Is Facebook Selling Out The Internet?

from the what's-up-zuck? dept

Wed, Dec 14th 2011 4:40pm — Mike Masnick

In newspapers across the country today, a who's who of massively successful entrepreneurs are asking Congress not to pass SOPA or PROTECT IP. On the list of people signing:

Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape, Opsware, and Andreessen Horowitz
Mitchell Baker, co-founder of Mozilla Firefox
Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google
Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and Square
Caterina Fake, co-founder of Flickr and Hunch
David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo
Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn
Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the Huffington Post
Chad Hurley, co-founder of YouTube
Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive
Elon Musk, co-founder of Paypal, Tesla and SpaceX
Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist
Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay
Biz Stone, co-founder of Obvious and Twitter
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Evan Williams, co-founder of Blogger and Twitter
Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo

Basically, if you spend time on the internet, you probably spend an awful lot of time on sites that these people created. And all of them are worried enough about SOPA and PROTECT IP that they've put out this letter, and placed it in newspapers across the country. It's clearly a serious concern.

That said, there is one name that's oddly missing: Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook did already come out against the bill, but Mark's name is not on here. Given the list of other names on here, there's no doubt he was asked, but for whatever reasons has chosen not to speak out. In asking around, it appears that he made the decision not to stick his neck out on this one, even as the company agrees that SOPA is bad.

I think this is a huge mistake, and that Mark has underestimated both how much this law will impact Facebook (and how much Facebook relies on the current safe harbors of the DMCA), as well as the sentiment of Facebook users against this bill. My Facebook account is flooded with anti-SOPA talk today -- and not from "the usual" people. I tend to use Facebook more for personal stuff than work stuff, so I'm pretty amazed at all sorts of people I'd never even expect to know about SOPA speaking out on Facebook about it.

It seems that, at the very least, Zuckerberg should be in front of this and leading the way. I realize that the Facebook executive team has become very image conscious about taking political stands, but this one is an easy call. This bill would hurt Facebook and hurt its users. All these other companies are speaking up and speaking out. Every one of the people you'd put together on a list of top internet entrepreneurs is on this list... except Zuckerberg. So, what's up, Zuck? Don't you care about the internet?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, craig newmark, evan williams, marc andreessen, mark zuckerberg, pipa, protect ip, sergey brin, sopa
Companies: facebook

66 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 4:54pm

Maybe Zuckerberg doesn't view freeloading and infringing as part of his future business model.

Where are Verizon, ATT, Comcast and all of the other ISP's. You'd think if SOPA was really going to break the Internet, they'd be at the top of the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 5:11pm
  
  Re:
  Your trolling needs work and at least 2 additional logical fallacies. 4/10
  
  "Maybe Zuckerberg doesn't view freeloading and infringing as part of his future business model."
  
  Gotcha... the business model that made him a billionaire was cool with that stuff but now he's moving in a new direction.
  
  "Where are Verizon, ATT, Comcast and all of the other ISP's. You'd think if SOPA was really going to break the Internet, they'd be at the top of the list."
  
  Well, if you'd read the first sentence of the article, it's a list of successful entrepreneurs. None of the companies you listed or their CEO's would fall under that category.
  
  My guess as to why Zuckerdouche (I'm not bitter) isn't making a public stance is because in the back of his mind he is holding on to the idea that SOPA may just enable him to stop any competition that could threaten facebook. He has an empire to protect and why try to beat competition with superior products and services when you can use bad legislation to stop them before they can fight back? I mean that's the whole purpose of the law right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 5:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Maybe Zuckerberg doesn't view freeloading and infringing as part of his future business model."
    
    Gotcha... the business model that made him a billionaire was cool with that stuff but now he's moving in a new direction.
    
    Note the term, "future business model". Derp.
    
    Well, if you'd read the first sentence of the article, it's a list of successful entrepreneurs. None of the companies you listed or their CEO's would fall under that category.
    
    Nor have they signed any other letter. Telling. The guys who have great potential exposure from a law that "breaks the internet" don't oppose it? Draw your own conclusion. Mine is that the "break the internet" Chicken Little dance was utter bullshit and has been revealed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 5:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Being that the only person who has said that SOPA/PIPA won't break the internet is an MPAA executive (and his devoted little sycophants), and those that say they will break the internet include almost everyone involved in building and maintaining it, I don't understand why you and your ilk keep trying to defend this point. Not one defender of the bills has brought out a credible source to even attempt to refute the experts who have predicted what will happen, much less been successful at it. If you're going to keep parroting this false assertion couldn't you at least have the decency to try to make up some points like Mr. Dodd instead of just saying "nah-ah it won't break derp derp."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Being that the only person who has said that SOPA/PIPA won't break the internet is an MPAA executive (and his devoted little sycophants), and those that say they will break the internet include almost everyone involved in building and maintaining it, I don't understand why you and your ilk keep trying to defend this point. Not one defender of the bills has brought out a credible source to even attempt to refute the experts who have predicted what will happen, much less been successful at it. If you're going to keep parroting this false assertion couldn't you at least have the decency to try to make up some points like Mr. Dodd instead of just saying "nah-ah it won't break derp deep."
        
