SOPA Backers Criticize Internet Opposition

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The backers of the not quite dead, but on failing life-support SOPA bill are striking back at the public outcry raised by what they call ‘a few actors’ and calling the Internet protestors misinformed and misled. Stephanie Moore, Chief Counsel for the House Subcommittee, doubted that the 800K calls received by Congress came from concerned citizens that had actually read the bill. Something tells me that the sponsors of the SOPA bill just don’t get it.

“Netizens poisoned the well, and as a result the reliability of the internet is at risk”
Click to expand...
 
You use that word "reliability" but I do not think you know what it means.
 
yes. they are absolutely right.... we poisoned the well.

now stay the hell away from this kind of legislation so we dont need to break out the shotguns.
 
and in addition to what I said, you can always count on the bill having a far worse effect than what backers claim. For one thing I'm sure our internet bill will go up.
 
Parmenides said:
Nobody reads these bills, not even the backers.
Click to expand...

Over 90 percent of the bills passed by Congress do not get fully read. That's why we have terms like "Earmarks".

The reality is SOPA is defeated. If they even attempt another push they will suffer even worse from it. SOPA is a deadly word for Congress. For once the people actually bothered to get fucking involved instead of taking a backseat and not giving a shit. Was one of very few times in recent history that gave me a glimmer of hope that perhaps this nation isn't doomed by laziness.
 
I am anti-SOPA as much as anyone, and pro net neutrality. Let's just get that out of the way...

But there is a side that isn't being talked about much, because it's still a bit strange: cyber conflict. In a nutshell, if a cyber-based criminal organization based in Valeria were to attack China, causing actual monetary loss, this may be construed as an armed attack. And based on International law, China may be able to retaliate and engage in armed conflict with Valeria.

This is still debated, but there is another point to this: If a state were negligent in their duty to prevent such criminal activity within their borders (i.e. not harbor or directly/indirectly condone their actions) and another state can prove imminent attack, then a state can again attack another or do what they need to do to neutralize that threat.

If a country can't "police" its own netizens (for lack of a better term), i.e. track attribution of criminal activity, it may be argued they are not doing enough, and thus open to attack.

This is really the key argument that will be debated in international law over the next 25 years or so.

Note: I've grossly simplified things, but wanted to share just to broaden minds a bit on this topic.
 
LOL. So if congress gets a serious outcry from "citizens" over a corporate-agenda bill, then it's because some other third party put them up to it and it wasn't really the citizens viewpoint?

The f*ck logic ...

Get used to it, with the availability of information on the internet, it's far easier for citizens to make more informed decisions and spread the word.
 
To quote a movie:
Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... f**k with us.
Click to expand...
:)
 
LonerVamp said:
I am anti-SOPA as much as anyone, and pro net neutrality. Let's just get that out of the way...

But there is a side that isn't being talked about much, because it's still a bit strange: cyber conflict. In a nutshell, if a cyber-based criminal organization based in Valeria were to attack China, causing actual monetary loss, this may be construed as an armed attack. And based on International law, China may be able to retaliate and engage in armed conflict with Valeria.

This is still debated, but there is another point to this: If a state were negligent in their duty to prevent such criminal activity within their borders (i.e. not harbor or directly/indirectly condone their actions) and another state can prove imminent attack, then a state can again attack another or do what they need to do to neutralize that threat.

If a country can't "police" its own netizens (for lack of a better term), i.e. track attribution of criminal activity, it may be argued they are not doing enough, and thus open to attack.

This is really the key argument that will be debated in international law over the next 25 years or so.

Note: I've grossly simplified things, but wanted to share just to broaden minds a bit on this topic.
Click to expand...

You have grossly simplified things but I think that what you speak off shouldn't permeate the same kind of bills that end up as SOPA type legislation. The biggest problem that seems to plagued Washington is that bills are often so poorly worded that loopholes are completely inevitable. If the wording was made clear (which in SOPA , they completely were not) than the agenda would be clearer. Instead bills are worded for those that support it and done in a way that leaves a wide birth of problems in its wake.
 
LonerVamp said:
If a country can't "police" its own netizens (for lack of a better term), i.e. track attribution of criminal activity, it may be argued they are not doing enough, and thus open to attack.
Click to expand...

This is the heart of a lot of it.

However, one thing I really like about America, or maybe I should say, what America used to be is the fact that you shouldn't give up freedom for "safety." Currently, it's not even that. It's a corporation wanting to get their own interest in, which makes it far worst than just for safety.

I, like many others, have not read the SOPA bill, but I get the general gist of it, and it seemingly allows for a lot of things to be done based on speculation of these corporations. People have been wrongly accused, and subjected to what basically is blackmail. It has a feeling of "Guilty til proven innocent" which I really do not like.
 
Godmachine said:
You have grossly simplified things but I think that what you speak off shouldn't permeate the same kind of bills that end up as SOPA type legislation. The biggest problem that seems to plagued Washington is that bills are often so poorly worded that loopholes are completely inevitable. If the wording was made clear (which in SOPA , they completely were not) than the agenda would be clearer. Instead bills are worded for those that support it and done in a way that leaves a wide birth of problems in its wake.
Click to expand...

