That GoDaddy reversed its SOPA stance (or at least its PR stance) about SOPA in the wake of our boycott is good news, but it's also distracting news. While it does demonstrate that we, the citizens of the righteous internet, can have P&L impact as consumers in the B2B world, the real and massive culprits have been B2C companies.
A very small proportion of a normal B2C company’s revenues come from policy-aware internet citizens. Tactics like the GoDaddy boycott simply will not have an impact (any more than the ongoing boycott of Wal-Mart among the idealistic).
_I don't want us to get distracted from that fact._
_Here are the questions we should be considering._
What can we do to flex our muscles before the many (far more evil) consumer-facing companies out there? How do we legally channel our energy into harming their P&L statements in an unequivocally attributable manner? What about the B2B companies over whose procurement processes we regular citizens have no control?
The companies of greatest concern should be those with contractual and/or infrastructural lock-in:
* telecoms like AT&T and Verizon
* ISPs/media pipes like Comcast and Dish Network
* top-down sales companies like Microsoft and Symantec
* conglomerate-monopolies like Adobe and Autodesk
Unless and until we find a way to hamstring those attacking monsters, the internet will always be in peril -- even if we somehow win this battle like we _barely_ won the Net Neutrality battle a few short years ago.
I'm not sure on what basis you picked the comanies named on your list, but at least three of the four software companies you mentioned are incorrect, and two of those were never in support of SOPA other than by association with the BSA.
IIRC, the BSA backed away from SOPA a while back (after a similar but shorter and less extensive pressure campaign focused on its members). I'd say that makes BSA membership less relevant at this point.
> While it does demonstrate that we, [...] can have P&L impact as consumers in the B2B world, the real and massive culprits have been B2C companies.
Influence on the P&L is great. Influence at the voting booth is one better, and somehow the tech community has to convince congress that the voting booth is in play.
(Yes, P&L leads to political donations, which lead to reelection, but politicians are always playing the trade-off game. So somehow they have to get convinced that supporting dumbass legislation will come back to kick them in the nuts.)
Politicians don't like distractions. If support for some legislation will end up causing distractions, especially during campaign season, they will take notice.
The best distractions come from primary challenges directly attributable to their stances on issues, but even having hecklers show up to campaign events can work.
The right has been using primary threats for a long time to keep politicians in line. I suspect we could be effective using this strategy as well if we put our energy where our mouth is.
It's not a matter of distraction, it's a matter of support and influence and money.
If you can convince a politician that a sizeable percentage of influential people who are liable to donate money to a cause are for or a against a particular issue that that they are legislating on, preferably people who are from within his/her riding/ward/district and thus directly impact him/her.
Say, like well connected, high earning (mostly white, male) nerds. If you stop to think about the amount of power we are actually capable of wielding, it's actually really shocking that msft/goog/aapl etc seem to have really crappy lobbyists.
Check out that podcast I linked. Short of running as or supporting your own candidate, it's kind of how politicians are swayed in any democracy.
If you walked up to a representative and say, "I have these many thousands of members in your constituency, all of whom manage or work in large companies or other institutions and we suggest you do this or that" then that politician is likely to take notice.
The sad part is money is often required to grease all of those wheels, from simply getting private quality time with your rep (see that lobbying podcast) to paying someone to have the time to write up policy recommendations and collect member names and so on so forth.
> If you walked up to a representative and say, "I have these many thousands of members in your constituency, all of whom manage or work in large companies or other institutions and we suggest you do this or that" then that politician is likely to take notice.
Nope. He'd say "you and everyone else who talks with me".
Most House members represent about 720k people. (310M/435 and small states get at least one regardless of population.) On almost any issue, there are "thousands" of people on both sides.
The voting booth is certainly in play as a proxy, as you pointed to.
But it'll be hard to convince politicians that the voting booth is in play directly. In fact, after seeing Lessig on the Daily Show last week, it'll hard for me to be convinced:
I've moved from att to sprint, not really that much of a change, but it's not att. I've moved from godaddy to networksolutions, and I'm on sonic.net for my home dsl, and I've not had regular cable service since 2002.
