Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Media Giants Take Out Print Ad Against SOPA

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the do-not-like dept.

Government 234

itwbennett writes "Slashdot readers will recall that the SOPA hearings earlier this week 'excluded any witnesses who advocate for civil rights. Google's Katherine Oyama was the only witness to object to the bill in a meaningful way.' So to get the attention of lawmakers, new media giants Google, Facebook, and Zynga turned to the only place they knew that politicians gather daily. They took out a full page ad in the New York Times. The irony of taking out a newspaper ad to protect the Web is certainly lost on no one."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why not use their own sites? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094410)

Politicians use Google and Facebook too. Put messages there.

Heck, they could be really direct and block Google/Facebook for congressional IP ranges.

Re:Why not use their own sites? (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094538)

Heck, they could be really direct and block Google/Facebook for congressional IP ranges.

Now that would be ironic.

Re:Why not use their own sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094652)

Heck, they could be really direct and block Google/Facebook for congressional IP ranges.

Now that would be ironic.

Please explain how making your adversaries lives harder is ironic?

Re:Why not use their own sites? (1)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094722)

in that they'd be making their adversaries lives harder by doing to them exactly what they're complaining about.

Re:Why not use their own sites? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094772)

SOPA is a legislative firewall

Re:Why not use their own sites? (5, Interesting)

grcumb (781340) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094600)

Politicians use Google and Facebook too. Put messages there.

Or you could get together with 87,834 of your closest friends and call them [tumblr.com] .

It's good to see people mobilisation en masse to oppose this bill, but as others have said [google.com] , it remains to be seen whether Congress will listen to anyone unless they dangle a cheque in front of their nose.

The big danger that I see [imagicity.com] is how dangerously regressive and backward-looking attitudes on the Hill are.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the recent House Judiciary Committee hearing was that Google, the sole opponent to the legislation allowed to present at the hearing, was castigated by most of the people there, impugned for purportedly profiting from piracy and cast as the villain in this whole affair.

Seeing one of the few growing and dynamic drivers of the information economy not only cast out of the fold but actively opposed, one can only conclude that the captains of the US media industry are perfectly content to cut their nose off to spite their face. They will burn the bridge represented by Google rather than cross it.

I see two immediate dangers if this regime is actually allowed to take the shape proposed for it:

  • 1) Innovation in content re-use and sharing will move outside of the US. Some will move into the shadows (kind of like offshore pirate radio in days of yore, except the ships and radios are available for the cost of a laptop). Some will move into the less governed – or governable – areas.
  • 2) US influence on innovation and invention will decline significantly. This legislative package will serve as a clear signal that Silicon Valley is no longer the influence it used to be. (Indeed, the Valley’s lack of standing in DC was evidenced by committee members’ contempt for Google throughout the hearing.)

The latter outcome is the more dangerous of the two. Losing influence in the direction the Internet’s development takes also means losing the uniquely American ethos of freedom and individualism.

There are numerous new media and technological players poised in the wings right now. But few of them (with the possible exception of Al Jazeera) have any moral stake in human rights or even individual expression. Not, at least, in the same way that many American developers do - that is, at the axiomatic level, rather than as a conscious overlay to their world view.

Re:Why not use their own sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38095516)

Losing influence in the direction the Internet’s development takes also means losing the uniquely American ethos of freedom and individualism.

I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying that Internet development is what drives your (perceived) ethos of freedom and individualism? Or that the US expresses its ethos by controlling the direction of the 'Net?

Re:Why not use their own sites? (5, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095522)

There will always be something of a generational gap in politics - just as there will be in judges, or the higher ranks of military command. These are all long-term careers, where it takes decades to work your way through the ranks and make it to the top. There may be a few who manage to get ahead fast, but even Obama is fifty now. So none of those in congress grew up with computers or really understand those who did. They do understand lobbying, and economics - so for them, it's a very simply matter: Entertainment production is one of the few industries where the US not only leads the world, but also exports a lot more than it imports. That makes it economically very valuable, and so it must be defended and strengthened.

