Let's not forget companies such as Google which actually lobbied for CISPA. They had the huge blackout for SOPA since it threatens their business plan, but they are in the business of collecting data so supported CISPA.
I was really surprised by the lack of cynicism surrounding the SOPA blackout. Yes it was in the public good, but it was merely a coincidence that what was good for Google happened to align with what was good for everyone else.
Current US politics is like watching a television program were you root for one team or another, you may feel excited when 'your team' wins but your participation will always limited to that of spectating. The analogy breaks down because in our case we also live in the television.
"I was really surprised by the lack of cynicism surrounding the SOPA blackout."
I wasn't.
For SOPA and PIPA, everyone found a very convenient, visible, and self-affirming scapegoat in "Hollywood." This was a vast oversimplification of the issue; it caused everyone to lock in on a very prominent tree, while ignoring the forest. Entertainment firms were a big part of the SOPA/PIPA lobby, but they weren't the only backers behind the effort, and they weren't even the biggest. But everyone needed the story to have a villain, and at least in the case of the MPAA, the shoe fit.
Of course, the creation of a villain also left an opening for a hero. Companies like Google quickly realized as much and seized the opportunity. Nevermind that some of these same heroes were busy lobbying for CISPA, and/or other yet-to-be-revealed agendas.
The lesson we should be learning from these fiascos is that corporations push agendas through Washington. Nobody's "evil," and nobody's "good." The world isn't that black and white. Instead, we have interested parties relentlessly pursuing their interests. At times, those interests happen to fall in line with our own. At other times, they fall in diametric opposition.
I submit that the real bogeyman is the influence of lobbying on our lawmaking process, and not X issue, or Y issue, or even Z company. Forest. Trees.
>>your participation will always limited to that of spectating.
Only because you choose to. You can join groups that align with your beliefs to help influence the legislation process. Don't complain that you are just an spectator when you don't even want to play the game.
Honestly, when are you going to quit believing companies like Google are out there to protect your interests? You're completely right, they were against SOPA because it would have been a huge threat to their business, while CISPA could protect their interests so they were all for it.
Why is any of that surprising? They're a company, not a charity. The entity that's supposed to protect its people is the government. If they aren't doing their job then complain about them. Google is doing exactly what is expected of a company: Making money, growing, and moving their own business forward.
I read the article, what does it mean when they say: "A Google spokeswoman said that although the company is lobbying on the bill, it has not taken a public position."
Just lawyer speak?
Also many of those firmly in support of the CISPA bill seems to be the same old usual suspects: Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Symantec, AT&T and Verizon.
The article makes it clear that Google doesn't have a position, but they were involved in the discussion. SOPA had no Internet companies in on the discussion so this seems like a major improvement to me.
So much for their "Do No Evil" bull.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/223069-g...