        Did you forget about Verizon's testimony? How convenient.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        lucidrenegade (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 6:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now you're at 2/10
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 10:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's not even at that. Go check the Verizon statement again.
        
        It's non committal. Which breaks ranks with the other carriers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 10:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you actually believe Verizon? Wow, just wow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 7:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only people that say PIPA/SOPA will "break the internet" are techheads who have bad business models- ones that are somehow profitable from piracy.
        
        Snore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 7:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right, the ones with bad business models are certainly not the companies who have to go beg congress to write laws to benefit them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A bad business model is one that depends on breaking the law.
        
        Entertainment companies just want copyright law enforced, which it isn't right now. Hardly a bad business model.
        
        This seems obvious to all but the most dense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, a bad business model is one that relies on bad laws to survive. Copy protection laws are bad laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        According to freetards, copyright law = "bad law".
        
        According to functioning members of society for the past 200+ years: freetards are a gnat on the ass of reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, bad copyright law is bad law in the area of copyright. When Star waqrs won't become PD until 2072 (which was applied retroactively, as well), you have bad laws preventing cultural spread.
        
        Change is life. Adapt or die.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        According to the parasites of society you mean, because every content owner is a parasite that leeches from the work of others without contributing anything in return.
        
        But no problems "content owner" is a job that will end soon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "According to functioning members of society"
        
        Yes, because anyone who disagrees with you is automatically not a 'functioning member of society'. If this is the best argument you can come up with, and it's the best argument I've seen by you and those who agree with you, then you truly are intellectually bankrupt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "freetards are a gnat on the ass of reality."
        
        I agree, those who want free monopoly privileges are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "A bad business model is one that depends on breaking the law."
        
        Your argument assumes, without question, that the law itself is a good law. Our current copy protection laws are bad laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You need to finish your comment.
        
        And the reason copyright law is bad is because.....(fill in the blank).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because it harms small artists that have their earning capabilities diminished by the exclusionary long terms of copyrights, collection agencies.
        
        The public keep having to pay more for things because of collection agencies that don't even pay the fare share to anybody how could they?
        
        The threat to civil liberties and due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ahahahahahaa
        
        Sent to my Congressman just to be sure.
        
        We've been sending links to the comments section here on Techdirt for a while now.
        
        It was vitally important that our elected representatives were aware of the *real* mentality behind those that protest enforcing copyright law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, so you're a professional liar. That explains everything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me guess you are a one man institution that claims it will fight for the right of artists and it is spamming congress people even though you don't have direct access to them?
        
        Yep that will change the world man.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...because "intellectual property" is an oxymoron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Government established monopolies create a loss in aggregate output. They create an economic harm.
        
        No one is entitled to a monopoly privilege.
        
        As a member of the public I value my right to copy more than I value anyone else's privilege to prevent me from copying. That which is in the public interest is also based on what the public values. That's why I think it's bad and if my values are shared by enough others then these laws should be abolished.
        
        Our current copy protection laws last way too long and they don't seem to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts.
        
        Copy protection laws are a government granted privilege that no one is entitled to. In order to obtain a government privilege the burden isn't on me to prove that these laws are bad, it's on you to provide support that these laws are good and that they are socially beneficial. That burden has not been met. The point is that your comment assumes that these laws are good but they don't meet the necessary burden of supporting that assumption with reasonable evidence.
        
        Your statement also assumes, without question or evidence, that these laws won't have any other consequences beyond the enforcement of copy protection laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also the penalties for copy infringement are way too high. The penalties for filing bogus takedown requests are relatively lower in comparison and the penalties for threatening restaurants and other venues with lawsuits under the pretext that someone might infringe if those venues refuse to pay an unnecessary parasitic third party collection society a fee for hosting independent performers is low to non-existent in comparison. Our laws deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers as a result since their liability is too high and collection societies face relatively lower potential liabilities. That needs to change.
        