Re:Why not use their own sites? (5, Interesting)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094686)

Go for broke, I say. Get Facebook, Wiki(m|p)edia, Youtube, and Twitter to go dark for a day. Hell, they could go dark for an hour and still the world would riot. I don't like how integral these sites have become to day-to-day life for most people, when ten years ago none even existed,[1] but for Congress to think that the people in this country or this world care one iota about "e-parasites" when put up against Honey Badger [youtube.com] and Farmville is just bogus. Show Washington what this bill actually means for America and they'll all change. You can't get reelected on "I voted to shut down Facebook and Youtube."

1. Okay fine, Wikipedia was around, but few knew about it. Besides, it's for the sake of the narrative!

Re:Why not use their own sites? (1)

embolalia (1561119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094938)

This is a brilliant idea. It would certainly get the point across to the less-engaged constituents that politics really can affect their daily lives.

Re:Why not use their own sites? (5, Informative)

jjoelc (1589361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094734)

You are thinking too small. To be truly effective, each of these sites should have a total blackout for one day. Coordinate, and choose one day that they actively refuse every connection made to any of their servers. 24 house for the entire world to see what it will be like to have no Google, no YouTube, No Gmail, no Facebook, No Zynga (kinda redundant with no Facebook, I know...) Heck, cut off all those useful Android utilities while you are at it.

24 hours worth of profits to most of these companies is chump change... 24 hours of profits lost by those other companies who rely on these services though would make a huge impact. One that could not be ignored.

Re:Why not use their own sites? (5, Insightful)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094962)

A page with explanation instead of no page would be better.

Re:Why not use their own sites? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095188)

Most definitely. But there does need to be a total lock on activity beyond serving that page.

Re:Why not use their own sites? (3, Informative)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095010)

No they don't. Their staffers take care of their representation on Facebook and the like. Ted Stevens represented the most knowledgeable politician with respect to the Internet.

Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially. [] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Slashdot readers are fucking bastards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094424)

So are Wikipedia admins.

Re:Slashdot readers are fucking bastards (5, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095184)

[citation needed]

Corporations protect us from (1, Troll)

sneilan (1416093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094428)

The government.

Re:Corporations protect us from (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094644)

Corporations are the government.

Fixed that for you. If it weren't for corporations' reckless control of the government, this wouldn't have happened.

Re:Corporations protect us from (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094870)

the most evil corps are the government, just look at the riaa/mpaa ads and lobbist numbers when compared to others

Lobby (5, Interesting)

Virtual_Raider (52165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094446)

Would that make any impact? This would appear the perfect moment to use all their lobbying power, clearly appealing to the masses is passe and doesn't work anymore in the US. Witness the OWS movement.

Re:Lobby (4, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094626)

Call me the prophet if you will (hopefully a bad one at that). Here's how I think it's going down. The president of the United States and all of congress is basically going to tell Silicon Valley to go fuck off. Their technology robs government of power and exposes their dirty laundry to the public consistently. That's a big "no no". Second, Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry has always been involved in US politics far longer than I've been alive. They also export their media to be consumed, not to be interactive thus providing entertaining feedback to other citizens. To allow for that robs them of a time-slice in peoples lives that could otherwise be revenue generating. You know as well as I that the gaming industry and hollywood are in direct competition with each other. Expect gaming to be heavily regulated under the guise of "addition"

In there's the bottom line. To have the RIAA and MPAA cartels wither on the vine would be a national security issue. That's how it will be spun. Being a huge export of America and all and our massive debt that needs to be paired off. So, they will subsidize the industry in one of three ways. 1: Tax breaks, 2: direct subsidies, 3: put the burden of cost on all other industries to enforce the media industry (laundered tax on citizens).

Re:Lobby (4, Interesting)

Roogna (9643) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094656)

Easy solution. Hollywood is great at lobbying. So the tech industry should just -buy- Hollywood. After all, the entirety of Hollywood would cost the big tech giants little really. Split it up, each tech giant can buy a studio, and just straight up fire the entire executive staff. Then going forward the media industry can lobby in a tech friendly manner.

Re:Lobby (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094792)

Like Sony did? Let's see Microsoft owning Warner Brothers and IBM buying 20th Century Fox... that's about as appealing as Big Tobacco owning Kraft foods..., oh wait [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Lobby (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094834)

I thought the tech industry already owned Hollywood. Have you never seen a James Bond movie?

