6 ms·
WSJ comes out for SOPA
- api 15y agoOf course it does. It's a Murdoch paper, and Murdoch is a fascist. All Murdoch's outlets operate as a kind of Pravda for American neo-fascism. (I am not using the term fascism hyperbolically. Murdoch is, I think, properly classifiable as an authoritarian collectivist -- a fascist.)
- astrodust 15y agoDownloading a CD might land you in jail and will saddle you with serious punitive damages, but stealing hundreds of thousands of voice mails while working at a newspaper is apparently OK!
- veyron 15y agoThough if you believe their parliamentary testimony, James apparently had no knowledge even though he authorized million-pound payoffs to victims.
- michaelochurch 15y agoLaws are for poors, chap.
- michaelochurch 15y agoFun fact: fascism wasn't the first name Mussolini wanted for the Italian political movement of the 1920s-40s. Corporatism was the original name.
- ypcx 15y agoAlso, SOPA was never about fighting piracy, that's just a disguise. SOPA is about dissent suppression. The Internet is exploding into establishment's face, and imagine what will happen when all those people who are now - thanks to the blackout - screaming on Twitter while discovering about SOPA/PIPA for the very first time - what do they do when they learn about the kind of information that's e.g. posted here: http://goo.gl/2RVeB http://goo.gl/2RVeB
- nitrogen 15y agoHacker News will shorten URLs if necessary to make them fit, so it's not necessary to use URL shorteners (which are discouraged): http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1023-financial-tyranny http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1023-financia... Edit to add: Please make a compelling case why I should take the time to read an article that starts with an amusing replacement of the letter A in the headline with a quartet of all-seeing eyes.
- ypcx 15y agoDon't let that picture discourage you. Read the first few paragraphs, it doesn't take long. See, that's why I used URL shortener - if somebody was giving me a link beginning with domain "divinecosmos.com", I'd think they are insane, and skipped that link without even blinking. However, sometimes, things are not what they seem at the first appearance. I don't think I can or should attempt to really explain it here. Just give the article a try.
- chc 15y agoI've read a few paragraphs in and so far it sounds like a stock conspiracy theory ("They burned this guy's house down for leaking information, just like they didn't with the WikiLeaks guys"), very much in line with what the logo would suggest.
- ypcx 15y agoI meant a few more paragraphs. But yes, it's easy to dismiss the article based on those 2 things alone. Bad choice on author's part.
- jdminhbg 15y ago"Corporatism" in the context of 1920s Italy meant something different than it does in 2010s America. Specifically, it referred to vertically-integrated sectors of public life, like heavy industry, or schoolteachers, or policemen, or banks.
- shingen 15y agoNo it wasn't, that's a lefty myth recently invented. The word "corporatism" didn't exist back then. Mussolini referred to corporativismo, which he defined as a large number of people working together, not specific to the modern corporation. You shouldn't relay bad information if you're actually ignorant of Fascist history under Mussolini.
- nekojima 15y ago"Corporatism" as a concept has existed since the 19th century (identified by that term) and so did exist in the 1920s for Mussolini. Corporatism has similar aims as corporativismo, which is the Italian for corporatism.
- michaelochurch 15y agoCorporativismo (in the fascist sense) referred to a desire for single-party totalitarian rule in the fusion of state and business power-- the goal that, instead of having separate and potentially competing interests, the elites of all of these sectors should glom together and centralize power. It's not exactly the same thing in the modern U.S.: in totalitarian corporatism (fascism) the government co-opts private businesses and installs puppets of its elite. That's not what we've seen over the past 30 years. In anarchic corpratism (which is what the American upper class and right wing had in their golden era-- the Gilded Age-- and have been implementing since the late 1970s) it goes the other way: the business elite invades the government and makes it generally powerless to stop them. This form of corporatism is more limited and therefore more benign. "Anarchic corporatism" seems like an oxymoron, but the fundamental idea behind it is that business elites (which need not put up a unified front, as states must do for morale reasons) call the shots, but nonetheless compete. It's "anarchic" in the sense that the government is not supposed to be king-making or impeding specific players. What we're seeing, amusingly, is that the elite has no real ideology. In 1980, they were predictably conservative and relatively principled, if wrongheaded. They were anarchic corporatists and proud of it. What the Bush, Jr. Era has shown us is that when this elite successfully co-opts the state, these people start to like unlimited state power and intrusion (Patriot Act, SOPA)... even if they say they're for "small government". So anarchic corporatism leads to the totalitarian kind over time; the TL;DR summary of that is "power vacuum".
