5 ms·

That was absolutely frustrating to watch. Alexis is a well-spoken guy with cogent points to make, but I think he was outmatched in that debate by a guy with way

by cal5k 15y ago

That was absolutely frustrating to watch. Alexis is a well-spoken guy with cogent points to make, but I think he was outmatched in that debate by a guy with way more media experience. Richard Cotton stuck to his deceptive, populist talking points ("jobs", "wholesale theft", "will not affect a single US site") to great effect. Alexis will get better as he continues to appear in the media, and I'm sure he's getting media coaching, but he needs to be more aggressive in, for example, telling Richard Cotton to shove it when he rudely interrupts. It's as simple as "Richard, Richard... I let you speak, now let me finish my point. The problem with..." Still, props to Alexis for actively fighting against these awful, awful bills!

toyg 15y ago
I don't think he was outmatched. If anything, he came out as a young, smart, polite guy running a successful business at the forefront of innovation -- the best America can offer, really. Cotton came out as the rich, smiling shark that he is, which makes smart people dismissive of anything he has to say. His very first line "let's make a step back: we are talking about jAAAAAbs" sounds like something any two-faced lying politician would say. He did get more airplay, because he was incredibly rude, but I don't expect anything less from an executive of the network that is producing the show in the first place (it was actually kinda ballsy for Hayes to tell him he was flat-out wrong). So, all in all, I don't think Alex should change much in his presentation; the only mistake he made, I think, was that he was too eager to push the "piracy is a service problem" soundbite before he had actually explained why that is the case.
- palish 15y ago
  Cotton came out as the rich, smiling shark that he is, which makes smart people dismissive of anything he has to say. Most people, by definition, are closer to average or dumb. This war unfortunately requires convincing large numbers that SOPA is a really, really bad idea.
  - cabinguy 15y ago
    I don't want to disparage the masses with words like "dumb" but your comment does touch on a very important fact. The masses are moved by simple, but powerful themes. Cotton understands this and used it to his advantage. In my opinion, anti-SOPA debaters should stick to "Do we want to become like China?" ...and use it over and over and over.
- balloot 15y ago
  Disagree. I think Cotton clearly won the debate. His "The law only affects foreign companies involved in wholesale piracy" talking point is persuasive and was never refuted.
  - RandallBrown 15y ago
    it was only never refuted because Cotton simply wouldn't allow it to be. Any time someone tried to explain why, he would interrupt and say "That's not true, you're wrong." To me, that made him a clear loser.
  - toyg 15y ago
    It was an ambush tactic -- he introduced a complete lie among his talking points, and dared everyone else to refute it. The next time around, anti-SOPA spokespersons will fire back on this point "with chapter and verse". Considering we're still quite far from the decisive votes, seeing the pro-SOPA camp already forced to resort to outright lies is comforting, they clearly have nothing else to show.
    - balloot 15y ago
      But HOW is his talking point a "complete lie"? It is amazing to me that nobody either on that interview or in this comment thread can clearly and succinctly point out how the NBC exec was lying.
      - rooshdi 15y ago
        Section 102: (a) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a "foreign infringing site" if— (1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States The term foreign used in this case is quite misleading.
        tszyn 15y ago
        I think you misunderstood this. Let me rephrase the above definition to make it easier to parse: "A foreign infringing site is a FOREIGN SITE for which it is true that (1)... (2)... (3)..." FOREIGN SITE is defined in section 101 as "an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site". DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE = "an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address". It is open to interpretation whether a site with a US and non-US domain is a domestic site.
chernevik 15y ago
Alexis never said why anyone should object to the bill. So what if it's completely circumventable? Saying stuff like "what concerns me most is it won't work" doesn't make sense -- isn't the most concerning thing DNS breakage? [EDIT: Concerning to everyday users. Me, I'm most worried about censorship -- but that is not the catchiest argumet.] And when Cotton says stuff like "that's wrong" -- twice -- Alexis has to explain how "that's right", quickly and unambiguously. Or the viewer will begin to presume that Cotton is right on the facts. Whereas if he's refuted, or has to explain the sense in which he's right, he's the one on the defensive. Cotton knew his brief, and the presentation of that brief, much better than Alexis did his. Add in decades of political and rhetorical training and this isn't even a fair fight. Guys like Cotton can be beaten, but only with 1) a much better case on the facts and 2) a complete mastery of the presentation of that case. This is a long way from home. EDIT: One of the hardest things in what Alexis is doing is having people criticize how he's doing it. I congratulate him for putting himself out there for his principles and his community. He's up against people who have spent their entire lives training in interested (as opposed to principled) advocacy. He can be a lot better at this, and he can win -- after all, he's right! But he has to get a lot better at the execution.
- jcrites 15y ago
  > Alexis never said why anyone should object to the bill. Exactly. Alexis was making an emotional appeal. "It scares me, it concerns me". Why? I'm most of the way through the debate and I didn't hear any arguments against Cotton's point. Wikipedia seems to agree that it's only foreign sites: > The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Contents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Contents So what is the expected impact on US sites? Wikipedia also seems to agree that the burden of the sanctions are quite high. There needs to be a court finding that a site is facilitating copyright infringement (perhaps not a full finding, like the closure of a case; but an intermediate finding). Though I'm a technophile, I haven't followed this debate much at all until watching the MSNBC video. I found myself relatively influenced towards Cotton's side -- and a brief investigation seems to suggest that his points are correct. What am I missing? I agree that, even if Cotton's points are true there may still be harmful consequences from the bill. But it seems we would be having an entirely different discussion depending on whether we agree on whether Cotton's points are factual.
jcrites 15y ago
It didn't seem to me that Alexis was outclassed by Cotton -- it seemed simply that Cotton was making points which Alexis didn't even attempt to oppose. Cotton said "this only applies to foreign sites which are wholesale devoted to copyright infringement". Is that true or not? If it's false, why didn't Alexis say so?
- RandallBrown 15y ago
  because Cotton interrupted and got the host to change the subject EVERY TIME. Cotton seemed like a huge jerk because he wouldn't let anyone finish a sentence.
B0Z 15y ago
I couldn't agree more. Alexis is smart with excellent points, though he didn't make some of the more damnable points against this proposed regulation. The problem that he faced, ne, that anyone of us would face is the transition to making the same arguments using a medium you are not experienced with. Add to that the fact that Chris Hayes, unlike hundreds of cable news shows, is not a forgiving environment for people who don't reinforce their arguments with rhetorical points of proof or intellectual logic. This is by no means an indictment of Alexis' intellect or his understanding and ability to present evidence of his hypothesis (which we've seen he and other opponents can do effectively in writing), rather the fast-paced, time-limited format of live televised debate, particularly on UP!, is a brutal gauntlet with no exits. Richard Cotten seemed to sort of be given a bit of a pass on his interuptions. Interuptions, I might add, that are seldom as long or loud on previous episodes of UP!.
- chernevik 15y ago
  For good or ill, these shows are important terrain of political conflict. I think they are more useful than many people think, but that's beside the point. If you want to win in politics, you must be able to win on these shows, or win by a much greater margins elsewhere.
city41 15y ago
Cotton made some very strong points that never got refuted or even addressed. If I was completely ignorant of SOPA/PIPA and watched this segment, I would have felt more convinced by Cotton's arguments than anyone else's.
- balloot 15y ago
  I unfortunately agree. I thought it was a very strong showing on Cotton's part, and he had a very clear talking point that he hammered home a dozen times ("This will only affect foreign companies with wholesale copyright infringement").