        Copy protection is opt out. Almost all of the burden is placed on everyone else to determine what is and what isn't infringing, very little of the burden is placed on those who benefit from the copy protection privileges. That needs to change. Those who want copy protection privileges should be required to register their works into a centralized database that enables others to more easily look up potentially infringing works. Our current laws require service providers and others to be psychic and magically know what is and what isn't infringement. More burden needs to be placed on the privilege holder since privilege holders are in a better position to know if they hold the copy protections on something than a third party. Consequently, someone asserting a copy protection where s/he does not have one should be subject to penalties higher than the penalties of infringement. Privilege holders should also be required to do more to help inform others that this content is protected (ie: via some opt in program).
        
        Like I've said, copy protection lengths last way too long. Then, on top of that, the lengths get perpetually extended to the extent that nothing ever makes it into the public domain anymore. This defeats the purpose of these laws and it breaks a public expectation that these works would enter the public domain. It also does little to promote the progress since the works were already created and not extending copy protection lengths won't uncreate them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Shut up Crosbie Fitch, Freetard Extraordinaire.
        
        We've heard your stale rants a majillion times before.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And your comment created an Unoriginality singularity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What does the number of times that you've heard a 'rant' have to do with the validity of the argument? Are you truly this intellectually bankrupt?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Entertainment must be protected, at all costs!"
        
        "Even at the cost of freedom?"
        
        "I hate free."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is this whole thing about tech dweebs like yourself unable to reconcile your rejection amongst even the art crowd?
        
        We gather from emailing Mike Masnick's high school classmates that he was mercilessly bullied by jocks, but it is assumed his insane hatred of record labels stems from a failed job interview with a well-known major label...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude, I'm an outcast among outcasts, and I still have better ethics than you. You want to dredge up the past?
        
        You prefer the anonymity not because it is your mask, but because you want to try and get attention in the most paradoxical way: by being anonymous and posting shit about others.
        
        But we have your number: and your job will be lost in the fullness of time, just like Mike's will be. The difference is that Mike can actually contribute to society, whereas you're just a drain on other people's emotions.
        
        So next time you think you're being funny, look around: the world is laughing at you, not with you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We gather that you are an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Technology actually changes people's lives. Entertainment is what you watch on a long bus ride.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ed C., 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Entertainment companies? Oh, you mean the ones that got rich by taking the majority of the profits AND the artist royalties to pay for their own "expenses"? And no, if tech companies were actually breaking the law, then there would be no need to change the law to make what they're doing illegal. Then again, perhaps you could try reading the law first before you accuse others of breaking it, not alone rewrite it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your post has already been patented. Prepare to become a terrorist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright law is enforced, just not the way you want it to be, thus the begging of Congress for a new law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 2:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Entertainment companies just want copyright law enforced, which it isn't right now. Hardly a bad business model.
        
        Copyright is unenforceable without draconian laws (like the one currently under discussion) that damage other legitimate business and individual freedom. Therefore relying on these laws is anti-social at best.
        
        I worked thqat one out 20 years ago you must be really slow of thinking if you haven't got to that conclusion yet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As opposed to the copyright monopoly that threatens civil liberties, impose absurd levies on commercial products and services, exclude others from earning a living so a bum can seat his fat asses collecting royalties without having to work?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 5:26pm
  
  Re:
  They aren't content or platform providers. I thought you were smarter than that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 7:22pm
  
  Re:
  AFAIK The revisions remove the DNS stupidity. And even if they don't Verizon, ATT and Comcast are carriers as well as ISPs and get to make their comments more quietly and through channels as in an "are you nuts" that way. It's that status that they look after the backbones and connections of the Internet domestically and links out to the world, after all. Particularly AT&T. And I can assure you they've made their opposition to that part of SOPA known as carriers not as ISPs.
  
  As that bit isn't going ahead that part isn't an issue anymore. If it comes up again, well, then I guess it's break the internet time again. Which you'd know if you were a tenth as well versed in networking as you claim to be.
  
  And are you saying Zukerberg's past business model has been part of his business model to now? Finally worked up enough courage to actually accuse someone of that? Or is this just another cowardly inference.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 2:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mope, it's the "final punishment". Which means "penalty of first resort."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 7:31pm
  
  Re:
  Oh like the freeloading collection agencies, like the freeloading levies on products, like the freeloading copyright terms?
  
  We all hope he doesn't see those things in his future because it ain't happening.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 5:36pm

It is nice to see Elon Musk on there who is my innovation hero of the decade. Good luck on your February launch Elon.

I am not surprised that all these people have come out against SOPA when this bill is only an attempted power grab over the Internet.