- tocomment 15y agoCould we block HN submissions that point to WSJ articles? Maybe Reddit could do the same?
- freejack 15y agoI think proposals of this nature are not productive. Much of what fuels anti-SOPA/PIPA sentiment is rooted in the principles of individual freedoms and the preservation of a commons that makes the exchange of information, ideas and enables commercial, individual and scientific innovation (amongst a whole long list of other awesome things that the Internet fosters). Taking retaliatory measures against those that exercise those freedoms, as distasteful as their position may be, is exactly the type of behaviour that SOPA proposes. We can each choose not to support those organizations that seek to control the Internet at the behest of Big Media and Hollywood, but to institutionalize controls constraining those that support it is, in my opinion, a victory for SOPA.
- meepmorp 15y agoThat's bullshit. Rejecting submissions from SOPA supporters on a private website just isn't the same as manipulating the machinery of government the way bill supporters have done.
- freejack 15y agoThat's inflammatory. But to your point, I wasn't commenting on the manipulation of government (a point that I also don't agree with - I think the government is complicit, not manipulated) but on the manipulation of technology to stifle freedom of expression. I don't see a huge difference between building filters that target torrent sites and building filters that target SOPA supporters. Nor do I think it makes a difference whether this is initiated in response to legislative demands, or some sense of "what is right". YMMV.
- drivingmenuts 15y ago> Taking retaliatory measures against those that exercise those freedoms In one sense, it is a bit hypocritical. However, we are dealing with the same mentality that supported "You are either with us, or against us." The WSJ's main audience are people who don't give a flying damn about rights, they only care about money. So you have to hit them in the money. Hard. Painfully.
- cleverjake 15y agoI find it rather humorous that it is unsigned. It makes it feel even more as though it were penned by Murdoch.
- mapgrep 15y agoEditorials are, as a rule, unsigned. That's what makes them editorials as opposed to op-eds or columns. They represent, ostensibly, the opinion of the newspaper itself rather than any individual staffer. The NY Times does the same thing. (The WSJ could avoid a lot of confusion if it labeled its editorials "Editorial." Instead it labels them "Review & Outlook," a term only regular readers of the opinion section will be familiar with.)
- cleverjake 15y agoI honestly never knew the difference. Thank you very much for that insight.
- sabret00the 15y agoIt's a Murdoch paper, what else did you expect? Off Topic: Whenever I read WSJ I always think of Weekly Shounen Jump and then I'm like that makes no sense, this has to be about the Wall Street Journal. It's never about Manga.
- RexRollman 15y agoSo they chose to back money over liberty. Not a real surprise, if you ask me.
- TomGullen 15y agoOk I think I understand now, so I can't link to copyrighted material in any way or my site will be pulled, but I can hack into peoples mobile phones right?
- sophacles 15y agoThis: "One of America's most respected newspapers has come out on the side of copyright owners..." really annoys me. I am a copyright owner. I make money from that fact. I am against SOPA. Setting up a false dilemma of "copyright owners" vs "others" is incorrect and evil spin. Everyone be sure to note that many of the sites and people against SOPA (e.g. Google, Tim O'Reilly, etc) are all major copyright holders and beneficiaries when you talk with people about this.
- mwd_ 15y agoI agree. In any debate it's important to frame the issue carefully and to avoid letting the opposition choose the terms that will be discussed. If most people view this as "rogue sites/thieves vs. legitimate copyright holders" or something similar then the debate is already partly lost.
- brlewis 15y agoExactly. They've already won in the press where SOPA and PIPA are referred to as "piracy bills". We need an alternate term. Unfortunately "skip-due-process bills" has too many syllables.
- sili 15y agoWhat bothers me is that in most news coverage the set up veers further off as "copyright owners" vs "internet giants". This sets the tone that only large Internet business are protesting SOPA because they make money from pirating in some way. It completely overlooks the fact that the backlash is largely driven by average informed users.
- ww520 15y agoPretty much cannot trust the position of the traditional medias, like WSJ, on SOPA. They have a clear conflict of interest since their owners underwrite the legislature. Just treat them as propaganda.
