Is anyone else worried about SOPA? Trying to do anything about it?

false_vacuum

Referring, of course, to the proposed U.S. legislation which could cause severe damage to the Internet—at least, that's what a lot of people are saying. See, e.g., this Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the U.S. Congress (the first signatory listed is Vint Cerf). On Wikipedia, people including Jimbo Wales are discussing strategies as extreme as blanking the entire site (except for an explanatory message) to get people's attention, and thereby perhaps incite them to action, such as calling their Congressional representative.

I just happened to find out about all this a few hours ago, being someone who tries to avoid distractions like most kinds of news, so possibly others here with similar habits will appreciate having it called to ther attention. Or possibly they won't. But to those of you who possess relevant kinds of expertise:

Is it possible to project likely consequences of this legislation's being passed?
What are those consequences?
Assuming they are on net undesirable, what can be done that would be most likely to prevent its passage?

(I think this subject can be discussed without political advocacy, in which I am mostly not at all interested anyway. It just looks like a practical problem to me.)

Edited to Add: I forgot to include a fourth bullet point:

Again assuming they are undesirable, what can be done to ameliorate|circumvent them?

It seems to have been assumed by many commenters, nevertheless.

Is it possible to project likely consequences of this legislation's being passed?
What are those consequences?
Assuming they are on net undesirable, what can be done that would be most likely to prevent its passage?

(I think this subject can be discussed without political advocacy, in which I am mostly not at all interested anyway. It just looks like a practical problem to me.)

Edited to Add: I forgot to include a fourth bullet point:

Again assuming they are undesirable, what can be done to ameliorate|circumvent them?

It seems to have been assumed by many commenters, nevertheless.

I'm not completely sure what you mean about the bias fairy sprinkling Green-Blue dust over party labels. Not that I object to the use of metaphor, it's just I'm not sure what you are attributing to me. I think it's completely plausible that I expressed myself in a confusing way, so I'm going to try again.

I think we both agree about the politics-is-the-mind-killer thing in principle. With that said, I'd suggest that politics exercises its mind killing power over some issues more than others, at any given time within a society. Some issues inflame political loyalties, but some do not. Race and sexuality are ideologically charged issues in the U.S. right now. But whether it's raining outside is not. To use another example, there are differences of opinion regarding how often you need to change the oil in your car. It's not an entirely subjective preference, either. Factual evidence regarding engine wear is important. But it's not a politically charged issue, at least not yet.

I read the abstract and most of the text of the study you linked, but I think it explicitly applies particularly to opinions explicitly endorsed by a green-or-blue team. In other words, politically-charged issues.

Right now, I'm under the impression that copyright enforcement law simply is not a highly-charged partisan issue for the overwhelming majority of people in the United States. Neither is it a religious sectarian issue, or a regional issue, or a racial issue, or a sexual preference issue. These are the types of issues that inflame people's emotions and kill their minds, at least for the great majority of the population. A few individuals may strongly identify as stamp collectors or wearers of corduroy pants, or fans of copyright law, but these would be outliers.

For most people, intellectual property law is only a mind killer in that it is so boring that it puts them to sleep.

I think it's completely plausible that I expressed myself in a confusing way, so I'm going to try again.

You're being very clear. "Politics" has several meanings, "related to governance," and "related to group organization." The reason governance-related issues are mindkilling is that they are so tied up in group organization and consequently individual identity.

You are interpreting "Politics as mindkiller" to be referring only to governance (e.g. taxes, debt) and the issues that have become caught up in political ... (read more)

1dlthomas15y

ADBOC, a bit. I think that is accurate in terms of a description of society. I think it is misleading if you interpret it causally. Issues do not inflame political loyalties in an individual because the issues are possessed of some properties with respect to society. They inflame political loyalties in an individual because of attributes of that individual. A part of this may be an expectation that society at large cares about the issue (I think this is likely in some cases) but I don't think that is essential - I expect that it applies to identification with any particular group that is likely to have a strong opinion on the topic. [...] Probably not. But I would say that it is absolutely a highly-charged (non-partisan, but that's my point) issue for, say, the overwhelming majority of people on Slashdot or Reddit. Would you disagree? Given our demographics, how do you think LW compares?

19

Is anyone else worried about SOPA? Trying to do anything about it?

19

19

19

Is anyone else worried about SOPA? Trying to do anything about it?

19

19