Re:Lobby (4, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094916)

It is not just about money paying for corruption of politics via lobbying it is about censoring and silencing the voices of opposition. It was visible in the attack upon OWS when cities around the US coordinated their attack upon the OWS movement via the Federal government.

The US government knows full well it works in opposition to the wishes of the majority, it has known that for that last thirty years, which is why corporate controlled mass media worked so hard at silencing the voices of the majority whilst pretending the corporate marketing voice was the voice of the majority.

The problem is we have allowed psychopaths and narcissist to gain control of major corporations and the government, these people will not let go the levers of power without a fight, a destructive fight which they will orchestrate.

The only place to tackle this mess is in the US primaries, the active will of the OWS movement to replace corporate stooges with representatives of the people. First step fight people to apply and start openly and publicly testing them. Test their health, intelligence, knowledge and most important of all their psychological state.

Obama and Silicon Valley (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094676)

"The President of the United States and all of Congress is basically going to tell Silicon Valley to go fuck off."

He will get a very unpleasant surprise on the next fund-raising trip if he tries that.

Re:Obama and Silicon Valley (2, Insightful)

Myria (562655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095004)

"The President of the United States and all of Congress is basically going to tell Silicon Valley to go fuck off."

He will get a very unpleasant surprise on the next fund-raising trip if he tries that.

He'll have more than enough money to beat the yahoos on the other side. And even if he signs SOPA, I'll still vote for him, only because I know the fascist on the other side would have signed SOPA *and* reinstated Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Re:Obama and Silicon Valley (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095194)

Gotta love the US two-party system.

Re:Lobby (-1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094710)

It's not about what OWS is against, it's about what they're for. OWS is a bunch of radical leftists who have nothing but fear and loathing of Middle America. Is it any surprise Middle America doesn't support them?

Let me put it this way: supposing ordinary Americans DID come out in large numbers to support OWS. Who other than Rethuglicans really want People of Wal-Mart on their side? The stench and body lice alone would make Occupiers retch in disgust.

Re:Lobby (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094736)

The OWS crowd isn't radical, they're protesting the continued war on urban America by a bunch of hicks that have nothing better to do than steal from hard working urban workers. They get multiples of the money they pay in back while the urban core is left to rot and bridges to collapse because there isn't sufficient funding.

Perhaps if they'd actually live up to the values they claim to have we wouldn't be in the situation we're in nationally.

Re:Lobby (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094920)

Well, that's certainly a novel interpretation. The well-off should be pleased to pay for the less-fortunate...isn't that the entirety of what OWS is all about? Jeez, that "urban workers paying too much tax" sounds like some serious Tea Party shit to me.

Re:Lobby (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094808)

I surprised you were able to post because you are not very bight at all

Re:Lobby (2)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094728)

That's one of the reasons I kind of hope it does pass initially it will cause a lot of problems (technical and otherwise). But we'll have to come up with solutions to those problems and when they really want to censor us it will be a lot more difficult. Where as if it doesn't pass it will likely be replaced shortly by more reasonable and enforceable means of censorship. At least right now we have some big players (like Google) who's interest happen to align with the people. Then again maybe I'm just a being cynical.

Re:Lobby (5, Insightful)

Virtual_Raider (52165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094820)

That's one of the reasons I kind of hope it does pass initially it will cause a lot of problems (technical and otherwise). But we'll have to come up with solutions to those problems and when they really want to censor us it will be a lot more difficult. Where as if it doesn't pass it will likely be replaced shortly by more reasonable and enforceable means of censorship.

I think that's actually a bit too optimistic. What Hollywood, "traditional media", Politicians and associated Moneypolists want is to turn the web into Television. They want a one-way medium to distribute their content, whether it be entertainment, political platform or other stuff they sell. They don't want the regular Joe to generate their own content, hence the extremes they go to brand anything not made by them as spurious and pirated.

If this law was to remain, it would cement their grip on the medium so they can turn it into the advertisement broadcast platform they want it to be: sanitized, monetized and sales-orientated. They want to know who you are and where you are so you can't dodge them; they want you to be a trapped consumer, and they want to keep tabs on you to better tailor their efforts at shovelling their crap down your throat. This is why that MoFo Murdoch (or was it Turner?) said the Internet should have been patented from the start. This is why politicians and law enforcement agencies everywhere want it muzzled, they don't want disent they want obedience and mindless consumerism.

