Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter considering “nuclear option” to protest SOPA

• Adelynn wrote on 2012-01-04 20:49

  The battle against SOPA reached fever pitch just before Christmas when a Reddit-led boycott of Go Daddy over the domain registrar’s support for the controversial legislation led to some 37,000 domains leaving the company for greener, freedom-loving pastures. Go Daddy, meanwhile, is now buried in complaints that it’s improperly blocking domain transfer requests to rival Namecheap.
  
  With debate over SOPA’s future tabled until Congress reconvenes, you might think the issue would have entered a similar lull, but that’s not happened. According to Markham Erickson, head of the NetCoalition trade association, there’s been talk of a so-called “nuclear option,” in which the likes of Google, Amazon, eBay, and Yahoo! would go simultaneously dark to protest the legislation to highlight the fundamental danger the legislation poses to the function of the internet.
  
  There’s been no formal decision on the matter, and the companies in question obviously risk consumer anger and backlash over any suspension of services. There is, however, safety in numbers — and a few simple sentences identifying why the blackout is in place will ensure that the majority of the rage flows in the proper direction.
  
  

  [Image: http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SOPA-1-640x582.png]

  
  
  It’s a trump card that the likes of the MPAA and RIAA have no way of matching. There’s solid technical data behind the tech industry’s claims that implementing SOPA could damage the function of the internet, and plenty of evidence (some of it just weeks old) that copyright holders will abuse existing judicial processes to eliminate content they don’t like. The MPAA and RIAA are willing to talk about jobs lost to piracy in the abstract, but won’t (and can’t) promise that passing SOPA will allow them to hire thousands of Americans or create jobs in a statement they’d be held accountable for fulfilling.
  
  There’s no information yet on when the blackout would occur, but the most likely date right now would be January 23. The Senate is scheduled to debate SOPA on January 24. Speaking in December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid highlighted the importance of passing the legislation. “This is a bipartisan piece of legislation which is extremely important,” Reid said Saturday. “I repeat, it is bipartisan. I hope we can have a productive couple of days, pass this bill, and move on to other matters.”
  
  Bring on the nukes.
  
  

  
  
  Source
  
  Google nuke alone scares me.
• Compass wrote on 2012-01-04 20:56
  I don't think this bill is going to pass but nice to know there's a protest.
  
  Also isn't OpenDNS one of those parental control programs?
  Funny, I thought they'd be up for this bill.
• paladin wrote on 2012-01-04 21:00
  That blackout would shut down what?
  Almost all the major email sites
  Arguable some of the word largest sites of E trade
  Wikipedia data networks
  A major social network media hub
  Lmao if they do this and the senators get blamed for this
  well its gonna be funny watching them get devoted next election
  Paypal-the bank of the interwebs basiclly
  If this really does happen maybe the gov will reconsider sopa when internet commernce and communation freezes up due to sopa
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-04 21:13

  The MPAA and RIAA are willing to talk about jobs lost to piracy in the abstract, but won’t (and can’t) promise that passing SOPA will allow them to hire thousands of Americans or create jobs in a statement they’d be held accountable for fulfilling.

  
  SOPA is more about protecting jobs than creating new ones, at least in the short-medium term.
  
  By blackout, they mean the services will shut down completely? That would surely be interesting, haha. I wouldn't like getting locked out of my Gmail, however.. and I can imagine a lot of people who don't even know or care about SOPA would rage hardcore if their Facebook-ing was interrupted. lolol
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-04 21:17

  Quote from Yoorah;722259:

  SOPA is more about protecting jobs than creating new ones, at least in the short-medium term.
  
  By blackout, they mean the services will shut down completely? That would surely be interesting, haha. I wouldn't like getting locked out of my Gmail, however.. and I can imagine a lot of people who don't even know or care about SOPA would rage hardcore if their Facebook-ing was interrupted. lolol

  
  
  Not to mention the only jobs it really protects are middle-class and above as it is. Basically, keeping the rich, rich.
  
  I wouldn't really mind blackouts if it helps the anti-SOPA cause that drastically. I'd much rather have that then 99% of the good sites blocked in the near future.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-04 21:20
  The middle class jobs are the ones you NEED to protect. They're the ones being eroded from the US right now, and the cause of the economic crisis in the US.
  Getting a low-wage job in the US is really not hard, and never will be.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-04 21:23

  Quote from Yoorah;722269:

  The middle class jobs are the ones you NEED to protect. They're the ones being eroded from the US right now, and the cause of the economic crisis in the US.
  Getting a low-wage job in the US is really not hard, and never will be.

