'Don't Get SOPA'd' Is The New Mantra On Capitol Hill

from the good dept

Mon, Mar 12th 2012 8:33am — Mike Masnick

As we noted when one of the recent cybersecurity bills was introduced in the Senate, it was accompanied by a press release that explicitly stated that this bill wasn't SOPA. While the entertainment industry keeps hoping that the anti-SOPA protests were a one-time experience, apparently the power of internet users is very much on the minds of nearly everyone on Capitol Hill who have turned the phrase "don't get SOPA'd" into a new mantra.

This is excellent news in a number of ways. Congress should fear backlash from going against the will of the people, especially in mucking around with some of the key tools they use to communicate every day. The only issue I take with the article is that it rehashes the false dichotomy that SOPA was "Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood," and quotes lots of people who continue to talk about how the way to avoid "getting SOPA'd" is to talk to the tech industry, but not to internet users themselves. Now, I think that talking to the tech industry is a good place to start, and it is an important stakeholder in understanding the internet, but what drove the SOPA protests was the users. Yes, tech companies helped get their users interested in the topic, but once the users on Tumblr, Reddit and Wikipedia took over, they were the ones driving the bus. The companies themselves took a backseat and, at times, were pressured into going along with what the users wanted, against their own concerns (for example, the date of the January 18th protests, which many "industry insiders" thought was too early, since the Senate wasn't yet in session).

So, while quotes like this are great to see:

“Nobody wants another SOPA moment,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a vocal critic of SOPA, told POLITICO. “The nerds are more powerful than anyone thought, and the tech industry flexed its muscle like never before.”

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said the anti-SOPA movement showed a certain “coming of political age” for the tech industry, and his colleagues in the House are treading carefully.

“They’re involving the tech community more and are more interested in listening,” said Polis, who also opposed SOPA. “They’re paying closer attention now.”

I think even those two strong allies in the fight against SOPA are missing the mark somewhat. It's not the tech industry that people need to be paying such close attention to. It's the internet users themselves. Ignoring that and just trying to court deals with the companies is a strategy that's likely to backfire.

At the end, the article acknowledges this in a rather backhanded way -- merely using it to suggest that the tech industry really isn't so powerful and that politicians shouldn't worry about another SOPA:

“The rational observers realize there’s a significant overestimation of high tech’s ability to control the netroots,” said one industry lobbyist.

Another lobbyist said it’s “nearly impossible” to get the tech community to engage on policy issues, especially complicated measures that are highly technical, such as cybersecurity, or dry, such as online taxes.

“SOPA was an inflection point and people on the Hill are certainly going to take more notice next time around,” the lobbyist said. “But one incident like that isn’t going to be the huge game changer.”

But notice what's totally ignored here. That the "netroots" -- the internet users who stood up and spoke out by the millions -- still are engaged and aware. The lobbyist is correct that the tech industry can't control the netroots. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to fear concerning another SOPA, it means that politicians need to be open and engaging with the netroots, not just the tech industry.

And this article suggests that folks on Capitol Hill still might not understand that... which is why it actually may be more likely that we'll see another SOPA moment.

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: capitol hill, copyright, internet, pipa, politics, sopa, tech industry, users

71 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hephaestus (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 8:00am

This is the same mistake that was made all over the middle east. In the US I am hoping it goes differently and we just vote the F%^kers out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  All we'll end up doing is replace one group of power-mad sociopaths with another. What we really need is a lottery system for choosing representatives, similar to jury duty. Anybody who campaigns for the job should be automatically disqualified.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re: jury duty politicians
    been said before, not least by Billy Connolly:
    http://topiaryistorture.blogspot.com/2011/12/scotlands-new-constitution.html
    i think its a great idea, but there you go.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 11:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes but then we'll end with Zaphod Beeblebrox as president instead of the current career politicians and smooth talkers...
    