Re:Lobby (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094926)

I think that's actually a bit too optimistic. What Hollywood, "traditional media", Politicians and associated Moneypolists want is to turn the web into Television. They want a one-way medium to distribute their content, whether it be entertainment, political platform or other stuff they sell. They don't want the regular Joe to generate their own content, hence the extremes they go to brand anything not made by them as spurious and pirated.

If this law was to remain, it would cement their grip on the medium so they can turn it into the advertisement broadcast platform they want it to be: sanitized, monetized and sales-orientated. They want to know who you are and where you are so you can't dodge them; they want you to be a trapped consumer, and they want to keep tabs on you to better tailor their efforts at shovelling their crap down your throat. This is why that MoFo Murdoch (or was it Turner?) said the Internet should have been patented from the start. This is why politicians and law enforcement agencies everywhere want it muzzled, they don't want disent they want obedience and mindless consumerism.

And I want a pony. I think they will find putting the cat back in the bag to be more of a problem than they think. Especially, since we no longer have a real interest in the bag...

Re:Lobby (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094846)

I think the result of things like this will be that there is another Great Firewall built, and people in the free world shake their heads and say "tut tut tut."

So the mere fact that the industry is buying ads (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094450)

in support of their policy position, is to be considered prima facie evidence that they are evil and deceptive?

Whatever happened to free speech?

I seem to recall a recent candidate for the governorship of California spending something like $150 million of her own money on her campaign, much of it for TV ads. She outspent her opponent by more than five to one. What was the outcome of that? Ads can be very helpful for getting your side of the story across, but people make up their own minds whether to buy it or not.

Re:So the mere fact that the industry is buying ad (4, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094598)

I don't think that many people will complain about corporations buying ads in newspapers to get their point out. How is it really any different from advertising? Except that while still trying to sway your opinion with their ad, they're not trying to sell you anything.

The problem with corporate "speech" is not when they spend a bunch of money on ads, it's when they hand bags of money to politicians and call them "campaign contributions". Somehow the SCOTUS equate giving money to someone as "speech", which it's not, it's a bribe. With these ads, there's zero money going from the corporations to the politicians; only the newspaper is getting any money, and we can presume they charge the same rates for these ads as they'd charge anyone else for that same ad space.

Re:So the mere fact that the industry is buying ad (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094836)

The problem with corporate "speech" is not when they spend a bunch of money on ads, it's when they hand bags of money to politicians and call them "campaign contributions". Somehow the SCOTUS equate giving money to someone as "speech", which it's not, it's a bribe.

Are you sure about that? I think Citizens United was more about the first one than the second one.

The concern is that advertising sets the tone for a campaign. If a specific candidate supports SOPA and world+dog outside of Hollywood (including the candidate's district) opposes it, advertising that fact will cause the candidate to lose votes. And there will be issues of that nature for any candidate, which de facto allows corporations to crush anyone they don't like merely by bringing up the specific issues that make them unpopular in their home districts.

Not that I'm complaining about it in this specific instance. I'll take any help I can get to kill SOPA, and may all its advocates lose their seats.

Re:So the mere fact that the industry is buying ad (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094854)

I'm sorry, I don't see the problem. If the issue really is unpopular, and the corporations merely point out the candidate's stand on the issue, then what's the problem? As long as they're not committing libel, it's fine. Otherwise, how are you supposed to know the candidate's stand? Listen to the candidate's own paid advertisements? Listen to the biased media? Listen to political action groups' paid ads? Oh wait, how is a PAC (which isn't a person either) different from a corporation? It's not.

It's not like the corporation is directly advocating a certain politician; they're just stating their stand on an issue, and trying to convince others to agree. I'm fine with that. They're also not giving money to any politicians; that's called "lobbying" (or "bribery"), and I'm entirely against that.

