this post was submitted on
1,891 points (55% like it)
9,922 up votes 8,031 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]ajpos 1613 points1614 points ago

Reddit, I am disappoint. 3 Hours into the thread and nobody has mentioned Test PAC.

1.) Yes, we can air ads encouraging internet freedom.

2.) Yes, we already have a group dedicated to doing just that. (Subreddit here.)

3.) Yes, we already have enough money to do it.

4.) Yes, we have people who are experienced with commercials, ideas, and selling things to large audiences.

Join us and donate $5 so you can be a part of the solution.

[–][deleted] 491 points492 points ago

Ironically, Test PAC's donation site (Piryx) uses GoDaddy as a CA and a domain registrar.

[–]ajpos 716 points717 points ago

This is news to me. I will fix it as soon as we have our own payment processing service up. I feel embarrassed that this is the case, and Reddit has my apologies.

[–]StrongArms 372 points373 points ago

The fact that you made a Reddit PAC has made your apology accepted.

[–]nbs11 39 points40 points ago*

I am not sure why this had to be a PAC. Election law holds that unless you specifically endorse or oppose a candidate you can operate as a non-profit political corporation. So as long as the sole purpose is internet advocacy, you could run under a similar non-profit structure as say, the Sunlight Foundation.

[EDIT] Apparently a 501(c)(3) only is applicable if you do not attempt to advocate for legislation.

[–]lolgcat 5 points6 points ago

Wait... The EFF and Wikimedia Foundation both advocated against SOPA, and they're 501(c) (3)...

[–]nbs11 12 points13 points ago

Because according to the IRS they can still advocated for or against legislation so long as it is not their primary purpose (as determined by the FEC I suppose)

[–]Pisodeuorrior 19 points20 points ago

Sorry guys, what the hell is a PAC?:(

[–]Mr_A 38 points39 points ago

Political Action Committee. Basically like a user generated bank account for political candidates and issues. Everyone sends in money and the PAC can fund ads and other political campaigns.

[–]stinkyhat 6 points7 points ago

I work for a PAC and this is easily the best, simplest and clearest explanation of what it is that I've ever heard. Nicely done.

[–]Kill_Welly 11 points12 points ago

Yep, that's a PAC, man.

[–]papajohn56 34 points35 points ago

Please don't let this PAC ever advocate for specific candidates. If anything have it fight against ones that are like Lamar Smith on the copyright issue, but supporting specific ones will alienate many people.

On top of that, my business is involved in media buying, payment processing, and I own a call center. We should probably talk.

[–]Funkyapplesauce 4 points5 points ago

We need a ridiculous candidate to permanently campaign for, and pass out endorsements to politicians who aren't corrupt assholes. I found out that my senator, Bob Casey, got $92,000 from Comcast last year and is now a cosponsor of PIPA. If that isn't graft...

[–]7oby 43 points44 points ago*

Please consider Dwolla. It's a very-anti-paypal system, you only connect it to checking (there was a good article on businessinsider about it) and the fee is 25 cents for transactions over $10. No percentage, just 25 cents. Free under $10.

[–]Underyx 11 points12 points ago

Sadly, it's a USA-only site, so you'll need an alternative payment method for international supporters.

[–]7oby 9 points10 points ago

I'm not even sure if that's legal. Consider reddit hero Sean Tevis:

Tevis lost his 2008 race for the Kansas House of Representatives in the 15th district against Arlen H. Siegfreid by 425 votes out of 10,103 cast with all 22 precincts reporting. He generated media attention to the campaign with an online ad that pays homage to the web-comic xkcd. He raised $109,581.45 between July 16, 2008 and October 23, 2008, mostly from more than 5,700 online donors. Possibly in reaction to this fund-raising tactic, Kansas State Representative Scott Schwab introduced a bill that was nicknamed the "Sean Tevis bill" which would have require candidates to report the names and addresses of contributors who give less than $50 to a political campaign.

[–]40sec 9 points10 points ago

I can't wait until we just start chopping off heads and forget all this bull-f*cking paperwork...

[–]Maramros 7 points8 points ago

less than

What the fuck? That seems more than a bit backwards to me...

[–][deleted] 113 points114 points ago

bro,

I forgive you.

[–]uepvup 43 points44 points ago

I love you man

[–]rozencrantz99 54 points55 points ago

QUESTION

Are we going to crowd source a bill like they did in Iceland for their constitution?

Can we use Test PAC to set up a wiki and make the best bill ever over the course of say three or four months and then get a decent politician to take it to capitol hill on our behalf? On behalf of the people, so to speak?

I will seriously contribute to Test PAC if we do that as well as the educational ads etc. I'll get around soon to contributing anyway, but a wiki for drafting a bill would get me really fired up.

[–]danhakimi 13 points14 points ago

People still disagree greatly about fundamental issues regarding copyright and patent. While most people on Reddit seem to want SOPA dead, some just wanted sopa dead because it was poorly written legislation that would wreck the internet in a technical way, but do want to see stronger IP-related restriction. Others think that IP is fundamentally flawed, and we need to recreate the system -- a much more complicated goal, that has tons and tons of its own subproblems.