    ... I don't see the downside, 'tho.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Machin Shin (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 8:50am

�The nerds are more powerful than anyone thought, and the tech industry flexed its muscle like never before.�

Got to love the whole jock mentality all these guys seem to have. Constantly throwing around "the nerds" as if this is still high school. It is about time for these guys to wake the hell up and realize us "nerds" do a hell of a lot more in the real world than the quarterback jocks do.

Looking all fashionable and being able to throw a ball around does not in any way help society. That does not lead to innovation or new ideas. Sure there are some jocks that do add to society but it is their hidden "nerdyness" that helps society not their ability to throw a football.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:32am
  
  Re:
  What if they're on defense? They don't get to throw the ball then!
  
  And Alan Page became a judge after football.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- J, 12 Mar 2012 @ 12:20pm
  
  Re:
  I wouldn't judge Chaffetz too harshly for that. He's one of the internet's best friends. He really needs to quit using the term, but he's speaking to engage the media, not really expressing his real feelings on the matter.
  
  He's one of the few people that's insisted on bringing in the technically adept, as opposed to writing legislation in the dark. I get that most won't take it that way, but his usage of the term 'nerds' is affectionate, not derogatory.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 8:51am

Dealing with netroots isn't as profitable
If the politicians can convince tech industry that it has power, then maybe the tech industry will engage politicians in a more productive way. Which is to come to Washington and grease pockets like everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: Dealing with netroots isn't as profitable
  Smacking congress critters upside the head is a lot more fun, though!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anotheranon, 12 Mar 2012 @ 8:53am

What bothers me most is the idea the word 'control'. It seems Capitol Hill only thinks of industries in terms of whoever has the power to control the most mindless sheep. For a very long time, this was mass media. Now, in their minds, they're seeing the tech industry 'control' the internet. Of course they don't see 'netroots' as individuals, or think about our legitimate concerns. They're just thinking in terms of statistics that can be monopolized and shared.

So that's what it's all about. Not really about money, even, but about who can control the sheep and keep them distracted while the government does its thing. Let the people be kept unawares, run along now, let the adults do their own things, etc.

I'm pretty sure my country didn't lend airbases to the US for this back in the 70's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hulser (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:46am
  
  Re:
  It seems Capitol Hill only thinks of industries in terms of whoever has the power to control the most mindless sheep.
  
  I think it doesn't even occur to most politicians that they'd have to engage the people as a whole instead of big companies or lobbying groups. Money in concentrated in big companies and lobbying groups, so that's whey're they're conditioned to focus their attention. When confronted with what happened with SOPA, their response is "Right, OK...but who's going to pay my bribes?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPHinPgh (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 8:53am

Remarkable
The poiticians, even as they're trying to say "We get it", don't get it. On one hand, they think it's the tech companies they need to appease. Then they think it's the "nerds" they need to appease. What they don't get (and Mike states as much, I'm just boiling it down) it that it's the citizenry, the people the politicians (allegedly) represent that need to be appeased. They have such a warped sense of who they work for (i.e. corporations and special interests) that they've completely forgotten that it is the average citizen that they should be worried about.

I feel more confident everyday in my "Vote out incumbents" philosophy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:40am
  
  Re: Remarkable
  The poiticians, even as they're trying to say "We get it", don't get it. On one hand, they think it's the tech companies they need to appease. Then they think it's the "nerds" they need to appease. What they don't get (and Mike states as much, I'm just boiling it down) it that it's the citizenry, the people the politicians (allegedly) represent that need to be appeased.
  
  Indeed. In fact, I thought the "tech industry" needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into this long after I'd been seeing spitting mad people posting about SOPA/PIPA on *many* net forums (TD, /., Ars, ...). GoDaddy backed off once threatened. Wikimedia showed up when they finally realized what it meant to them. Even Google seemed pretty slow to "get it."
  
  It seems there is a lot of truth in the belief that politicians these days only hear those who can potentially show up with a big fat check.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re: Remarkable
    Shhhh...now you're telling them that Google, Amazon and Wikimedia didn't lead this revolt. They weren't supposed to know that!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 8:58am

What is missed
What is missed is that it wasn't the tech industry it was people, just average people that saw what was going to happen if the law was passed and did not like it. The internet is not for Nerds or Geeks anymore. It is for everyone. The average person uses the internet in the US 32 hours a month.

