HN Explorer

Wikipedia, other websites go dark in anti-piracy bill protest (cnn.com)

94 points by Xurinos ↗ HN
I looked at CNN's frontpage take on the SOPA blackouts. Here is their definition of SOPA:

If SOPA passes, copyright holders would be able to complain to law enforcement officials and get websites shut down. Search engines and other providers would have to block rogue sites when ordered to do so by a judge. Sites could be punished for hosting pirated content -- and Internet companies are worried they could be held liable for users' actions.

I placed the emphasis around the offending line. This wordplay makes SOPA sound more palatable. Under DMCA, copyright holders already have the right to demand that websites take down offending material. Under SOPA, a judge can order the search engine itself to be shutdown. Search engines, news aggregation sites, and online community providers must be proactive in removing links before a judge is even involved. Under SOPA, the definition of a "rogue site" is anything that happens to have a link or piece of information representing a violation of copyright.

See "No Duty to Monitor" at http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html

41 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 89.8 ms ] thread
swordswinger12
Eh, give CNN some credit. They could've done a whole lot worse, that article did a decent job of presenting both sides.
abraxasz
I very much agree. I honestly think that the article was fair. CNN didn't try to hide that it's parent company was supporting SOPA (which is maybe obvious for american folks, but for a foreigner like me, it was worth mentioning), and detailled the arguments of both sides.
weaksauce
The corporate parent alliances are not always obvious to Americans either; it's very much needed in an article like this.
eavc
Agreed - no worse than the average article on a complex topic, really.
drhowarddrfine
Didn't scroll down enough to see your post. I agree, too.
kristopolous
check out anything from pcmag.com on SOPA if you want to see spin that makes you dizzy, I could link to a lot of articles, but I invite you to read the pieces on the site itself.
cbr
"Media companies have united in favor of it, while tech's power players are throwing their might into opposing it."
tripzilch
Also implying that the "tech power players" are not media companies is silly.
ugh
How so? Can you point out passages?

That seemed like pretty standard reporting to me. They explain what’s happening and bring out the position of each side, with an emphasis on presenting the views of those who take part in today’s protest.

There is also a disclaimer, though you might argue it’s a bit far down.

CWIZO
Take the title "Wikipedia, other websites go dark in anti-piracy bill protest". I immediately read that as "wikipedia is supporting piracy". YMMV
badclient
Don't blame CNN for that, we should blame ourselves. We should have called this the anti-jobs bill from the get go.
joezydeco
CBS radio pretty much said the same thing. "..went black to protest anti-piracy measures". We're all so busy blacking things out we forgot that the media needs guidance in framing the issues.
roguecoder
A press release calling this "the internet censorship bill" could have gone a long way. Possibly along with more comparisons with China and Iran; appealing to xenophobia and American exceptionalism seems a usually-winning strategy.
etherael
Glad someone else noticed, was beginning to feel vaguely disgusted by this continuous barrage of evil foreigners out to take our god given American jobs propaganda passing without rebuke.
kamjam
Even if you released that press release, what are the chances of the media reporting it that way. The article itself states it, CNN's parent supports SOPA... so don't you think the headline is written to grab attention and frame it as "Wikipedia and co don't support SOPA therefore they must support piracy". No way would they make the movement seem like a good thing!
Scriptor
For the average person who knows very little to nothing about SOPA, the phrase "anti-piracy" implies that the bill is specifically targeted against piracy-related matters. People might even assume that it would be effective against piracy. Imagine if voicing your opposition to TSA's expanding control and alleged infringements of rights was called, "So-and-so opposed to anti-terror bill."
marknutter
To be fair, the bill's goal is to stop piracy. Granted, it's crippling the internet in the process, but I think calling it an "anti-piracy" bill is pretty accurate.
smokeyj
True, stopping the economy is one way to stop piracy.
Sindisil
No, it's not.

If anything, continued or increased economic slowdown will increase piracy, as people have both less disposable income and less regard for increasingly abused intellectual property rights.

gt384u
> No, it's not.

I think you may be right, but only if you consider piracy to not be part of "the economy". My understanding at least is that it very much is.

bediger
Sure, that's what the name says and so forth, but haven't you ever heard to not judge a book by its cover? The internals of the bills are so weird, that you can't help but suspect that something else is going on there.
eavc
But that's exactly how legislation is named across the board. Who wants to oppose Patriotism? Or Liberty, Freedom, Homeland Security, or Family Values?