by cal5k 15y ago

toyg 15y ago

I don't think he was outmatched. If anything, he came out as a young, smart, polite guy running a successful business at the forefront of innovation -- the best America can offer, really. Cotton came out as the rich, smiling shark that he is, which makes smart people dismissive of anything he has to say. His very first line "let's make a step back: we are talking about jAAAAAbs" sounds like something any two-faced lying politician would say. He did get more airplay, because he was incredibly rude, but I don't expect anything less from an executive of the network that is producing the show in the first place (it was actually kinda ballsy for Hayes to tell him he was flat-out wrong). So, all in all, I don't think Alex should change much in his presentation; the only mistake he made, I think, was that he was too eager to push the "piracy is a service problem" soundbite before he had actually explained why that is the case.

palish 15y ago
Cotton came out as the rich, smiling shark that he is, which makes smart people dismissive of anything he has to say. Most people, by definition, are closer to average or dumb. This war unfortunately requires convincing large numbers that SOPA is a really, really bad idea.
- cabinguy 15y ago
  I don't want to disparage the masses with words like "dumb" but your comment does touch on a very important fact. The masses are moved by simple, but powerful themes. Cotton understands this and used it to his advantage. In my opinion, anti-SOPA debaters should stick to "Do we want to become like China?" ...and use it over and over and over.
balloot 15y ago
Disagree. I think Cotton clearly won the debate. His "The law only affects foreign companies involved in wholesale piracy" talking point is persuasive and was never refuted.
- RandallBrown 15y ago
  it was only never refuted because Cotton simply wouldn't allow it to be. Any time someone tried to explain why, he would interrupt and say "That's not true, you're wrong." To me, that made him a clear loser.
- toyg 15y ago
  It was an ambush tactic -- he introduced a complete lie among his talking points, and dared everyone else to refute it. The next time around, anti-SOPA spokespersons will fire back on this point "with chapter and verse". Considering we're still quite far from the decisive votes, seeing the pro-SOPA camp already forced to resort to outright lies is comforting, they clearly have nothing else to show.
  - balloot 15y ago
    But HOW is his talking point a "complete lie"? It is amazing to me that nobody either on that interview or in this comment thread can clearly and succinctly point out how the NBC exec was lying.
    - rooshdi 15y ago
      Section 102: (a) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a "foreign infringing site" if— (1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States The term foreign used in this case is quite misleading.
      - tszyn 15y ago
        I think you misunderstood this. Let me rephrase the above definition to make it easier to parse: "A foreign infringing site is a FOREIGN SITE for which it is true that (1)... (2)... (3)..." FOREIGN SITE is defined in section 101 as "an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site". DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE = "an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address". It is open to interpretation whether a site with a US and non-US domain is a domestic site.

