<i>Perhaps this is naïve, but I’d like to believe that the companies that opposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to help come up with constructive alternatives. </i><p>This is exactly wrong. It shouldn't be the responsibility of companies to write laws. On of the big issues that the SOPA/PIPA debacle brought to light is that if companies are allowed to write laws, they will write them in ways that fouces on benefiting them instead of the general public.<p>Perhaps this is naïve, but I’d like to believe that the companies that proposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to stay away from law making.
Funny how the RIAA head complains about it being unfair when they didn't bother to invite anyone who opposed the bill during the hearings. Yet when Wikipedia does what it had to do to make a point, it is "unfair" and was "manufactured controversy"<p>Also, see previous whining here: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/fighting-online-piracy.html?_r=1&src=tp" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/fighting-online-pi...</a><p>Really after seeing what the DoJ did to MegaUpload, it raises the question of why they need more powers seeing as how they are able to take down domains regardless.
From our point of view (Hacker News readers), it's easy to forget that these blackouts and the mainstream press that they created are the beginning and end of most people's SOPA education. I heard an intelligent and otherwise well-informed person say, "Yeah, what was this SOPA thing? It came up all of a sudden and then went away."<p>In that context, the focus on "censorship" <i>is</i> a bit misleading. It's a good way to get people's attention when you don't have the time to explain the DNS and why it's not an appropriate tool for combating piracy. Indeed, "censorship" is probably too <i>weak</i> a concept for the damage that SOPA would have caused to the internet, since it implies a selective redaction instead of the complete and indiscriminate excommunication of every blacklisted domain. I wouldn't call it "misinformation," but did people who knew better (so to speak) choose a "loaded and inflammatory term"? Absolutely.<p>It is marvelous how the victim of this "digital tsunami" can spin the case in his favor. Still, it's probably accurate to say that most people didn't understand what they were opposing.
>>>“Old media” draws a line between “news” and “editorial.” Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact.<p>That is utter bullshit. This piece is full of such falsehoods.