own copy - so it is unlike stealing a physical good. It may cause some harm to the copyright holder, but only incidentally, and with difficult to calculate damages. Rather than have blanket, one-size-fits-all criminal penalties, we should require parties prove the damages in court in order to receive compensation. Doing so would put MPAA and RIAA back in their place; let THEM bear the cost of fighting infringers of their copyrights - I don't want them sucking up the resource of my government just to benefit them.
- mashkeyboard 15y agoI know I'm late to the party, and I know you're looking for a sound bite, but here is how I would put things. It might be a mouthful, but it is an actual explanation (more or less) that relates to censorship in a concrete sense. I think a lot of smart but less technically inclined people might appreciate that. Computers are like people that can talk incredibly fast. Two computers can now exchange the contents of an entire book in the time it takes a person to speak a single word. "Piracy" on the internet is the equivalent of declaring it illegal to say certain combinations of words without permission. A website is like a building where a very large number of visitors can talk to each other using their computers. This is what makes the internet great. SOPA will make it possible to shut down such a building if a single visitor says one of the forbidden word combinations. If SOPA passes, such websites will be forced to either forbid talking entirely, or attempt to prevent a huge number of people from saying the forbidden word combinations, which would be incredibly expensive and essentially impossible to do. Thus, SOPA would make it legally possible to shut down virtually any website that permits talking, effectively destroying the thing that made the internet great in the first place. Even with SOPA, people could still speak the forbidden words to one another in the streets or in private buildings, so what was the point of SOPA again?