I'm also working at a fringe game company and I dont use photoshop or any other adobe anythings and I try to use Modo or blender for 3d whenever possible. Maya and max are hard to get away from...
I wish i could say we used ubuntu, but that's just on my personal laptop... :-\
It's a valiant effort, but my point was that end-user boycotts aren't a sound way to affect those companies (unless, perhaps, those end users started boycotting employers that support these companies -- more and more of a possibility, as power shifts into the hands of hackers)
Too little, too late. I'm still moving my ~20 domains away. Their initial stance, plus their ridiculous initial response ("We heard some people were mad, but we're not changing our tune until we start losing money") indicates that they don't actually care about dropping SOPA support.
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if behind this "we're so sorry" facade, Bob Parsons and Lamar Smith are having dinner and a laugh.
Right it is still important for the historical context. When people reflect on the GoDaddy incident, they will either say GoDaddy supported bad legislation and was brutally punished for it and the lesson will be learned by future companies or they will reflect on it and say GoDaddy took a gamble and bet on bad legislation, they apologized and where able to avoid accountability. By your continuing to remove your domains, you have helped that future lesson be the first narrative. It's no longer about GoDaddy and now about, what do we want the narrative to say.
I'm not sure if I'm alone in this, but I had to actually look up the name of SOPA's founder (Lamar Smith). He should be facing heavy criticism right now, at least to the extent that SOPA-supporting companies are. It's as if his career isn't in any jeopardy at all over this.
Lamar Smith is a Texas Republican in a district that is 2/3 R -- any effort to unseat him would have to involve a primary challenge and thus speak to Republican primary voters.
FWIW, Smith's district is very similar to, and adjacent to, Ron Paul's district. So it's thinkable that the seat could be held by a better Republican… although the advantages of incumbency are many and on most issues Smith is acceptable to his constituents.
I believe that so much of what's wrong in American politics, from the inability to throw out incumbents, to the polarization seen in primaries, can be attributed to gerrymandering.
This says he represents (among other places) much of Austin. Isn't Austin a tech hotbed?
Surely there are a couple hundred people in his district who have a lot at stake here? Judging from the campaign rhetoric I've heard, "XYZ's policy destroyed [or will destroy] my business" definitely speaks to Republican primary voters.
It's a ridiculously gerrymandered district, winding around to catch the Republican precincts in Austin. I live in the district. Sure, I'll drop him an email. Just for the exercise. I've done it before. There's zero chance he'll react. You can't vote this guy out of office with a district like this. He collects the big money -- not from constituents, but from The Interests -- as Judiciary chairman. Untouchable.
I live in Cedar Park, which is Judge Carter's district. I called to see where he stood on SOPA, only to find out he's not only a supporter, but a cosponsor. Williamson County is a similarly safe district, so it doesn't cost Carter anything to support his buddy. My goal for the next few years is to make sure that it costs him a lot more than he anticipated.
GoDaddy is owned by private equity firms KKR and Silverlake. These firms aim for short term profits at the expense of creating long term value.
Silverlake was the firm behind the whole Skype compensation fiasco, which was basically a quick flip. KKR does dividend recaps where it issues debt and funnels money out of the company. The company, such as HCA or Dollar General, then has to fire people and raise prices on customers.
Do you think they'll do what's right for customers over the long term or try to extract every penny? That's why they'll flip flop on an issue like SOPA - no long term values. I moved my domains to namecheap a long time ago.
Stop being opportunist flip floppers bent on the bottom line Go Daddy (worse name you could ever come up with for a company). Go Daddy deserves to go extinct their time has come. You have shown your true face (forget the damage control). You've only gotten by up until now because of people not willing to their research and mass marketing, and now it's plainly obvious you are a shill of a company, money can't buy everything. Go form yourselves a new company under a different name. No knowledgeable person on Hacker News would ever choose Go Daddy for anything so go do your online marketing somewhere else.
http://blog.operationreality.org/2011/12/24/sopa-nope-a/
It would be really interesting to know how many domains were transferred yesterday. I moved 6 of my 9. On the other 3, I turned off auto-renewal so they'll just expire.