- mrmaddog 15y agoOn the flip side, the WSJ could say the exact same thing about Google, Facebook, Ars Technica, etc. Just because they offer a different viewpoint doesn't mean you should completely write them off. Instead, it is useful to read these types of pieces to see what the opposition really wants. If there is to be any sort of compromise, we can't just shut our eyes and plug our ears when the traditional media says what it needs in a law.
- ww520 15y agoIt is not the same thing for Reddit/Ars Technica/Google/others. It would be the same when Reddit/Ars Technica/Google/others sponsor a bill to cut the electricity of the printing press of any newspapers when suspected of copyright infringement. In that case WSJ can claim whatever these sponsoring companies said are propaganda.
- reso 15y agoThere is a difference. Google and Facebook are not media organizations and are clearly stating that SOPA will hurt them. People go to media companies for news, and when they see op-eds like the one in the WSJ, are less likely to consider that the writer herself is a critically invested party in the issue.
- narrator 15y agoThis is the fundamental problem with democracy and a free press. The banks help their cronies consolidate the media, the media defines the terms of the debate and what people know about. The people process the limited amount of inputs they receive and basically do what they're told to do. The internet disrupts this, so it is a threat. Even so, for the most part, it's still amazing how deaf dumb and blind the conversation on the internet is in that the mainstream media, who define the terms and scope of the debate, are the only link to the world outside of immediate perception for the participants.
- powrtoch 15y agoFirst thought: "Well of course WSJ would be pro-SOPA". Second thought: "But just because you would expect it of them doesn't make them wrong. What points do they make?" Final thought: "Oh look, a paywall. Oh well..." It seems their mission to overzealously block content on the internet was impeded by their decision to overzealously block content on the internet.
- dhimes 15y agoI must publicly tip my hat to you for maintaining enough rationality to get to your second thought. My brain didn't get past a quite sarcastic "well there's a fucking surprise."
- fennecfoxen 15y agoHere's another thought: It's a piece in the opinion section. They publish a variety of people in the opinion section. Sometimes they publish Paul Krugman. Sometimes they publish Karl Rove or George W Bush (as ex-president). They do not present a unified ideological front. That said, Rupert Murdoch has grandstanded in the past in rather transparently self-serving ways ("OMG google news is indexing my sites! but i don't want to make them stop, I want to make them keep doing it and pay me for the privilege somehow.")
- OstiaAntica 15y agoActually it is an editorial, which is the opinion of the paper itself. The language mirrors Murdoch and the piece is not well written, there's a stench of editorial interference here.
- fennecfoxen 15y agoMy bad, then. Anyway. Usually Mr. Murdoch is perfectly willing to put his name to shamelessly self-serving saber-rattling and rent-seeking pieces (e.g. "omg BBC. british media is government controlled. please get rid of my competition.") The article itself, FWIW, is basically a straw-man argument saying that anyone against SOPA is a bunch of dirty Commies who think it's a God-given right to pirate everything for free. If you'd like to read it (ew), Google the URL and click the resulting link. Or hack your Referer: or pretend you're Googlebot. I regret that I was only the second or third person on the comments page to say it was a load of BS and not the first. Postscript (2): as user mapgrep pointed out below, the WSJ has a bad habit of labeling editorials 'Review and Outlook'. Meh.
- rayiner 15y agoI used to read the WSJ regularly, but stopped when their editors came out so obsequiously in favor of the bailout in 2008, after years of rejecting government intervention. Even this editorial is a farce. How often does the WSJ use the phrase "rights" in a positive way outside this context?
- jaylevitt 15y agoGood point about "rights". We should respond by saying we DO support their rights - just not SPECIAL rights.
- ww520 15y agoPrivatize profit; socialize risk. That's just another way in maximize profit and minimize risk. Pretty consistent with capitalism.
- OstiaAntica 15y agoTrue capitalists believe that government is a referee; government should not the bagman for losses or a source of investment funding.
- meow 15y agoI prefer Murdoch's twitter rants to these articles (by fox, wsj and his other holdings). At least when he tweets, I know where the opinions come from.
- bcrawl 15y agoYup, an editorial with out any author attribution. Go Murdoch!
- ctdonath 15y agoPost a comment. Include a link to respectable content. Tweak target page to SOPA-contrary content. Goodbye, WSJ. Might that wake 'em up?