The sad thing is that even if SOPA and PIPA are tossed out of Congress this time they will only be back with new bills next year reading much the same. They then keep trying and trying and trying until they eventually get it into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 6:43pm

I think it's good that you pointed this out about Zuckerberg. But honestly, This is a guy who made billions from gathering personal information on millions of people and then selling it to huge corporations and governments. -- Why would someone like him ever come out against SOPA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ivan Karamazov, 14 Dec 2011 @ 7:30pm

Zuckerberg doesn't care about much more than himself and his bank account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:47pm

Speak out against SOPA,
why not Zuckerberg?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe bo, 14 Dec 2011 @ 9:04pm

protect ip and ripoffreport.com
will proect ip finally help the thousands of people falsely listed on ripoffreport.com and get ripoffreport banned from holding people hostage to pay them to remove false defamatory statements listed on their website by people hiding behind a fake name and the internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 10:29pm

It's a nice list, but it is also a list of companies that depend on unchecked user content to support their business models. Without the ability to just use content however they feel, to accept any content from their users as "good", they wouldn't have functional business models.

Forget SOPA - just imagine what happens if DMCA safe harbors were recinded for everyone except pure hosting companies and pure last mile ISPs. Many of these business predicated on unchecked user submitted content would go away overnight.

It's not surprising to see them against SOPA. I look forward to seeing what replaces them once SOPA passes into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:54pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 14th, 2011 @ 10:29pm
  That's called a CHILLING EFFECT. And seeing as content relies on tech to innovate...well, let's just say that new networking tech is a high priority right now. You can keep your Notnet, and we'll move to this new protocol.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 12:44am
  
  Re:
  "I look forward to seeing what replaces them once SOPA passes into law"
  
  Yes, because Twitter's replacement will be so much more useful when every word has to be pre-vetted. Paypal's replacement will be so much more useful when they have to pre-vet every single person and transaction their service is used for before accepting payment. LinkedIn will be so much more useful when thorough ID vetting has to take place for every member. YouTube and Flickr will be so much better when content has to be held for months to vet every video and image just in case the user-created content accidentally infringes on someone who's been dead for 20 years.
  
  ...and even then, and someone like yourself with a grudge could get even those sites shut down on false accusations.
  
  I don't want your fantasy world. Sounds like hell to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Paul, once again, you manage to be a turkey in a flock of eagles, a slug in a world full of cheetahs. Congrats on being, well, stuck inside Mike's little box.
    
    The replacement for Twitter is, well, twitter. No pre-vetting of every word (why would they want to do that?), but perhaps a little bit better of a system for creating accounts and assigning blame. You know, actually knowing their customers. It's remarkable how many people will stop doing illegal things when they know their name is actually attached to the work.
    
    As for YouTube and Flickr, they get into the same space. Know the customer, be proactive, actually attach people's real names to stuff... it's remarkable how fast people will stop posting up illegal content when they know their names are attached to it.
    
    "someone like yourself with a grudge could get even those sites shut down on false accusations."
    
    Yeah, and then someone like me would find themselves on the end of a civil lawsuit for billions, and probably on the end of criminal charges for fraud.
    
    Wake up Paul... there is two sides to the story, and I don't mean your side and Mike's side, because those are the same!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "No pre-vetting of every word (why would they want to do that?)"
      
      Because, if they don't then any infringement would cause them to be targeted under SOPA.
      
      "It's remarkable how many people will stop doing illegal things when they know their name is actually attached to the work."
      
      Quick, without clicking on it - is this a link to an infringing work or not? Should it be blocked lest you get targeted? Whose account posted it? How do you know that person is who they claim they are?
      
      http://tinyurl.com/2kmehd
      
      "Know the customer, be proactive, actually attach people's real names to stuff..."
      
      How do you know what their real names are? How do you know that the copyright of the images they posted belong to them? What if there's a corporate logo visible or a song audible in the video? Whose copyright trumps whose? Is fair use acceptable here, or do you just block everything that's in any doubt. If the latter, why would anyone use your service?
      
      "it's remarkable how fast people will stop posting up illegal content when they know their names are attached to it."
      
      It would probably be remarkable how much of this idiotic trolling stops when real names are required as well. I'm not about to try to force laws with massive collateral damage to find out how blissful it would be without people like you posting, though.
      
      "Yeah, and then someone like me would find themselves on the end of a civil lawsuit for billions, and probably on the end of criminal charges for fraud."
      
      Yeah, because the DMCA protections have stopped flase claims under that law. Plus, how are companies meant to bring these lawsuits when their primary source of income has been shut down as a pre-emptive measure?
      
      "Wake up Paul... there is two sides to the story, and I don't mean your side and Mike's side, because those are the same!"
      