And Everyone is what they need to worry about. Not just the Nerds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:07am

getting SOPA'd
You can see they still think it was a big fucking joke. Oh we pissed of the "techies" They just dont get it.

Now we have to scrutinize every piece of legislation. They WILL be slipping in this crap bit by bit.

I think this is lousy and shows just how much they dont get it:
�The nerds are more powerful than anyone thought, and the tech industry flexed its muscle like never before.�
As I have stated before, the "nerds" are your citizens, and even my Mom(I am 42) can not live without the internet and her laptop.

"the tech industry flexed its muscle" - (Shaking head) Just dont get it. GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!!

EVERY CITIZEN, YOUNG AND OLD, IS A NERD NOWADAYS. Please find a way to get that point through your thick skulls congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:35am
  
  Government response
  But, but... If the nerds are common, everyday Americans, what does that make our elite, rich and spoiled masters?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:50am
    
    Re: Government response
    But, but... If the nerds are common, everyday Americans, what does that make our elite, rich and spoiled masters?
    
    Dinosaurs, silly. :-)
    
    They still think we can all be controlled by buying politicians to pass draconian laws that we'll all be good citizens and heed. Too bad we can't force politicians and the *AAs to just get on the net themselves and listen to our screams of outrage.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 1:07pm
    
    Re: Government response
    obsolete.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Moondoggie, 12 Mar 2012 @ 7:52pm
    
    Re: Government response
    The rich-boy jocks. Remember that rich kid who bullies you in gradeschool with his gang? Yeah, that kid named "Smith"? First name starts with the letter L....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:11am

The lobbyist is correct that the tech industry can't control the netroots. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to fear concerning another SOPA, it means that politicians need to be open and engaging with the netroots, not just the tech industry.

So are you saying that if a SOPA-type bill emerged that was supported by tech companies and content alike, that it could be defeated by the net roots alone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  Have a cookie!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:30am
  
  Re:
  This will most likely NOT happen anyway. Because unlike Congress and the Content Cartels most of the large tech companies understand that their very existence depends on listening to the public to which they cater.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:40am
  
  Re:
  Yes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:44am
  
  Re:
  What you're missing is that the tech industry, as reliant on copyright as "big content" is is used to sharing.
  
  What we have today is built on nerds, if you must, sharing concepts AND code to build and improve on what came before. The entire open source segment of tech comes from that ethic. A great deal of closed source also comes from there as well. As do things like advancement in chip design and coding.
  
  There is little or no common ground between the the tech industry and the "content" industry in that regard. So a bill that benefits both is highly unlikely.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe, 18 Mar 2012 @ 10:11pm
  
  Re:
  I doubt it would be bill restricting rights if the tech community supported it. Either that or it would be a bill that would be fought vehemently by RIAA and co. So I do not think that is a viable scenario.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:14am

�The nerds are more powerful than anyone thought, and the tech industry flexed its muscle like never before.�

I'm sick of seeing this. We're not the nerds (ok, some of us are, but still). We're the average people. You're just old and unwilling to learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:19am

It's not practical to "talk to the users," as there is no way to identify a "user". If I'm a politician and I go onto a forum, like, say, Techdirt, post some legislation that I'm considering, and get 100 opinions on it, how do I know that I just got 100 distinct users' opinions and not, say, 10 users with 10 different handles?

And how do I know that these are even users from within my constituency? They could be anyone from anywhere in the world who has an internet connection.

At least if I talk to authorized representatives from a tech company, I'm dealing with an entity that's registered as a business with local/state/federal governments and therefore has slightly less liberty to troll me. Tech lobbyists may be guilty of any number of devious political schemes, but misrepresenting their own interests to lawmakers strictly for the lulz is not one of them.

