Hollywood has political power far beyond its financial power because of its ability to influence voters. The internet industry has that power too, but it's afraid to use it.
If Google and Facebook were to demonstrate that power once, on an issue that most of their users will agree with, the industry would get a lot more respect in D.C.
It might be a question of how much money they would lose by not doing it. SOPA enforcement would be insanely expensive for a site with as much user generated/linked content as Facebook.
It's not easy to simply predict how much they would lose if SOPA passed, or even how effective a blackout would be. Personally, I don't think a blackout would have much effect at all. So what if millions of people flood the phone lines of their representatives? Do you think politicians support SOPA because they incorrectly think their constituents like it? That's ludicrous. As for the threat of the next election cycle, most American voters will have forgotten about it by then, and I doubt many representatives have much fear of losing the next election anyway.
The thing to keep in mind is that SOPA, if I understand correctly, only applies to foreign entities. As it stands, FB won't be impacted substantially by the legislation.
That said, it'd be in their best interest to stop this now, because even if this doesn't impact them, slowly but surely the laws will be amended to apply to everyone.
Facebook, Google, at al have to be ready to pull ads for, links to, and results containing blocked sites as well. They have to continue to monitor that over time as well.
I would imagine a two-phase approach: phase one would be the black-bar-type-doodle logo, phase two would be shutting things down. Whether phase two would happen would depend on how likely the bill is to pass, how well phase one went, and how much it would cost to police if it passed.
Observe that the definition of "foreign Internet site" does not state that the site is located outside the USA, owned by a non US Citizen, or any other commonly understood meaning of the word "foreign". All "domestic" sites also meet the definition of a "foreign Internet site" "for the purpose of this section":
(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.
Seeing that kind of doublespeak codified into law is downright frightening. I watched that SOPA markup hearing a while back and all the reps were talking about foreign this and foreign that and how these targets of prosecution were in other countries so most wouldn't even show up in court... yet the definition of foreign is a US-directed site?
That is EXACTLY why Google and the other big guys are attempting to prevent SOPA from passing. Many people, even on HN, believe that these large entities are on our side, or on the side of freedom, or whatever. The truth is that they don't care about us. They care only about their wallets. All of the time, money and energy they are expending, now, to fight SOPA, is a tiny fraction of what they will be required to spend, in terms of enforcement, should SOPA become law.
If Facebook did that, many people would see that they could survive one day without Facebook. That would not be good for Facebook, because those same people might contemplate going without for a second day, voluntarily.
So many people around these parts bemoan the amount of influence corporations have in the legislative process. That being the case, how does one justify corporate muscle-flexing like this?
I really, really hate this attitude of searching high and low for anything remotely resembling hypocrisy so we can condemn any and all action. It's not only counterproductive but intellectually slothful.
It's lazy because the answer is so painfully obvious: we don't want corporates to have such strength. But they do. In fact, this is pretty much the only real way to have any lasting effect right now. So should we keep on a downward spiral out of some misplaced principle and poor understanding of what hypocrisy actually is or should we use the only tool potentially available to use to affect change?
Sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire, sometimes the best way to weaken lobbying is through lobbying.
Yes, it's acceptable because entrenched conservative interests are against fresh young interests + people with a lot to lose.
If such conservative influence against congress was regulated, then the reputation cost of such blackouts would rise a lot due to the perception that such interests are trying to influence congress. ergo, uneconomical to blackout.
How is it different from Walmart opening a store in a small town, putting local shops out of business by undercutting them, then deciding they don't make enough money and closing?.
If Google and Facebook were to demonstrate that power once, on an issue that most of their users will agree with, the industry would get a lot more respect in D.C.