      If you read my opinion rather than making shit up, you'd notice a number of differences. just because people here agree that you and your ilk are moronic trolls, it doesn't mean we agree on the actual issues being discussed. try participating rather than lying and attacking people, you might learn something!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And how exactly are these sites supposed to verify that the information that a user enters is factually correct?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yep, nothing could go wrong like in South Korea where that idea was implemented some years ago just to be dropped recently.
      
      Why?
      
      Because it created massive databases with very personal information that could be hacked and facilitate identity theft.
      
      That is just brilliant.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You want to give criminals the tools to spoof your identity everywhere and rob you blind?
      
      Here is how you do it:
      
      Force everybody to divulge real information and create thousands of databases that can be correlated and have the same data since they all must use real information so if you breach one you can access all other accounts including banks, payment systems and so forth.
      
      http://www.buzzom.com/2011/08/unlike-china-and-google-south-korea-to-abandon-real-name-int ernet-policy/
      
      https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/technology/naming-names-on-the-internet.html?_r= 1
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:58am
  
  Re:
  Really you look forward to websites like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and eBay hosted in countries poorly enforced or no copyright laws such as China, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Argentina?!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FM Hilton, 15 Dec 2011 @ 12:59am

It's simple as this:
Zuckerberg doesn't think it will affect him. He doesn't care enough to care. He thinks he's special, and above the law. Wait until someone does a DMCA takedown on most of the pages on FB because they saw a picture they took of their family.

The biggest problem with the laws that are being proposed is that the 'copyright' protections they're supposedly in favor of are actually a cover to make the government far abler to take down any site for any reason whatsoever, on a single complaint not backed up by any evidence at all.
Tin foil hat time? No-not when you realize that the government would be able to do it without warrants or any kind of legal stuff beforehand.

It happened with Wikileaks: they got taken down without any notice or due process because they pissed off the government. All it took was that someone called Visa/Mastercard, and that was the end of Wikileaks.

It also helps that Lamar Smith is a paid off Congressman fully in the back pocket of the entertainment companies and organizations that really, really want this.

As for Floyd Abrams, he is a lawyer for the entertainment industry and shouldn't even be allowed in the same room with real lawyers. Paid shill.

You want a really good written explanation of why this is bad? Try this legal brief by Professor Lawrence Tribe of Harvard University. He does the legal stuff pretty well-being a Constitutional law guy:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75153093/Tribe-Legis-Memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1

Sorry it's so arcane, but Constitutional stuff tends to be like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 1:03am

Facebook its an Internet inside the Internet, as the Internet starts burning everyone will talk about it on the FB Internet. Z likes it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 3:38am

Why should spammer Mark Zuckerberg care?
He's not trying to participate in the Internet: he's trying to build a walled garden that provides a constant revenue source based (a) advertising and (b) selling users' private data. The more legislation like SOPA closes off the public Internet, the better it is for him -- as that will tremendously restrict any potential competitors.

Zuckerberg, like all spammers, doesn't care what damage is done as long as he profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a, 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:08am

Would love to know what deals the tech companies made
Lamar Smith's most recent blog post in The Hill seems to suggest that Microsoft and Facebook are now on board with SOPA or in some sense have contributed to it:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/199385-setting-the-record-straight-on-sopa

It would be very interesting to know the relationship between the tech companies the various proposed bills (e.g. SOPA).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:20am
  
  Re: Would love to know what deals the tech companies made
  "seems to suggest that Microsoft and Facebook are now on board with SOPA or in some sense have contributed to it"
  
  Let's see... a company with an atrocious track record when it comes to dealing fairly with competition - especially the kind of free competition allowed by the open web - and a company with a bad track record when it comes to privacy and trying to own all content posted to its site.
  
  Why could they possibly want something like SOPA?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:15am

Personally, I hope he never does speak out about SOPA or PIPA. It give people yet another reason to move over to Google+.

Google+ , its like facebook but not evil ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:56am

Zuckberg would sell his mother if he thought he get away with it or if he believed it would bring some more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 10:01am

breaking the internet hyperbole
To Franklin G Ryzzo and others that are naive enough to believe this will break the internet. Please see YT video where Paul Vixie, President of ISC, says that it won't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2vFB3qKqoY

Also note that Mr. Vixie has developed software which is now built into DNS and advocates the use of DNS blocking for rogue and illegal sites.

http://www.isc.org/files/TakingBackTheDNSrpz2.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iBelieve, 15 Dec 2011 @ 12:58pm

What are they thinking?
Is it possible, having watched the passing of some pretty horrible bills in the past that left most people drop-jawed and firey mad, that these bills are going to pass, Congress damn well knowing they are bad, but will pass them just to let the lawsuits fly. Lawsuits are good for lawtyers.. Just thought I'd ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]