But if you can think of a way for an elected official to consult with voters that will preserve the constituents' anonymity while simultaneously guaranteeing their authenticity, yes, user-level feedback is great and should be strongly encouraged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  To think that the value of one's opinion depends on who is making that opinion is an ad-hominem logical fallacy.
  
  Suppose a brilliant opinion is written by someone from Nigeria. Does that make the opinion any less brilliant? Should a lawmaker ignore this idea entirely because it's not one of their constituents?
  
  As far as "10 users with 10 different handles", while it's impossible to prevent this with 100% accuracy, there are many ways to mitigate this issue. Besides, it would not be unlike how the Parents Television Council is responsible for the vast majority of complaints to the FCC, using automated forms submitted by individuals who almost never actually see the offending material in question, who represent less than 0.01% of Americans, resulting in millions of dollars of "indecency" fines.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:57am
  
  Re:
  But if you can think of a way for an elected official to consult with voters that will preserve the constituents' anonymity while simultaneously guaranteeing their authenticity, yes, user-level feedback is great and should be strongly encouraged.
  
  People have been sending personal emails to politicians for a long time now, but what do we keep hearing about the pols' responses? "All I got was this shitty boilerplate response from a staffer restating the pol's belief in the necessity of their intention."
  
  It takes two to tango. If you won't listen, you can't hear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  I am going to have to agree with DCX2 here. Does it really matter who is sending in the information from where? I don't think so. If it results in better legislation then it was good advice.
  
  As it stands right now, we the people aren't being heard on any regular basis. Just a few months ago, I was told that if I wasn't flying out to Washington DC and booking an appointment with my representative every time I needed to voice my opinion, then my opinion doesn't matter. What made such a statement worse was the fact that my Congressman and Senator's responses to my letters seemed to hold that as a truth.
  
  Contrary to popular troll belief, these people are elected to represent the people, not special interests. Legislation should be considered on its impact for all people in the US, not just those who spend millions lobbying the government every year. SOPA failed because it was not carefully weighed and balanced to the benefit of all the US. That is why any further legislation following it will fail.
  
  It is time to stop the closed minded and closed off legislative process.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:47am
  
  Re:
  If I'm a politician and I go onto a forum, like, say, Techdirt, post some legislation that I'm considering, and get 100 opinions on it, how do I know that I just got 100 distinct users' opinions and not, say, 10 users with 10 different handles?
  
  Maybe you can't. But registered lobbyists certainly exaggerate the citizenry support for their positions, so this is a problem across the board.
  
  And how do I know that these are even users from within my constituency? They could be anyone from anywhere in the world who has an internet connection.
  
  And this is also no different than dealing with lobbying groups.
  
  At least if I talk to authorized representatives from a tech company, I'm dealing with an entity that's registered as a business with local/state/federal governments and therefore has slightly less liberty to troll me.
  
  They do? Because I see nearly constant trolling on the part of these firms that is easily on the order of the best of what the internet can do.
  
  The problems you cite are valid. They just aren't mitigated by paying attention only to industry entities.
  
  Besides, politicians are supposed to represent the people not industry. To simply discount people in favor of industry is the very thing that is wrong with our government today.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:20am

I have no doubt that many people "spoke up", but I am left wondering how many who did so spoke-up multiple times and/or are not US citizens.

What troubles me most about the recent SOPA/PIPA debacle is not that people spoke up, but that so many of them appear to have done so in response to moral panics that were not a part of the pending bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  As opposed to the moral panic, that was not founded in reality, which resulted in the writing of the bills?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  But they were part of the pending bills, you know, before they were removed, maybe that's what the protest was really about; if you never consult the public then don't be surprised when that same public reacts.
  
  "But we changed it!"
  
  Not good enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    They were no longer part of the pending bills, and yet a select few "fanned the flames" by continuing to treat them as if they were still in the bills.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Regardless, the amended bills were still bad, still unbalanced to the detriment of the public and still needed to be killed.
      
