Cautious Optimism Follows SOPA Hearings: Don't Get Cocky | Hacker News Reader

Cautious Optimism Follows SOPA Hearings: Don't Get Cocky

readwriteweb.com

43 pointsjzb16 comments

A few years ago online poker proponents thought they had the UIGEA squelched, and then it got tacked onto the Safe Ports Act in committee (when they reconcile the house and senate versions) and sailed through in a midnight session.

So yeah, don't get cocky.

I had forgotten that. Thanks for the comment.

The new content distribution companies (what article calls silicon valley) need to invest 5% of net revenue in lobbying out of existence the old content distribution companies (aka music, movies, books).

That stuff will still be made, this is a war over distribution not creation.

That's kind of what I was wondering. Will tech companies ever start lobbying back? They have the money.

I think it's just sad that a chart shows the different amounts of lobbying money that are given by both groups as a comparison. Everyone just implicitly accepts that money is the most important metric used by politicians to decide which legislation to support. The game is out in the open, and no cares.

This is one of the things that frustrates me to no end. We have the data, we have the information, we can see it taking place, but nothing seems to be happening to fix it.

The people in charge feel so removed, like they're operating in a different world where the people can be shut up if they're ignored long enough. We've been Ferberized by our own government.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” ― Frank Zappa

Every time I read about lobbyists, I think, can't we just outright, wholesale ban lobbying? The only companies that can afford to lobby do so above and beyond any capacity that the average person or small business can. Doesn't that make it unfair? Sure, there are lobbyists from good organizations, but these organizations will never be able to compete with large corporate interests. So again, what's the point?

Lobbying is a particular kind of speech directed at lawmakers. It is difficult to imagine what kind of law can ban lobbying without having some sort of even worse unanticipated side effects.

It's a category error to think of "lobbying" as a distinct thing in itself that could somehow be banned, unfortunately.

In my mind, it would be as simple as stating, "unless you're a single human being, your request will not be reviewed.". If you're representing a group of people, or a group of entities, you are disqualified from having an opinion on record.

I know it sounds utopian and probably not "realistic", for whatever reason, but it would certainly even out the playing field.

So, when going to write laws on $TECHNICAL_TOPIC, it is now illegal for anyone in $TECHNICAL_FIELD to even try to advise the Congressperson.

That's not progress.

Oh, and before you answer that one objection, that's one I choose from many. You've killed way too much necessary speech with that restriction.

It's hard to agree that my ideal world is without flaws, but towards the point you made, it wouldn't be hard to create an avenue for $TECHNICAL_FIELD to advise, not lobby, on $TECHNICAL_TOPIC. I'd imagine all sorts of restructuring would occur in the event that lobbying was banned.

There is a clear and definitive difference between those who are grinding an agenda down your throat, and those who are offering expertise.

I think one of the main flaws in our system of government is that Congress is expected to regulate themselves. And I don't see any plausible scenario that would encourage them to outlaw a large chunk of their paycheck. Perhaps a large group of people suing several senate and house members to get a supreme court ruling? The constitution was written in a pre-industrial world where no large businesses existed yet, so it's not our founding fathers' faults, but now we're kind of stuck with an easily corruptible legislative branch.

The fourth largest lobby is the lobbying lobby.

Campaign donations are the problems, I think.

Maybe there is a way to go on the offensive and make net neutrality and net connectivity a basic unalienable human right. Congress could not care less about music artists, economic fairness and copyright in general. They have seen an opportunity to grab power to regulate throttle and authorize all data in the tubes and are doing what they can to grab it.

Its kind of funny to wonder why a Congress that just got done bankrupting this country is concerned about music and the sharing thereof.

The same reason that pizza is now a vegetable, they only want to tackle topics that are backed by their donating special interests. We need to fight back against those corporations that are supporting this bill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com