I've been considering for some weeks whether I can simply go "cold turkey" on paid, mainstream media for a period of time.
When I consider this, I have enough backlog of reading and (legitimately free, e.g. SICP and the like) online videos in my mental queue to do so. I might -- really -- be better off for doing so.
I haven't formulated a well-worded proposal and scenario/approach to share, but I would suggest working towards an opt-in mainstream media blackout -- or brownout, for those who can't opt-out altogether (and that includes me as far as needing to keep up with the news and maintain an ISP connection that doesn't have a viable alternative).
This will seem too extreme to many. But I encourage you to stop and think for a minute or five what a month or two's "brownout" would look like for you, and for media companies currently trying to ramrod through SOPA et al.
Let them see what it really looks like when their U.S. (and other) revenue stream "dries up", for real -- as opposed to their claims of losses. Particularly right when they're foisting this crap on us.
I've been considering for some weeks whether I can simply go "cold turkey" on paid, mainstream media for a period of time.
I don't see why not. I haven't owned a TV in 18 months. I haven't bought a magazine in over five years. I probably haven't been to a movie theater in over five years either. A TV was useful when I was so sick that I needed passive mental stimulation to keep from going completely batshit insane while I laid around trying to rest and get myself well.
What purpose does most mainstream media really serve for you? I don't ask that pejoratively. It's a serious question to help you analyze what needs you are looking to meet and what alternatives you can seek out. I would be happy to help you try to answer such questions. I think my life is far better without spending so much time having my mind filled with what is usually crap.
Sorry to hear that. I no longer visit relatives that I'm not on the same page with and I don't really do Christmas anymore. The whole thing sounds soul sucking, not just the TV.
It really is surprising how bothersome TV can be when you're not used to it. I could hear my younger self calling me a pansy when I used the word gruelling in my previous comment. Of course it's not in the same league as real suffering like the illness you mentioned.
Though I do have to catch myself from being too much of a smug doesn't-own-a-TV guy. There's still plenty of distraction in my life that enters mostly via this computer. At least it is more wholesome and not actively evil.
As I understand it, constant loud noise is a torture technique. They use it against soldiers and stuff. Nothing "pansy" about finding it hard to take. Humans weren't designed for "modern" environments. My dad is in his 80's and my mom in her 70's. They both spent at least part of their childhood on a farm. They keep their household a lot quieter than is typical of a lot of modern homes. I think a lot of stuff that gets labeled "ADHD" and so on is really normal reaction to a crazy distracting environment humans weren't designed for. But that's a whole 'nother ball of wax, I suppose.
> and that includes me as far as needing to keep up with the news
You don't actually "need" to keep up with the news. It's not a sin not to, nobody's forcing you, and if something really important happens, it'll filter down to you via your friends.
I did this a decade ago and it was really refreshing. I did start following the news again at some point, but if you plan on just a month or two, there's nothing except a self-appointed "duty" why you "need" to keep up with the news.
Not that following the news is a bad thing or anything (rather the contrary) and maybe it is the most important form of media consumption, but it's not that important either, especially if you got a reasonably active social life.
Well, actually I do, for... let's call it reasons of "due diligence". I have obligations and responsibilities that could go wrong if I'm not sufficiently informed.
The problem is that they control our culture. Boycotting some of these companies involves removing ourselves from many of the shared experiences which allow us to identify with the society and time that we live in. Until our artists figure out a viable way to extract themselves from this machine (through methods such as Louis CK's experiment, perhaps?) I don't see this kind of boycott ever gaining the critical mass it would need to make an impact.
I can't determine just where in the resulting sub-threads to repy, so I'm just replying to myself.