      Another problem was the nature in which the bills were amended. They were amended in private with no input except by those that were lobbying for the bills to begin with. That still screams abuse.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even if bad, that is still no excuse to deliberately pass out misinformation.
        
        As for the amendments, they were made to scale back the bills in light of input from various groups lobbying against some of their provisions. I am not sure how that screams abuse. It seems to me it is quite the contrary.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 11:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even if bad, that is still no excuse to deliberately pass out misinformation.
        
        Then why haven't the supporters of SOPA/PIPA shut up yet?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not sure what you are getting at since the articles are not at all about those bills, but instead observations about using the internet as a political tool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What I am getting at is that you claim to want to end misinformation campaigns, but it seems for only the side the won this particular debate. You want those who fought against SOPA/PIPA to stop using misinformation (which I agree with you on that point) but are neglecting the massive amount of misinformation coming from the pro-SOPA/PIPA side of the debate.
        
        What is troubling is that you think it is such a huge issue that people were latching onto the original language of the bills even after many of the more troubling parts were amended out, but seem to have no problem with the fact that the bills in question were written and proposed based on the very lies and misinformation spouted by the likes of the MPAA and the RIAA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're the one who brought these bills up to support your fallacious and pointless argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not good enough.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 11:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Dont kid yourself, we are at war. There are entities that have no concern for the little ppl, truth, etc.
      
      Meh. If a few exaggerations woke a few up, so be it. The other side uses lies and deception as standard practice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A few exaggerations? You might want to reconsider your use of the word "few". In the vernacular here I would use the word "tons".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, I agree, the SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP writers use a ton of exaggerations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 7:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only exaggerations I've heard during the SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP debates has been from the people who support those bills/treaties.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DCX2, 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:20am

Nearly impossible?
Another lobbyist said it�s �nearly impossible� to get the tech community to engage on policy issues, especially complicated measures that are highly technical, such as cybersecurity, or dry, such as online taxes.

It wouldn't be so impossible if these lobbyists would...I dunno...be willing to engage the tech industry *at all*?

How can you expect the industry to engage on policy issues when they *were never invited to a discussion*?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 1:06pm
  
  Re: Nearly impossible?
  Perhaps it's hard to engage the tech community or individuals when the lobbyist is constantly wanting baby talk. The problem I see here is that the lobbyist and, by extension, the tech industry speak two different languages. If one or the other is speaking the jargon of their trade then the other is left wondering what these people are talking about.
  
  For example tech jargon will leave most "outsiders" dreadfully cold and the uneducated completely frozen out. I suspect that the lobbyist (and politician) aren't at all educated in the technology of the Internet or the World Wide Web so acronyms that slip off the tongue of the techies such as DNS, FTP, Server, IIS vs Apache and many others just don't mean a thing to the lobbyist or politician.
  
  Then again, it's about time the lobbyists and politicians figured all this stuff out. Even at the most basic level.
  
  The MPAA and RIAA have an advantage these days in that given the basic tools on Windows, Apple and most Linux distros you can make a half way passable move of you and your grandkids day at the beach and a half way passage sound recording if you have a half decent microphone or two hanging around. The politicians, even if they can't or have never done it before, are their heart of hearts that they can do these things. So what's not to understand? Even if they don't know the difference between a cut and a swipe.
  
  Add all the spare cash that the RIAA and MPAA have around as they shriek about poverty and you find yourself with a deal clincher quite often.
  
  Very few, if any, congress critters have installed Windows from scratch with the what seems like half a million reboots along the way, Even fewer have installed a Linux distro which, for most of them, these days is a walk in the park compared to Windows.
  
  If the need any of that it's a call to the grandkids, again, to do it for them. The Web Kids.
  
  Tech may need to simplify things for these people without talking down to them even if it's a 10 minute crash course. The lobbyists and politicians need to take these sorts of things seriously enough to learn some "small" things like computers and networks spend of their time copying or nothing will come out in the end.
  