Re:So the mere fact that the industry is buying ad (5, Insightful)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095132)

The problem is that if you can choose the issues that get media attention then you can choose the winner. As between a candidate that agrees with the majority of a district on 80% of the important issues vs. one that agrees on substantially fewer, you would expect the first candidate to win. But if you throw ten million dollars behind a campaign to bring the the remaining 20% of issues to the forefront of the debate, you cause the "better" candidate to lose. Which you can do merely because you disagree with the candidate on one of the issues for which that candidate agrees with the majority of the district, if you have a big enough pile of money.

You don't even have to find issues where the candidate disagrees with the majority. If the majority of the district supports strong measures against illegal immigration and so does the candidate, but 80% of Spanish-speaking constituents strongly oppose those measures, you run ads describing the candidate's position in Spanish. If the candidate is pro choice, you run ads on religious TV networks. If the candidate is pro life, you run ads on liberal women's networks. If the candidate opposes further unfunded increases in Medicare benefits, you put ads in AARP publications, etc.

It's easy to destroy an honest candidate by telling the truth in inconvenient places.

Re:So the mere fact that the industry is buying ad (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095284)

Wait wait wait - you're asking why everyone has a problem with corporate-sponsored political ads, then go through the laundry list of issues of information sources that can't possibly be more biased, but are at least nominally supposed to be less biased?

Here's the second part: when they're putting out ads that are 100% match of a candidates position, it doesn't matter whether that they're not directly giving to a candidates campaign. They might as well, because the result is 100% the same.

Re:So the mere fact that the industry is buying ad (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095232)

If a specific candidate supports SOPA and world+dog outside of Hollywood (including the candidate's district) opposes it, advertising that fact will cause the candidate to lose votes.

What about if the world+dog outside of hollywood is largely unaware of SOPA, as is the case here?

Re:So the mere fact that the industry is buying ad (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095056)

Free speech only works if it's pro M.I.C..

What a useless article... (5, Informative)

WCLPeter (202497) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094456)

Its three needlessly long paragraphs reiterating what was said in the summary and contains links or scans to the ad in question. How did something like this get voted to the front page?

If you're going to link to a site talking about it, at least link to a site that has the ad! [boingboing.net] Two seconds with Google people, was that really all that hard? I just wish these guys would have mentioned in the ad the combined net worth of all their companies and contrasted it to the net worth of the media empires trying to ram this shit through. Would have really gotten people talking and asking the hard questions.

Re:What a useless article... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094548)

I say ur trolling 2 get views 4 the link u posted easily n it's as believable as ur "opinion" that cuts down what's posted instead of your link, couldn't they? No doubt about it. The mod up 4 u could as easily be achieved by multiple registered accounts here you obviously use too. How do you like them apples?

Re:What a useless article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094664)

Yes, but Boing Boing sucks.

Re:What a useless article... (2)

WCLPeter (202497) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095028)

It doesn't matter if Boing-Boing sucks or not because for the purposes of this story it has a copy of the ad in question and was the first hit on Google, I literally found it in two seconds.

Re:What a useless article... (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094816)

Yes the piece in ITWorld [itworld.com] seemed like an introduction instead of a real article. Ridiculous! It was also written by some dyslectic teenager: read the last sentence! I can't take ITWorld seriously after having read that piece of trash.

Re:What a useless article... (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095286)

To be fair, most of the article was just random citations from unknown commenters on other sites.
There uses to be a time when journalists did research. Or so my granddad told me.

Re:What a useless article... (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095282)

I love how the ad tacks on "and job creation" in several places.
Good to know atleast the "buzzword inserter" hasn't lost his job.
"Job creation"... It's always fun to see a corporation twist a necessity of business into an act of kindness.

They should get serious (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094462)

Instead of taking out a newspaper ad, the "new media giants" should take a page out of the unions' book and go on strike. No Google. No Facebook. No YouTube. Just put up a static page all day explaining the threat this law poses to new media. That would get people's attention.

Interesting proposal (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094552)

Maybe just a new Google Doodle. [reteaparty.com]

Re:They should get serious (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094614)

Maybe that's plan B. It's usually better to start small with methods of persuasion, rather than just bringing out the big guns right away.

Remember, most Google, Facebook, and YouTube users don't know squat about SOPA and have never heard of it; they don't read Slashdot. Shutting down these sites all of a sudden over an issue that no one's heard of is only going to create a lot of anger. Don't forget, Google has an active competitor called Bing that people could easily switch to, and it's backed by a company that's probably A-OK with SOPA. The last thing Google needs is to cause most of their users to switch to Bing during a brief "strike", and then never return.

