An analysis in today’s New York Times, “Bills to Stop Web Piracy Invite a Protracted Battle“, discusses SOPA as if “the Internet” is a traditional industry. Here’s the paragraph that made me grouchy:
“The antipiracy bills presented a difficult test to a young, disorganized and largely politically inactive technology industry. It is unclear that companies like Facebook and Google, left to themselves, could have swayed members of Congress or the White House without using the Internet to marshal opposition from technologists, entrepreneurs and computer-adept consumers.”
The problem with this line of discussion is that “technologists, entrepreneurs and computer-adept consumers” are genuinely interested parties in the SOPA debate, not inadvertent allies of the largest tech companies. To say the tech industry couldn’t effectively lobby without such participants is as obvious as saying the Times would be unable to publish a daily newspaper without writers, advertisers, and production staff.
Later in the article, we see this:
“The rallying of the Internet and heavyweights in the technology world was significant because it is one of the few times that the industry has united around a focal point…”
So, it seems like the technology world isn’t so “disorganized” and “largely politically inactive” after all. While it’s not like the energy or pharmaceutical industries, whose interests and lobbying goals are largely uniform, easy to express, and conveniently represented by a few leaders, “the Internet” is clearly a complex organism capable of quickly organizing and defending itself when threatened. Shouldn’t mainstream analysis reflect this instead of trying to force the discussion into an outmoded structure?
End grouchy rant.