chernevik 15y ago

Alexis never said why anyone should object to the bill. So what if it's completely circumventable? Saying stuff like "what concerns me most is it won't work" doesn't make sense -- isn't the most concerning thing DNS breakage? [EDIT: Concerning to everyday users. Me, I'm most worried about censorship -- but that is not the catchiest argumet.] And when Cotton says stuff like "that's wrong" -- twice -- Alexis has to explain how "that's right", quickly and unambiguously. Or the viewer will begin to presume that Cotton is right on the facts. Whereas if he's refuted, or has to explain the sense in which he's right, he's the one on the defensive. Cotton knew his brief, and the presentation of that brief, much better than Alexis did his. Add in decades of political and rhetorical training and this isn't even a fair fight. Guys like Cotton can be beaten, but only with 1) a much better case on the facts and 2) a complete mastery of the presentation of that case. This is a long way from home. EDIT: One of the hardest things in what Alexis is doing is having people criticize how he's doing it. I congratulate him for putting himself out there for his principles and his community. He's up against people who have spent their entire lives training in interested (as opposed to principled) advocacy. He can be a lot better at this, and he can win -- after all, he's right! But he has to get a lot better at the execution.

jcrites 15y ago
> Alexis never said why anyone should object to the bill. Exactly. Alexis was making an emotional appeal. "It scares me, it concerns me". Why? I'm most of the way through the debate and I didn't hear any arguments against Cotton's point. Wikipedia seems to agree that it's only foreign sites: > The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Contents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Contents So what is the expected impact on US sites? Wikipedia also seems to agree that the burden of the sanctions are quite high. There needs to be a court finding that a site is facilitating copyright infringement (perhaps not a full finding, like the closure of a case; but an intermediate finding). Though I'm a technophile, I haven't followed this debate much at all until watching the MSNBC video. I found myself relatively influenced towards Cotton's side -- and a brief investigation seems to suggest that his points are correct. What am I missing? I agree that, even if Cotton's points are true there may still be harmful consequences from the bill. But it seems we would be having an entirely different discussion depending on whether we agree on whether Cotton's points are factual.

jcrites 15y ago

It didn't seem to me that Alexis was outclassed by Cotton -- it seemed simply that Cotton was making points which Alexis didn't even attempt to oppose. Cotton said "this only applies to foreign sites which are wholesale devoted to copyright infringement". Is that true or not? If it's false, why didn't Alexis say so?

RandallBrown 15y ago
because Cotton interrupted and got the host to change the subject EVERY TIME. Cotton seemed like a huge jerk because he wouldn't let anyone finish a sentence.

B0Z 15y ago

I couldn't agree more. Alexis is smart with excellent points, though he didn't make some of the more damnable points against this proposed regulation. The problem that he faced, ne, that anyone of us would face is the transition to making the same arguments using a medium you are not experienced with. Add to that the fact that Chris Hayes, unlike hundreds of cable news shows, is not a forgiving environment for people who don't reinforce their arguments with rhetorical points of proof or intellectual logic. This is by no means an indictment of Alexis' intellect or his understanding and ability to present evidence of his hypothesis (which we've seen he and other opponents can do effectively in writing), rather the fast-paced, time-limited format of live televised debate, particularly on UP!, is a brutal gauntlet with no exits. Richard Cotten seemed to sort of be given a bit of a pass on his interuptions. Interuptions, I might add, that are seldom as long or loud on previous episodes of UP!.

chernevik 15y ago
For good or ill, these shows are important terrain of political conflict. I think they are more useful than many people think, but that's beside the point. If you want to win in politics, you must be able to win on these shows, or win by a much greater margins elsewhere.

city41 15y ago

Cotton made some very strong points that never got refuted or even addressed. If I was completely ignorant of SOPA/PIPA and watched this segment, I would have felt more convinced by Cotton's arguments than anyone else's.

balloot 15y ago
I unfortunately agree. I thought it was a very strong showing on Cotton's part, and he had a very clear talking point that he hammered home a dozen times ("This will only affect foreign companies with wholesale copyright infringement").