Re:They should get serious (3, Interesting)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094778)

Bing? you mean THIS [pastemagazine.com] Bing?

Re:They should get serious (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094838)

I never said it was great, but if Google went down for a while even I'd use it the interim.

Protecting interests? (5, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094464)

Just who's interests are these entities protecting, Ours, or their own?

Google owns Youtube. I dont think I need to explain that.

Facebook sells people's personal data, including photos, to advertisers.

Zygna has been embroiled at least once for outright stealing of graphical assets from other commercial games companies.

I am not saying to look the gift horse in the mouth here-- if it gets our dumbass leaders to shelve their onerous legislation and bury it at sea without honors, I am all for it, but I draw the line at saying these corporations represent *MY* interests.

Re:Protecting interests? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094502)

Their interests happen to coincide with your own at the moment. That's enough to make them allies for now -- but I agree with you when it comes to keeping in mind that they are out for their own interests, which only coincidentally are shared with you for now.

Re:Protecting interests? (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094554)

It's called "enlightened self interest" and it's how capitalism should always work. Unfortunately, it doesn't. But don't complain when it does, as society as a whole benefits.

Re:Protecting interests? (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094560)

As I said in the post, I dont want to look the gift horse in the mouth. I am very happy that they are doing this.

I was just pointing out that this is not a reason to get your fanboi on. These companies do not give a lick about little interests like ours.

Re:Protecting interests? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095306)

It's called "enlightened self interest" and it's how capitalism should always work. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

Thank goodness we've had government in there neck-deep attempting to "social engineer" the economy and society since the 1930s with taxes, legislation, and regulation into a Progressive Utopia.

Worked out well, hasn't it?

But don't complain when it does, as society as a whole benefits.

Yes, society does benefit greatly when enlightened self-interest, through capitalism, works. It's what has created the highest living standards and levels of individual freedom humans have ever known, and for more people over a longer time, than anything else ever tried.

These days and under this government, complaint at it's rare occurrence isn't my reaction. It's surprise and amazement that it's allowed to happen at all any more. After all, in the eyes of those that desire power it's much harder to control a generally wealthy, well-fed, non-dependent, well informed and armed population than it is to control a starving, destitute, unarmed, homeless, desperate, and frightened populace that's ready to follow anyone or anything that offers hope.

Capitalism in a free but well-regulated market is an enemy of Tyranny, as history has shown repeatedly that capitalism empowers a population to resist and defeat it. This is why capitalism is attacked. Government interferes and corrupts the market, then mobilizes the armies of useful idiots to rail against capitalism, when it's government corruption and politician's ambition to gain power that is the cause of the problems.

Strat

Re:Protecting interests? (2)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094562)

This is a bit less bad than it seems -- the summary cherry-picked certain companies and groups. Mozilla and Twitter are also signatories to the "letter". I agree that Facebook and Zynga are stereotypical "bad guys" -- however, you don't always need to agree 100% with your allies.

Re:Protecting interests? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094706)

Facebook sells people's personal data, including photos, to advertisers.

Oh for fucks sake, no they don't.

Re:Protecting interests? (1)

kermidge (2221646) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095096)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend - at least until the battle is done.

Re:Protecting interests? (3, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095192)

The fact is that "creators" are pretty passive about this law, hovering from moderately for to moderately against, but they have nothing like the sort of passion you see around these parts. Here's a forum I read [gearslutz.com] , everyone here is a recording engineer or sound designer in feature film, television and ads -- the original poster is a professional associate of mine. Most are pro-SOPA, because they see anyone who's vocally against it as objectively pro-turnstyle-jumping, and the people that are against are pretty measured, they never invoke fundamental human rights, and the focus on the practicality.

The fact is, if SOPA passes, the winners are Sony Pictures Distribution, Buena Vista Entertainment, and MTV Networks. If SOPA fails, the winners are Google, Facebook and Yahoo; either way, the biggest winners are middlemen. The anti-SOPA corporations would have you believe that SOPA is about squelching new art forms and creative channels, but it's really about making the advertising, aggregation, and monetization of new channels more or less practical, nothing more or less.

