On January 18th, many websites around the world will close shop for the day in a “blackout” that is means to raise awareness of the potentially damaging effects of the SOPA and PIPA bills. Site such as Reddit and Wikipedia have drawn the most attention with their respective plans, and Twitter’s been called to the mat by some of its users to do the same. But Twitter’s CEO calls the move “foolish” for businesses, and I couldn’t agree more.
@digiphile @jayrosen_nyu that’s just silly. Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish.
— dick costolo (@dickc) January 16, 2012
The problem at hand here is large. As Costolo rightly states, it’s the (even single-day) closure of a global business based on a single issue. Though SOPA and/or PIPA could very well have devastating effects on these sites, going dark is the wrong approach. It’s akin to throwing a bucket of water onto a house fire.
The sites in question have massive reach, the likes of which is not seen by any other site on the Internet. Wouldn’t it make more sense then to have a long-tail, public stance against the bills by using banners or interstitial notice placements? Using banners alone, Wikipedia was able to raise $20 million for itself. Imagine that same sort of effort put into raising awareness. Instead, the site is choosing to go dark for a single day.
Further to the point, let’s look at Reddit. The Conde Nast-owned site will be going dark on the 18th as well, again to raise awareness. Yet with a monthly traffic flow of over 2 BILLION page views, it’s shutting the door on the biggest mouthpiece that it has at its disposal.
So if Twitter is choosing to not abandon its 11 new accounts per second, that’s surely no sign of weakness. Quite to the contrary, in fact. By keeping an open flow of communications, Twitter is doing what every other site should consider. The Internet as a whole is a vocal communications medium, filled with loud people. Shutting them off isn’t the answer to solving any problem.
dickc is 100% right. Twitter is bigger than all this.
The hysteria and the disinformation surrounding this issue is out of control.
I encourage wikipedia to really show some stones and go dark forever. Cause that'd show 'em! Take your ball, go home, and hide the f*cker under the bed!
There are two sides to this issue. Not one. Two.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI disagree. I think going dark - FOLLOWED by notices about WHY they go dark will get a LOT of attention. Whereas, people will just ignore most of the ads! Or, may believe the ads are about something that won't impact them personally.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeMartin S. Shepherd The thing is, people havent ignored the banners on wikipedia asking for donations...
I just think theres more tactful ways of a unified protest than popular sites shutting themselves down for the day. I understand the power of that statement. I just don't think its the best approach, admittedly I'm not sure what would be better.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeThe point of these things is to get noticed, going dark does that.. simply, easily, at a cost to us (yes). We're a small business with big traffic (www.englishforums.com >5 million visits a month) that we're going to lose out on. It will hurt us, but 80% of 170,000 people will more than likely become aware of the issue. With our advertising we get a much lower level of interest.
It's going to make millions of people more aware of this problem instantly, I don't mind taking a punch for something like that. englishforums
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeIt's hard to say - of course financially it's foolish - but realistically, there are plenty of people who aren't paying close enough attention to even know what SOPA is - going to their favorite website and seeing all black might make them say "why the hell is the site down" - when banners and the like are likely to be ignored like any other advertisement.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeCostolo has clarified via Twitter that he's not passing judgment on the plans of Wikipedia and other sites, but simply refusing to follow suit with Twitter.
As ridiculous as it sounds to make a website dark in protest of a single issue, imagine how much more ridiculous it will be when the government cuts you off from Youtube because they're non-compliant, or when Facebook goes missing because of copyrighted materials. We're looking at China as a model, and that's life for friends of mine in China--constant attempts to work around government blocks on the most popular websites out there.
It's a single political issue, but it's one with far-reaching consequences for these sites and their users.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likemy birthday will be boring without reddit
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeThey're replacing what would be content pages with messages calling users to action against SOPA, right? Something that will be far more effective than banner notices. Although, if it's an American issue, I'm not sure why Wikipedia's protest it global across the English language site? Most likely a technical issue.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeDarren McCarra the reason wiki is concerned is the affect that this legislation will have as it ripples across the globe. It would not be too far fetched to see other countries adopt similar legislation to follow suite and squander the hopes and dreams of new innovative ideas because the media giants aren't making the same margins anymore.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeVery much agree w/ the author and dickc, and i've been scoffing at sites plans to go dark in 'protest'. It's not an effective means of protest for me at all, its an overly contrived web version of a peaceful protest, its the opposite of what would be effective, the situation calls for a very public presence against SOPA, to go offline is to go in the complete opposite direction. Put up some protestory banners like wikipedia had for their donations and educate the millions of visiting users. (very much IMO!)
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeDan Morgandickc If I see an ad on a web site I rarely if ever click on it. Wikipedia going dark is far more effective than a banner ad. I donate $500 USD to wikipedia each year, this year I am doubling my donation. They are standing up against the slow erosion of our constitutional rights. The first and fourth amendments are not something that can be put on hold.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeDavid C Fuchsdickc I hear you and I stay well clear of ad's myself.
FTA: "Wouldn’t it make more sense then to have a long-tail, public stance against the bills by using banners or interstitial notice placements? Using banners alone, Wikipedia was able to raise $20 million for itself. Imagine that same sort of effort put into raising awareness. Instead, the site is choosing to go dark for a single day."
In this case WikiPedia's banners weren't ignored like ad's. The personal message and face's of wikipedia employees really helped and resonated to the tune of 20M wouldn't it make more sense to have weeks of banner placement instead of a single day of protest. While the banners will be ignored more than a blackout — over time they will reach those who care, because at the end of the day, not everyone who uses the internet really cares about its future.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI agree and perhaps they should do something like what we are doing at http://scovry.com as we are displaying only SOPA and PIPA information on the All Topics page to help spread the word. So perhaps they should take this approach and use banner ads or promoted tweets to get the word out.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like