While it's important to point out this inaccuracy, I don't understand the amount of attention in the debate given to whether SOPA affects foreign sites only or not. Would it make the bill any more acceptable if it were only to affect sites hosted outside the USA?
I think this is more of a credibility issue - i.e. can you trust that this person is giving you the precise facts, allowing you to draw your own conclusions, or are they given you a spun version, with certain facts bent, to greater or lesser degrees, to their advantage?
First, I think foreign-TLD sites are still what they mean by "foreign sites". This is significant when you consider that domestic-TLD sites are already in US jurisdiction even though the server may be foreign.
Secondly, saying "no American company will be affected" is exactly the kind of generalization required when talking in soundbites (what is required when talking on TV). You can call it a lie, but only if you acknowledge that nearly everyone on TV lies.
It damages credibility if you say categorically that no American company could be targeted by SOPA, when in fact they could be. It erodes the sense that viewers should believe the rest of what you say. Richard Cotton also mentioned that due process will be respected, and only sites that are wholesale engaged in piracy will be affected. When people are loose with language, you wonder what the precise situation actually is, and it muddies the debate.
Few people have a subtle understanding of what SOPA actually entails (I still don't understand all the details), and this is because the proponents say 'We're targeting thieves' and the opponents say 'This will break the internet', and sometimes a reader gets the sense that no-one is communicating the precise, un-dramatized, facts. If the reader doesn't feel they have these facts, it's difficult to draw your own conclusions.
5 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 34.5 ms ] threadSecondly, saying "no American company will be affected" is exactly the kind of generalization required when talking in soundbites (what is required when talking on TV). You can call it a lie, but only if you acknowledge that nearly everyone on TV lies.
Few people have a subtle understanding of what SOPA actually entails (I still don't understand all the details), and this is because the proponents say 'We're targeting thieves' and the opponents say 'This will break the internet', and sometimes a reader gets the sense that no-one is communicating the precise, un-dramatized, facts. If the reader doesn't feel they have these facts, it's difficult to draw your own conclusions.