[d_r]

Perhaps off-topic, but after reading GoDaddy's letter, I am surprised that our discussions against SOPA don't focus on the root -- the fact that the legislation is presented in an incredibly misleading and vague manner.

At face value, its purpose is to stop the foreign counterfeit drug/goods sellers -- you know, the same guys who spam us with "enlarge your..." and such offers. The same guys who pollute Google search results with "buy handbags" trash. Now suppose someone had asked you: "do you want legislation against these foreign illegal drug sellers?" Surely you'd say yes. Heck, I'd say yes. What reasonable person would oppose this?

But the problem is that the legislation is presented as this, but is actually likely going to be used for other things (censoring online content, special interests of the movie industry, etc.)

So when we write to our congresspeople and explain our concerns with SOPA, I wonder: do they think "Hmm, I am just protecting the internet from so-and-so baddies selling drugs. Why are all these tech people suddenly up in arms about this? Do they somehow not want to stop those baddies?"

When we write, we say that we oppose SOPA. Would we be more effective if we asserted that we do hate those sellers and oppose SOPA because of its specific implications? Unless of course, the bad "side effects" are actually the main purpose and the "good" cause is just a very clever gimmick.

[tjogin]

> Now suppose someone had asked you: "do you want legislation against these foreign illegal drug sellers?" Surely you'd say yes. Heck, I'd say yes. What reasonable person would oppose this?

I would. Not every nuisance should be outlawed, most nuisances probably shouldn't. Legislation always bears a cost, and, for instance, in this case the cost outweighs the benefits by a wide margin. As is often the case.

[dclowd9901]

Precisely. While it is a cat-and-mouse game, I think the tech industry has shown that there is a vested interest in cleaning this crap out of our lives. The internet seems to be the last place where a market is free to tackle and solve problems on its own.

[jebblue]

I have to think there is a huge financial worldwide cost associated with fighting what you characterize as a nuisance.

[pork]

> Now suppose someone had asked you: "do you want legislation against these foreign illegal drug sellers?" Surely you'd say yes. Heck, I'd say yes.

Let me stop you there. I'd say no, because I feel that in many matters, especially those concerning the Internet, legislation is about as effective as politely asking the rain not to drip through your leaky roof.

[vidarh]

Even for the sake of argument assuming legislation is the right answer here:

The problem with SOPA is not so much what can be done to stop "bad guys", but how it can be done, namely without a court order, and only based on "reasonable belief".

It is massively chilling by virtue of causing large liabilities if someone don't act, even if/when they don't or even can't know for sure if the claim made is true, while granting immunity if they do act.

It creates a de facto assumption of guilt by creating a strong incentive to act without evidence of any wrongdoing.

[jpdoctor]

I don't think it's off-topic at all. What you are describing is how the topic is "framed", and is why companies pay large sums to lobbyists and PR firms.

[scriptproof]

These sellers change domains each day. According to my host, they can even change servers several time per month. The process involved by SOPA, a judge decision to close the site will be absolutely inefficient against them.

[nextparadigms]

I think the drug related part has more to do with the fact that you can buy drugs from other country, just like they've forbidden you even buy drugs from Canada online - even if they are good drugs. They just don't want you to use anything that isn't from an American company.

While some online drugs may actually be dangerous to people's health, and it's obviously risky unless you know what you're doing, I think education on this issue would be much more effective than legalizing banning of online stuff.

I mean, people with common sense should already know that they need to be careful what kind of drugs they buy online. I don't think the Government's intervention is mandatory even for that, and just like trying to ban most everything online, it will probably hurt more than help.