- byrneseyeview 15y agoThis is meta, but as of right now every single comment on this article is about why the WSJ would claim to believe SOPA is a good idea, not what their actual argument is. A decent fraction of these comments cite Rupert Murdoch and/or phone hacking. That's not very productive. Anyone on the pro-SOPA side can say exactly the same thing about e.g. Google. One of Google's major divisions, Youtube, was built in part on piracy. And Google itself does help people find pirated content; that's not something immoral, and they do make it difficult, but Google benefits from some copyright infringement in the sense that it means they're a better default search engine, since some fraction of queries are for copyright-violating content. And the WSJ article does make a similar point: Wikipedia has never blacked itself out before on any other political issue, nor have websites like Mozilla or the social news aggregator Reddit... They've taken no comparable action against, say, Chinese repression. This is not the first thing so awful that websites choose to take such action--it's the first awful thing that threatens them so much. The WSJ also points out that the most egregious part of SOPA--DNS-level censorship--was removed in the latest draft. They don't make an exceptional argument, but they do make a superficially reasonable case; someone unfamiliar with the way the Internet works would likely find it pretty convincing. SOPA/PIPA is an awful, awful idea. But if the WSJ claims that it's a good idea, and you claim that the WSJ only says so because corrupt, then you lose by default. The WSJ can have a good argument that defends their economic interests, or that is hypocritical in light of what they've been caught doing in the past. SOPA opponents are in a very similar situation.
- zerostar07 15y agoOn the other hand, the "traditional" press has centuries-old ties with governments, diplomacy, it's even part of the constitution in most countries, so if you want to compare apples to apples, you have to also notice that the media establishment is defending its (now outdated) exclusivity over content distribution. As an outsider (i m not in the US) one can see that it's not just the corporate interests of Google/twitter/facebook etc that are threatened, but also the transition from the old "mass media", (where mass manipulation was possible) to something new. In the end, the whole SOPA debate should motivate people building startups to think up new ways to monetize intellectual property, not just ignore the problem
- 15y ago
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- BillSaysThis 15y agoTFA from CNet begins "One of America's most respected newspapers" in big text, forgetting to mention that, well CNet is part of CBS Interactive and CBSi is part of... you probably get my drift.
- zerostar07 15y agoThe e-vangelists seem to believe that anybody is entitled to access to any content at any time at no cost—open source. Their real ideological objection is to the concept of copyright itself, and they oppose any legal regime that values original creative work. The offline analogue is Occupy Wall Street. That alone is enough to render the article useless, a very bad piece for a generally high-quality blog (can we just call newspapers blogs from now on? it's technically the same thing) On the other hand, the internet doesn't yet offer a good way for creators to get rewarded for their work. Donations are too arbitrary, itunes despite its popularity is tied to music corporatism and so is spotify. What other startups are working in novel ways to monetize intellectual property?
- lukifer 15y ago> What other startups are working in novel ways to monetize intellectual property? Selling DRM-free downloads is working extremely well for many; Bandcamp comes to mind. Plenty of indie content creators do just fine handling piracy by ignoring it.
- Game_Ender 15y agoI had a look at the comments on the article and pretty much every poster, wall street journal subscribers included, are opposed to SOPA.
- mbowcock 15y agoFor some reason this sentence jumped out at me: "Some lawmakers have noted that PIPA and SOPA would not affect anyone of the Web sites participating in the blackout." I assume the argument being made here is that they're domestic sites and would not be affected by the legislation. And since they're not pirating anything what do they have to worry about. I could see someone reading it and thinking this is much to do about nothing. But this bill really puts pressure on domestic sites to comply and as we all know will just push the pirate sites to find ways around the law. So really, the sites most affected by these laws will be domestic and law-abiding.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- forgotAgain 15y agoWhat's not at all surprising about this is that the WSJ is positioning SOPA as an anti-piracy bill and not as a bill that gives tacit acceptance to the assertion that government controls of information channels is acceptable in a free society. Also the WSJ being One of America's most respected newspapers hasn't been true since Murdoch purchased it and started inserting opinion into front page news stories.
- Vivtek 15y agoWell - they still report the news quite well. It's just their editorial page that's off the rails.
- natmaster 15y agoWSJ has always been trash 'reporting'. No surprises here.