Scope of, um, "boycott": I have lots of material at hand that I've already purchased. That can provide many hours of interest/entertainment. My purpose is not to "empty my life" of such things; it is to reduce the immediate cash flow of these companies. I'll read the book I've already purchased, or rewatch the DVD I liked enough to buy in the first place. Or... go to the library.
Libraries have been receiving somewhat short shrift in the last decade (in the U.S.), although I've read of an uptick in patronage since the economic crisis hit. I support the library model, and I'm not opposed to some purchases being made by libraries who then share the work in a socially and legally codified manner. Libraries have mostly "been on our side", and the side-effect of my boycott lending support to my local libraries would be a welcome one, to me.
"Honest" publishers. I also don't want to lump "everone" into the same boat. I've long been a pretty good patron of O'Reilly Publishing, and I have some works from Manning, Pragmatic Programmers, etc. lying around. All these companies sell me quality works (well, if I pick well) and are willing to give me digital formats free of DRM. Tim's been more than fair in allowing me to "upgrade" my existing printed books to digital format. Such fairness I reciprocate by continuing to support their businesses.
My relationship with media: Actually, this is where I become a bit... "rhetorical", if not disingenuous. I don't actually purchase that much, myself. My cable tv service level is basic, because the pricing works out the same as it would be with Internet-alone and because broadcast reception was poor and vanished altogether when the roof was replaced. Yes, I'm stuck with a cable company for my Internet. Like much of the country, I don't really have a choice. The one competitor -- if they've finally fixed their "last mile" problem to my particular location -- is a major telco whose policies and behavior if anything are actually worse. So, I'm screwed, on this point, as I can't do without the connection.
I don't purchase much music. I mostly listen to what I have.
DVD's, I also only purchase a handful every few years.
My one other consistent source of active spending is Netflix. I feel for them, being stuck between the entertainment industry, the cable companies and telco's, and viewers -- their users. Their position reminds me in the abstract of the recurrent admonition: "Don't be a share-cropper." However... those dollars are flowing to the entertainment industry. In the form of Netflix subscriber levels and revenue, they represent a distinct and readily -- frequently -- measured metric. And Netflix recent bumblings have chilled me somewhat in my support -- in part, regardless of how much I like them, I've come to perceive just how badly, fundamentally, their model is broken when viewed in the current context.
So... do I drop to a minimum level, or pull the plug altogether? They maintain one's existing queue's for 18 months, so I wouldn't have to reconstruct those -- and they are also save-able as a simple web page. They make it pretty easy to leave -- to their credit.
I guess a primary concern about my relationship to media is that I find myself too often settling for the crappy distraction of the basic cable service, because it's there and is immediate. I don't discover some interesting new music because I'm not purchasing the latest equipment and streaming and giving Jobs, now Cook, his pound of flesh, etc.
As it is, I let too much crap into my life. And yes, Mz, I know the situation of seeking, needing simple, mindless distraction from discomfort.
Here's the thing, though. That movie, that song, is still available next year. Still new -- with that initial joy of discovery -- to me. And sometimes, the slight remove means I can skip the crap and let the cream filter to the top before I partake.
It's hard to be social, I guess, when you're disconnected. And part of being young is to be social, if not more actively so nonetheless in a different, more novel mode engendering new contacts and relationships.
But the current situation -- SOPA et al. -- threatens a lot of that novelty. The coolest stuff mostly doesn't come from the maw of Disney -- not once you're old enough to make your own purchases. And we're not talking forever. We're talking some weeks or months. Which could be novel in itself.
Don't purchase that album or DVD. Go see a local band. Check out the theater. I'm fortunate in that where I live, there's tons of it at reasonable price being put on by people of every generation.
I apologize for placing such an early morning hazed ramble on HN. But, at a first pass, there's my response. Make it about choice, and quality. Make it novel and something to do. Turn the "absence" into a positive, or several positives. And take a swing at the knees of these bastards who want to spend us into their suck.
I have been a big fan of Gandi.net for quite some time - they have an anti-SOPA [1] stand point for a while, their administrative tools are great and easy to use, and their support for the one time I required it was friendly and knowledgeable and last but not least offer a free SSL certificate with each domain.