  But the tech industry has to be invited to the talks and discussions as a bill ABOUT technology is being discussed. Not just the Apple's, Microsft's and GoDaddys of the world but also the Apache Foundation, Red Hat, Debians and even Ubuntu's of the world just to start. Perhaps individuals like Linus Torvalds, Tim Berners-Lee and Bill Gates as well.
  
  And precious little these days when talking or legislating isn't, in one form or another, talking about technology. And, to an increasing extent, about the Internet.
  
  It's long past time or the great divide of the recent past to end.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:21am

nearly impossible
'Another [tech industry] lobbyist said it�s �nearly impossible� to get the tech community to engage on policy issues, especially complicated measures that are highly technical, such as cybersecurity...'

Yes, it's nearly impossible to get the tech community to engage on cybersecurity policy issues. They're such smartasses about security. We develop body scanners for airport security, and the online community points out that they're totally worthless. We try to give the government new powers to invade citizens' privacy and strip them of their civil rights in order to prevent massive cyberattack, and they go and point out that the scenarios are wildly unrealistic and can be prevented by simple and cheap security measures. We sell the military magic security wands, and the online community makes fun of us. We try to sell the government secure electronic voting systems, and they go and break them in a day. We try to sell the government New And Improved Super-Secure electronic voting systems, and they break them in a day. We try to advance new innovations in DRM, and the hackers break them in a day. We try to make it illegal to expose the security holes, which would make all of these problems go away, and they piss and moan.

Why can't they just let us be the security experts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka, 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:28am

I don't think it's politicians who are worried but rather the tech industry. Americans are the consumers of their products. Considering that the SOPA controversy has turned itno a firestorm and has caught fire to one of the very cornerstones of our country, Silicon Valley and many other organizations, companies/businesses and those in other industries have caught a lot of bad press over their support for the bill.

The bill is a dream for the entertainment industry (and for Congress) but that our "representatives" in Congress didn't count on the "LEVEL of backlash and LEVEL of discontent that SOPA and PIPA have created. There has been so much protest over these type of bills that it's amounting to basically a "Rodney King" type movement.

I didn't want to use that analogy but Congress is to blame for all of this. It wasn't until September 11th, 2001 that Americans started paying close attention to the hearing and coverage on C-Span that was happening in Congress (House of Representatives, The Senate). It's a two edged sword and now American voters hold Congress even more liable for what they are voting on in Congress and it's created the kind of Grassroots support that Congress hasn't seen in such a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve Worona (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:37am

The plural of "nerd" isn't "the tech industry"
It�s Citizens United taken to its perversely illogical conclusion: To politicians and lobbyists, not only are corporations people, they�re the only people.

bit.ly/x2CzQy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 12 Mar 2012 @ 9:47am

WTF?
They're worried about the "nerds" getting mad again and not about how SOPA was anti-Constitutional in every-way possible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:15am

Calling them nerds, shows even this politician doesn't get it. If it were only the nerds, there'd be maybe hundreds of thousands at most, not tens of millions of peopling calling and signing against SOPA.

It's obvious even SOPA critics don't really understand how important the Internet has become in people's lives, let alone the SOPA supporters. They are all just trying to paint this on the "nerds" as if it's only some minority you might be able to ignore later on, by pitting other groups against the "nerds".

Well, I hope they realize they are wrong thinking that, because the vast majority of people disagreeing with SOPA were NOT nerds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rubberpants, 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:30am

"Nobody wants another SOPA moment."

Speak for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:37am

He has it backwards
�The rational observers realize there�s a significant overestimation of high tech�s ability to control the netroots,� said one industry lobbyist.

That's exactly right. The power structure is the other way around: the netroots has the ability to control the high tech industry. Just the way it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geek Hillbilly (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:44am

Nerds,Geeks & SOPA
You damned right we nerds * geeks are paying very close attention to what the MAFIAA is trying to pull in Washington DC.And I got news for the MOFOs-. We ain't gonna every let up.