Content creators just sell there stuff one way or the other, and the practical ways off containing illicit copying are evolving. I'd personally much rather content creators continue to get their share of the box office, and they get a cut of all the ad and anciliary revenues as they do now. If Google and Facebook win, the ad revenues all walk out the door through the new middlemen, and maybe Google will give artists a 70% cut of some first (and really last) sale, but Google's going to use their data and aggregations thereof a hundred times over to make new applications, offer new services and SELL ADS, all of which will make them money. At least when somebody like Peter Jackson does a deal with New Line, New Line doesn't cut him off at a share of the box office, and then take no action to prevent people from xeroxing their ticket stubs.

Re:Protecting interests? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095490)

*Facebook sells people's personal data, including photos, to advertisers.*

where can I buy that then? or you mean embedding avatars as recommenders on pages they click yes this is cool?

of course they represent their own interests. point is that after this law your own facebook page could just disappear because someone just says that you're a look-a-like of marlon brando and therefore stepping on their interests (or facebook would disappear).

maybe someone posts a copyrighted verse on your blog.. you have then 5 days to remove that comment or get blacklisted. fucking ridiculous. and you can just go trolling to remove sites from the net with no penalties(see hotfile incident).

Why NY Times? (1)

david.emery (127135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094466)

An ad opposing legislation posted in the New York Times strikes me, at least, as posturing to the media. After all, Congress is located in Washington DC. An ad in the Washington Post would be much more likely to be read by the Congressperson him/herself. If they were serious about this, the ad should have appeared in the Washington Post and probably LA Times, too.

Re:Why NY Times? (3, Insightful)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094546)

Because the ad is aimed less at politicians are more at people in general. If the new media companies were going to try to appeal to politicians directly, they wouldn't use a newspaper ad. It would be lunacy to try to, since the **AAs have far deeper hooks into US politics than Google and co. So instead, they are trying to increase public awareness in a gambit to create a public backlash against SOPA.

Re:Why NY Times? (1)

david.emery (127135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094568)

So I guess it would be a big surprise to these people, or at least their agents, to know that there are actually people who live outside of The City and don't read the NY Times.

Re:Why NY Times? (3, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094754)

For starters, when you run a nationwide full page political ad, you traditionally do it in the NYT. Sort of like when you give a civil rights speech, you do it on the steps on the Lincoln memorial. Second, there are two nationwide newspapers - USA Today and the New York Times. USA Today has a higher distribution due to hotels and whatnot, but NYT is a paper people actually pay for and read.

bizarre (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094468)

strange but not good enough for http://www.thatsweird.com

Irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094510)

Why would a newspaper ad about internet censorship be ironic? Does the SOPA bill have something to do with newspapers, or is the irony specifically about the NY Times running the ad?

So I guess the irony is lost on at least one person.

Re:Irony? (1)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094698)

i believe the irony referred to is in that print media newspaper is dying out as people are using the web to get their news instead.

so: the web is killing off newspapers, and is now using newspapers to try and save itself.

what irony? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094516)

you're retarded

Old as shit (5, Informative)

dbryson (2401) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094518)

This was on every other website on the internet yesterday when the ad appeared. Today the rest of the internet is covering how 27 tech companies are supporting SOPA:

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/11/17/which-tech-companies-back-sopa-microsoft-apple-and-27-others/

I realize this might be unsettling for Slashdot users used to living in the past. Sorry for that.

Re:Old as shit (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094532)

Surprise surprise...

Look who supports this shitstained rag of legislation. Seeing MS and Apple on that list is hardly surprising.

Re:Old as shit (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094622)

It's pretty sad to see Intel on that list too. Guess I won't be buying any more Intel CPUs for a while.

Re:Old as shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094884)

How is this new? Intel has engaged in all sorts of bullshit for years.

Re:Old as shit (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094602)

This is an article linking anyone who supports the BSA to supporting SOPA. Just because a company supports the BSA does not mean they support SOPA. They might and they might not.

Personally, I don't presume guilt by association.

Re:Old as shit (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094700)

So I use Microsoft windows, and adobe flash, I think that is the only two products from anyone on the list I use. I don't know who a lot of those companies even are. It doesn't surprise me to see apple or Microsoft on there though.