I was thinking, we can safely assume theres a lot of start-up CEOs/founders/whatevers around here. What if all of these companies prominently displayed dissatisfaction with SOPA. Wouldn't this be an immediate, effective way to reach the uninformed masses?
If PG can involve politics in his company, why can't you?
What are you suggesting? I'm pretty sure we've all been voicing our opinions or at least acting as conduits to expression against such endeavors.
Do the politicians take notice though? Sounds like we may all need to step it up a notch? Apparently power in numbers in is the only thing that counts to law makers and their lobbyists.
GoDaddy needs to be boycotted anyway. We're talking about a law that would create a national Internet censorship infrastructure in the United States. This is serious stuff.
We need to send the message that when you pull crap like this, it might really hurt your bottom line. Permanently.
You could conceivably put together a Selenium script or something to automate the first part, but that would be really tricky. As it is, you just have to get an export of your domains (instructions in the repos) and run my script. Right now it supports DNSimple and Namecheap, but I'm almost done with Gandi support and might be adding others.
Transferring domains is fairly painless already, but one click transfer would be insanity. The few speedbumps that do exist when transferring exist to prevent domain name hijacking. If you could one-click transfer then domains would be completely unsafe against hijacking.
"The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire, The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire, We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn, Burn motherfucker burn"
Urgh. I can't be the only person who is getting exceptionally tired of seeing self-congratulatory blog posts about GoDaddy rise to the top of HN.
Dear interwebnerds: the point has been made. Stop obsessing. Every time you get your knickers in a knot and write a crowing blog post about how you just put it to The Domain Provider Who Shall Not Be Named, you give them more name recognition, free press and SEO. So stop it. Transfer your domains, make your point to customer service if/when they call, then stop talking about their service.
Maybe you folks can spread a little more of your furor around to the other companies on the list...a list that includes most of the major providers of media in our culture.
It's only been a day or two. GoDaddy is getting free press but bad press. It's getting name recognition but not the kind it wants. This will have a dramatic effect on the image of the company, and personally I want to see how GoDaddy handles this and what effect it has on the company and its competitors, if any, as well as the effect on the bill's passage, if any. I'll agree that some of the revelry may be unwarranted, but this submission is still entirely relevant.
At the very least, I think GoDaddy put namecheap.com on the map this week. I know I had personally never heard of namecheap before the last few days.
GoDaddy probably won't release how many customers they lost, but I bet namecheap will be happy to tell us all how many transfers happened after all this is over.
As they say: "there's no such thing as bad publicity".
This old maxim is particularly true when the publicity helps you to come up as the #1 search result for "domain registration" (or worse, links directly to your press releases), and most of your customers don't care about your position on SOPA.
Every seething blog post you vote up to the front page of HN sends potential customers to GoDaddy, if only to see what the fuss is all about.
The GoDaddy victory is a red herring.
That GoDaddy reversed its SOPA stance (or at least its PR stance) about SOPA in the wake of our boycott is good news, but it's also distracting news. While it does demonstrate that we, the citizens of the righteous internet, can have P&L impact as consumers in the B2B world, the real and massive culprits have been B2C companies.
A very small proportion of a normal B2C company’s revenues come from policy-aware internet citizens. Tactics like the GoDaddy boycott simply will not have an impact (any more than the ongoing boycott of Wal-Mart among the idealistic).
_I don't want us to get distracted from that fact._
_Here are the questions we should be considering._
What can we do to flex our muscles before the many (far more evil) consumer-facing companies out there? How do we legally channel our energy into harming their P&L statements in an unequivocally attributable manner? What about the B2B companies over whose procurement processes we regular citizens have no control?
The companies of greatest concern should be those with contractual and/or infrastructural lock-in:
Unless and until we find a way to hamstring those attacking monsters, the internet will always be in peril -- even if we somehow win this battle like we _barely_ won the Net Neutrality battle a few short years ago.