If they were worded more clearly, then no one would support the bills and we can't have that since these guys need to pay back the guys who elected them. ;) And yes, loopholes, the things that only the largest companies are capable of exploiting, while the little guy and small businesses aren't able to benefit from. Most job growth comes from small businesses. But of course small businesses don't help you get in office quite as well. :D
 
RealityCrunch said:
They accuse us of not reading the bill? ...
Click to expand...

They also accuse us of piracy and ruining the movie industry (Lawlz). Its PR nonsense that is made to please an agenda. They want SOPA back in the news because they want another crack at passing such legislation again.

Its all political maneuvering.
 
Parmenides said:
If they were worded more clearly, then no one would support the bills and we can't have that since these guys need to pay back the guys who elected them. ;) And yes, loopholes, the things that only the largest companies are capable of exploiting, while the little guy and small businesses aren't able to benefit from. Most job growth comes from small businesses. But of course small businesses don't help you get in office quite as well. :D
Click to expand...

I know its crazy to expect honesty from elected officials but that's what it would take to get the public off their collective backs on this type of legislation.

Sadly , I think something will eventually pass without our knowledge or before we can organize another effort to oppose it. Its the nature of our democracy.
 
Stephanie Moore is misinformed and misled. She should try using it sometime, to see what all the fuss is about.
 
lemme guess she doesn't get anymore lobbying money from the RIAA and MPAA unless she continues to try and push this through.
 
Godmachine said:
You have grossly simplified things but I think that what you speak off shouldn't permeate the same kind of bills that end up as SOPA type legislation. The biggest problem that seems to plagued Washington is that bills are often so poorly worded that loopholes are completely inevitable. If the wording was made clear (which in SOPA , they completely were not) than the agenda would be clearer. Instead bills are worded for those that support it and done in a way that leaves a wide birth of problems in its wake.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would also say that I don't think SOPA came about due to this international concern of cyber conflict. But it'll be the playground where things like net neutrality are settled. I doubt the people who made and backed SOPA gave 2 drips about international law.
 
People insist on putting those who would tread on our rights back in office. I was fortunate to be able vote AGAINST Lamar Smith. Did it work? Nope. City council -- all incumbents won. The list goes on and on. How is this even possible?! Because people don't vote. If you didn't vote (or you put their asses back in office), you have zero room to complain.
 
I think by "poisoning the well" she's referring to the bribery efforts involved. The concern could be that companies may not wanna donate funds as much on such bold plans if the bribes go to waste too often.
 
Gotta love it when someone can say that their attempts to pass some ridiculous legislation were thwarted by the democratic process, and pretty much imply that somehow that's a bad thing. It's true that the majority cannot be allowed to drown out the needs of the minority, but I don't think megawealthy entertainment empires are a minority group deserving of protection from the general populous and special considerations.
 
elation said:
People insist on putting those who would tread on our rights back in office. I was fortunate to be able vote AGAINST Lamar Smith. Did it work? Nope. City council -- all incumbents won. The list goes on and on. How is this even possible?! Because people don't vote. If you didn't vote (or you put their asses back in office), you have zero room to complain.
Click to expand...

It's like debating which branch of a fast food chain to go to, when you know you'll just end up with the same box of junk made by different people. :p
 
Spidey329 said:
LOL. So if congress gets a serious outcry from "citizens" over a corporate-agenda bill, then it's because some other third party put them up to it and it wasn't really the citizens viewpoint?

[/snip].
Click to expand...
Now you're thinking with portal...err... politicians! :p
 
The problem are the government officials they are led by whatever special interests to introduce something only the special interest has any interest in and then finds out that "normal" people don't care for it.

The only people that are poisoned are Stephanie Moore and her cohorts. When you can't propose anything which the average joe would say "hell yea" to what are you in the first place on getting this passed by ramming it down people's throats. As shown by her statements it is sad. Maybe they should attach that bill to school funding or some other tricks of the past....
 
Keep in mind that this is how the government is supposed to work. Elected officials don't have all the answers and don't necessarily know what people want. Bills get written and introduced, and some of them are misguided, ill-thought-out, bad, whatever.

But it's the process you go through to weed out the bad ones and pass the good ones.

My big issue is when good ones have hidden little agendas in them, or bad ones are bandied about for political reasons.

Otherwise, having lame bills floating around is actually a part of the process, and really not something in and of itself to cry about.
 
This, from the same congress that passed a health care bill they didn't read.
 
LonerVamp said:
Keep in mind that this is how the government is supposed to work. Elected officials don't have all the answers and don't necessarily know what people want. Bills get written and introduced, and some of them are misguided, ill-thought-out, bad, whatever.

But it's the process you go through to weed out the bad ones and pass the good ones.

My big issue is when good ones have hidden little agendas in them, or bad ones are bandied about for political reasons.

Otherwise, having lame bills floating around is actually a part of the process, and really not something in and of itself to cry about.
Click to expand...

Funny you don't ever see them repeal anything. But then, hindsight is blind in America sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top