I use the internet a lot,being disabled than there is no way SOPA,PIPA or ACTA will get through without some kind of shady dealing.Then they will get called out and forced to withdraw.

Anyone of Capitol Hill who supports such bill has found out there will be a terrible price to pay such censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:44am

This Is A Bad Sign
To me this phrase says they have not learned anything except that they need to hide their intentions from the public better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 10:45am

I love the fact that Reddit is putting together an anti-Lamar Smith PAC. Apparently, they already have enough to put up a billboard.

If you are an American voter, help them out:

http://testpacpleaseignore.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 12 Mar 2012 @ 11:17am

If they still think this is a "tech industry" thing, and not a "concerned people of the world wanting to protect internet freedom" thing, then that means that they don't realize their actions have awoken a sleeping giant who will be watching their every political move. Somehow I think that the vomit-worthy DMCA would have met the same fate if people were as connected and aware of such political shenanigans in the late 90s as they are now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 12:12pm

You guys need to learn - they tried to do it right in front of you, and you got mad and made a stink because they were taking your binky away. So next time, they will go it piece meal, as amendments to other laws, in budget bills, and the like. Quite simple, the results will be the same, and you won't have a name or a single law to attack.

SUCKERS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re:
  This.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bshock, 12 Mar 2012 @ 12:15pm

Oh noes, the U.S. might become a democracy!
So if Hollywood/Congress insists that anti-SOPA backlash only came from the tech sector, does that mean Hollywood/Congress completely, aristocratically, arrogantly discounts the notion of democracy? Or does it mean Hollywood/Congress is like a drunk searching for his keys under a streetlight after losing them in a dark alley?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 1:24pm
  
  Re: Oh noes, the U.S. might become a democracy!
  ... there's nothing aristocratic about it.
  
  they're plutocrats
  
  neither of which have Anything to do with democracy one way or the other.
  
  (plutocracy is rule by the rich, aristocracy rule by ... nobles, i guess? not sure on the precise meaning for that one. please note that Neither is rule by the people (democracy). blood and steel or gold and ink, either way the common man gets shafted. difference is, that's how plutocrats Get there, so it becomes ingraned, while aristocrats have at least Some hope of having other ideas.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2012 @ 4:27pm

Nerd: The other N-word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shadoefax (profile), 12 Mar 2012 @ 5:12pm

SOPA as a verb
SOPA as a verb. I like it. If we were to consider the acronym as standing for "Save Our Pathetic Asses", we could also use it as an adjective. As in "Since we can't adapt to current technology, let's try to slip in a SOPA bill to dupe the masses and maintain the status quo."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punk, 12 Mar 2012 @ 5:14pm

Government should be afraid
The internet is the new government and that is what the MPAA, RIAA, Capitol Hill, etc. are afraid of the fact that they are irrelevant to the interests of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 12 Mar 2012 @ 5:23pm

RE: the N word
I'm a nerd trapped in a Jocks Body, talk about gender confused....

Government: "Resistance is Futile"

Netizens: "you are Obsolete"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed or GTFO], 13 Mar 2012 @ 1:49am

"Really? Nerds?"
�The nerds are more powerful than anyone thought, and the tech industry flexed its muscle like never before.�

"You know, actually, the word you're looking for, is "experts."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kimberly Chapman (profile), 15 Mar 2012 @ 9:59am

I want Lamar Smith GONE
I was in Lloyd Doggett's district but TX just hosed him and moved him, so now I'm in Lamar SOPA Smith's district. If all goes well I'll have citizenship within two months (only waiting for the ceremony at this point). I will then work as much as I'm able with my other volunteer commitments to get Smith out of office, preferably with a Democrat, but if it has to be the GOP guy challenging him, I'll take that. Smith MUST GO. And hopefully everyone who blacked out during the protest will contribute to the effort to get him out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
government hater, 27 Aug 2013 @ 1:04pm

fuck obama to hell
i think obama is going to far with the fucken internet privacy he's an asshole he needs to stop fucking up our freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]