  
  
  :spit:
  
  You've never lived in or been a lower-class citizen, have you? They're the ones suffering, not the middle-class. As long as the middle-class can afford their fancy house, food and gas they're fine. (which I can assure you, they can fully afford)
  
  Middle-class citizens are what they are for a reason; they have money. They don't have to live day by day, wondering if they'll be able to afford gas, put food on the table or even lose their house.
• Claudia wrote on 2012-01-04 21:30
  There are different tiers to middle class. My family is middle class, and we are living paycheck to paycheck and we have been for years.
  I literally learned in school that we can break down the middle class into 'lower-middle' 'middle' and 'upper middle'.
  
  As far as middle-class jobs, I agree. Honestly, we need to protect all of our jobs. Less jobs in engineering, more jobs in manufacturing, etc. Or rather, less "highly skilled" jobs and more "skilled" to "unskilled" jobs.
  I don't agree with SOPA, though.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-04 21:44

  Quote from Claudia;722284:

  There are different tiers to middle class. My family is middle class, and we are living paycheck to paycheck and we have been for years.
  I literally learned in school that we can break down the middle class into 'lower-middle' 'middle' and 'upper middle'.
  
  As far as middle-class jobs, I agree. Honestly, we need to protect all of our jobs. Less jobs in engineering, more jobs in manufacturing, etc. Or rather, less "highly skilled" jobs and more "skilled" to "unskilled" jobs.
  I don't agree with SOPA, though.

  
  
  You're lower-class, then. While class is typically defined by yearly in-come, if you happen to live a life where you struggle daily to make ends meet (be it paying bills, gas or food), then yeah, I'd say that's lower-class.
  
  Plus,
  
  

  - Achievement of tertiary education.
  - Holding professional qualifications, including academics, lawyers, chartered engineers, politicians and doctors regardless of their leisure or wealth.
  - Belief in bourgeois values, such as high rates of house ownership and jobs which are perceived to be "secure".
  - Lifestyle. In the United Kingdom, social status has historically been linked less directly to wealth than in the United States,[3] and has also been judged by pointers such as accent, manners, place of education, occupation and the class of a person's family, circle of friends and acquaintances.[4][5]
  - Cultural identification. Often in the United States, the middle class are the most eager participants in pop culture whereas the reverse is true in Britain

  
  
  Definition of middle-class from wiki.
  
  -- But then again, I don't really use the whole "upper" and "lower" terms. But probably because no sub-categories exist in the state (and most surrounding states) of where I live. Here; you're either dirt broke and can barely survive, or you're rich.
• Claudia wrote on 2012-01-04 21:49
  Indeed, the lines are more muddled here. Sadly, there are no "lower-class" people here (literally, 93% white, <1% below the poverty line), but there are certain streets where kids live in McMansions and have err'thang they ever wanted and then some (I find it really disgusting). But there are also streets like mine where you'd find what is, to me, the "average" middle-class family, you know, where people have their own houses and they have food and clothes and some nice things but only "necessities". But I guess we're not really that middle-class, all we want to do is get by. My mom went to college, though.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-01-04 21:49
  Google alone going down would be enough to shock the entire world into realizing how important this issue is.
• paladin wrote on 2012-01-04 21:56

  Quote from Yoorah;722269:

  The middle class jobs are the ones you NEED to protect. They're the ones being eroded from the US right now, and the cause of the economic crisis in the US.
  Getting a low-wage job in the US is really not hard, and never will be.

  
  
  Then why is our unemployment so high
  and millions collecting unemployment when they want to work
• Jana wrote on 2012-01-04 21:58
  Because everyone has it in their minds that they must go to college and get a high-paying job right out of school. There simply aren't enough of those jobs going around.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-01-04 22:13

  Quote from paladin;722337:

  Then why is our unemployment so high
  and millions collecting unemployment when they want to work

  
  
  Checking the figures will show its actually not nearly as bad as it was a few years ago.
  
  In fact, its quite decent.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-04 22:23

  Quote from Cynic;722272:

  :spit:
  
  You've never lived in or been a lower-class citizen, have you? They're the ones suffering, not the middle-class. As long as the middle-class can afford their fancy house, food and gas they're fine. (which I can assure you, they can fully afford)
  
  Middle-class citizens are what they are for a reason; they have money. They don't have to live day by day, wondering if they'll be able to afford gas, put food on the table or even lose their house.

  
  No, you have it all wrong. The problem is that when the middle class lose their jobs, they get kicked down to lower class. They lose their house and all that other stuff.
  
  If you look at employment figures, you will see that lower class, low wage jobs were not affected by the recession. In fact, there was growth.
  Meanwhile, middle class were on the decline. That's where the real problem lies.
  

  Quote from paladin;722337:

  Then why is our unemployment so high
  and millions collecting unemployment when they want to work

  
  Because they can't find jobs in the same field or with the same pay as they had before. The vast majority of them could get minimum wage jobs if they wanted to. But they won't be able to make ends meet like they used to if they do. They'll have to sell their house (lose a ton of money on it, given the housing bubble burst), their car, they won't be able to send their kids to a top class school anymore, etc.