Re:Old as shit (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094796)

I realize this might be unsettling for Slashdot users used to living in the past. Sorry for that.

We're used to it by now. Heck, it says "yesterday's news" right at the bottom of the front page!

Irony Lost? (2)

lax-goalie (730970) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094524)

If I had to guess, despite the summary's "irony of taking out a newspaper ad to protect the Web" being "lost on no one", that the irony will be lost on the RIAA, the MPAA, Righthaven, LLC, and most members of Congress.

Why doesn't Google... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094530)

Grow a pair and put something about it on their logo/main search page? They can change it for International-Paper-Mache-With-Your-Kids Day, but not for THIS??!?

a good idea considering the audience (4, Insightful)

anarcat (306985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094564)

Considering how disconnected politicians and lawmakers are from technology issues in general, i think it's a fairly good idea to post the ad in a newspaper. Seems to me this bill should be stopped with all means available...

If they really want their attention... (4, Insightful)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094894)

Google and Facebook can drop the politicians who support this bill from their respective sites....completely. Sorry, Congressman, you don't turn up in search any more, no Facebook page. Oh, and that email to your constituents? Sorry, gmail doesn't recognize your account.

Re:If they really want their attention... (4, Funny)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095424)

Heresy! Why, Congress might be moved to pass some sort of net neturality legislation if that were to happen!

Cut the Cord (5, Insightful)

Warhawke (1312723) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094910)

If these guys want to make a statement, they should disconnect the user accounts of all politicians who support SOPA. I'm sure it's within their ludicrously one-sided ToSs to exclude members at a whim (and it's legal as long as it's not discrimination). It'd be a nice reminder about what life would be like without these tech services.

mod do3n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38094914)

FrreBSD us3d to [goat.cx]

Uhm... (2, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094954)

The irony of taking out a newspaper ad to protect the Web is certainly lost on no one.

It's lost on me, you insensitive clod.

Re:Uhm... (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094966)

DAMN! I was JUST about to write this. Glad I expanded your post.

Threaten to de-invest (2)

inhuman_4 (1294516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38094990)

If the new media companies like google and facebook don't like what the government is planning threaten to de-invest in the USA. By that I mean start moving jobs, charity work, headquarters overseas to someplace with reasonable laws. I promise that a full page ad in the New York times about the issue will generate less controversy than headlines reading:

Google moving 10,000 jobs overseas, says government stifles growth.

Re:Threaten to de-invest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38095038)

Even better: organize the ISPs and threaten to blacklist the government from receiving any internet services. See how they like blacklisting then. Drop any .gov domains from their DNS servers.

wholesale jerseys (-1, Offtopic)

jersey123456 (2485408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095016)

Already all this MLB jerseys [jerseymall.biz] is done, you can modification and get the dedication in aloof a few weeks. While Madonna, pop diva as able-bodied as 46 year elderly brother of, wears sparkling corset, thigh aerial NHL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] boots as able-bodied as hot pants in the alive concert, it is actualization at the animated best. The hot NBA jerseys [jerseymall.biz] pants are several Wholesale NFL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] things - rebellious, sexy.

carbon handlebars (-1, Offtopic)

amydevid (2465658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095020)

It is pleasure a going through your post. I have bookmarked you to check out new stuff from your side. carbon handlebars [wholesalec...eparts.com]

New media lacks balls (1)

jwijnands (2313022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095024)

Why didn't they buy enough politicians? The entertainment industry never has had any problems with that.

Re:New media lacks balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38095324)

Yea, what we need now is more corruption. Reward the criminals and scumbags in government with more money.

politicians for sale ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38095416)

Democracy error.

Why Ad? Old Media not reporting? (5, Interesting)

Frans Faase (648933) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095036)

I guess the Old Media are not reporting about this. If this law passes, it is also a victory of the Old Media, I guess, because free speech will return to where it all started: the daily newspaper.

Re:Why Ad? Old Media not reporting? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095506)

exactly.

daily newspaper is moderated though.

Misspent money (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38095520)

Should have spent it putting it into the politicians' hands. Money talks, ads look pretty (and who reads an ad?)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?