It's insidious and infuriating.

edit: Also as the other comment points out, the bill is ostensibly an anti-piracy bill.

twentysix
From the article, "If SOPA passes, copyright holders would be able to complain to law enforcement officials and get websites shut down. Search engines and other providers would have to block rogue sites when ordered to do so by a judge. "

From my understanding SOPA doesnt require an order from a judge but rightsholders, ISPs, or the government could shut down sites with accusations of infringement, and without real due process.

adamjernst
The proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. — Wikipedia

SOPA does require an order from a judge.

onemoreact
They use 3 images from the wikipedia page which prevents you from reading it. Wikipedia was among several websites to shut down at midnight in protest of anti-piracy bills now in Congress that critics say could amount to censorship. Wikipedia did not shutdown, people in France can read the French or English version of the site just fine.

PS: I could continue but those are literally the first picture and first sentence of the article.

Symmetry
Those seem like just the typical news agency sloppiness, not evidence of any sort of deliberate misrepresentation. News articles about subjects you have in depth knowledge of are always that bad, at least for daily publications.
ugh
They grabbed one of the first images that come up when you search for Wikipedia on Getty Images†. They were lazy, not malicious.

And being wrong about one inconsequential detail doesn’t mean they are misrepresenting anything. They made a stupid mistake, that’s all.

I don’t want to defend CNN but I think it’s about time turn confirmation bias down a bit.

—

† A link: http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&...

onemoreact
"Internet companies are worried they could be held liable for users' actions."

SOPA makes Internet companies liable for their users actions by removing safe harbor provisions. The only could is 'could be held liable' in a court of law. They also avoid mentioning how many websites are protesting SOPA. If this was breaking news that would be one thing, but they have had significant warning that this was going to happen.

cpfohl
I completely agree. The article is primarily composed of quotes (in Chrome, doing a ctrl-f for a '"' character makes the page look like your monitors gone yellow).

Aforementioned disclaimer: "SOPA's supporters -- including CNN parent company Time Warner and groups such as the MPAA -- say..."

While you can report something primarily using quotes in a biased manner. I'm with @ugh, this was relatively well done.

atomicdog
"an all-out war between Hollywood and Silicon Valley." makes it sound as if this is simply two factions of lobbyists battling against each other.
pgbovine
quite ironic given the poster's highly-editorialized title
tgrass
From the guidelines: "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it."
mikehuffman
If MPAA wanted a workable sinister solution to the SOPA/PIPA problem, it would offer immunity to youtube, twitter, myspace, facebook, reddit, digg, etc. Which would allow for the abuse to continue unabated without all of the "common folk" getting excited about it.
ajaimk
I'd say it I pretty neutral on the representation front. They do mention: "SOPA's supporters -- including CNN parent company Time Warner"
drhowarddrfine
I find the article is one of the best and most informed I've read. And by CNN of all people.
meow
A lot better than the asses at Fox. Just look at the malice dripping from this fox article: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/18/wikipedia-goes-dar...
toddmorey
The worst part of the article is actually a quote form a Wikipedia editor. It's dismissive and inaccurate, but you always know that when you see the phrase "before we know it..":

"My main concern is that it puts the organization in the role of advocacy, and that's a slippery slope," said editor Robert Lawton, a Michigan computer consultant who would prefer that the encyclopedia stick to being a neutral repository of knowledge. "Before we know it, we're blacked out because we want to save the whales."

bad_user
I don't get people with this line of thought. This is about survival, not about fighting worthy causes, even though saving whales is a noble cause and I wouldn't mind if Wikipedia fought for it.
roguecoder
This is typical of modern "opinions differ on the shape of the earth" reporting. Newspapers don't care what the truth is and won't ever pass judgment, no matter how fantastical someone's claims. All they can do is report what Democrats say, what Republicans say and what the Tea Party says. Reporting anything else, including reality, would be considered biased.
thejteam
Am I the only one who has had no problem viewing wikipedia today? Main page fine looks normal except for the SOPA statement near the top. I've read several articles that I've gotten from google searches.

Yes English language, yes I'm in the USA.

thejteam
Never mind. I read the FAQs and you can read it just fine if javascript is disabled, which I do by default.