I don't believe that a wiki is the most effective way to resolve these differences. I'm not sure what is.

[–]kikaerter 7 points8 points ago

IP is fundamentally flawed, and we need to recreate the system

That's what IPv6 is for :-)

[–]lulzplzkthx 5 points6 points ago

You mean like OPEN?

[–]CuriousMidget 37 points38 points ago

But aren't cable companies selective of the ads they air?

i.e. even if we have the money, won't they simply refuse to air it??

[–]theclinger 34 points35 points ago

That would be one obstacle to overcome.

[–]CuriousMidget 20 points21 points ago

I suppose internet advertisement might work, though we really need to reach out more to people who aren't on the internet.

[–]e4tmyl33t 6 points7 points ago

I agree. Internet advertisement is good and all, but only if you can get it out to large masses of people at once on multiple sites. Reaching people outside the Internet with a carefully placed TV ad might hit a lot more people a lot more effectively. Then again, it could cost a metric butt-load more cash to do so.

[–]MotharChoddar 3 points4 points ago

Yeah. It doesn't help trying to educate people that already know about it. The message has to get to the big masses.

[–]st3x 27 points28 points ago

speaking from someone who works in radio... if you give us the money for the air time we will play just about anything you want... the limitations are obviously racial hate ect we will choose not to air. something like an anti-sopa add would be just like a PSA to us and we would deffs run it.

[–]CuriousMidget 8 points9 points ago

Huh. I guess the whole Media-Political syndicate isn't as closely tied as I thought.

[–]youresayingitwrong 11 points12 points ago

Shout loud enough and they have to listen

[–]CuriousMidget 5 points6 points ago

Maybe so, but our voices (ads) aren't going to be heard (broadcasted)

[–]randomtime 12 points13 points ago

At least the Wikipedia blackout made people aware of the cause.

[–]symbiotiq[!] 8 points9 points ago

Agreed. I would say that more people would listen to Wikipedia and other sites than CNN and other old media monoliths. Maybe not more important people, but a larger total of people.

[–]e4tmyl33t 8 points9 points ago

Yes, but keep in mind how many people saw the Wikipedia blackout and thought it was some government intercession already happening. There is a large percentage of people who barely know how computers and the internet function, yet watch TV damn near every day. I know, my family is among them (for the most part.)

[–]MotharChoddar 2 points3 points ago

I agree. TV ads are a good idea. The message should come to the bigger masses of people.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

Is there any way that foreign nationals can get involved? Apparently our donations are illegal.

[–]firefeng 3 points4 points ago

For the sake of legitimacy, absolutely not. Not only would foreign donations be illegal, it would incite a media campaign against the PAC that would completely slur anything the PAC puts out.

Sorry about that. You'll have to bear with retarded U.S. foreign policy for a bit longer while us U.S. citizens try and pry our heads from our asses.

[–]oblonsky 11 points12 points ago

what actions do you believe the federal government could take, if any, to curtail piracy without infringing on your internet freedom?

[–]ajpos 10 points11 points ago*

I'm not sure, but I think that should be a question that Americans are discussing in their living rooms, rather than blindly trusting Congress/the MSM/the MPAA to answer for them. Test PAC doesn't just serve the country by giving answers, it provides citizens with the tools to think of answers themselves.

[–]oblonsky 21 points22 points ago

it's not an easy question at all. i obviously agree that SOPA/PIPA were deeply flawed bills, but i get the sense that a lot of people, and a lot of people here on reddit, will oppose any and every measure that attempts to crack down on online piracy. i think most people do have the sense that piracy is not right but the tricky part is finding a solution that is fair and does not curtail our freedoms or compromise the independence of the internet. it's not easy but the discussion should move from "stop all internet bills" to "what would be a good solution?"

[–]Heiwanshang 17 points18 points ago

According to some, a good product distribution system is the answer, rather than more regulations.

[–]oblonsky 6 points7 points ago

similar to netflix? more availability? subscription based or by item? i'm just wondering, aside from lower prices, which everyone would want, what else is there to do?

[–]CathodeAnode 46 points47 points ago

Piracy is a sign of market failure. The market can fix this not the government. Currently the media distributors are using the government to try and enforce a dying business model. At the same time they make new legal business models like streaming impossible by charging untenable prices.

Piracy is partly a markets reaction to users believing that they are not being served. Give them what they want and a lot of pirates will pay. Netflix has shown this.

Some piracy will never be eliminated, certain folks will NEVER pay for media. Stomping on everyone's rights and freedoms to try and eliminate these last few die-hard pirates is both a fools errand and dangerous for the rest of us. Keep in mind, these people NEVER payed for media, they have always used 'Pirate' resources like libraries, borrowing books/CDs/DVDs from friends, etc.

The government does not have a solution for this, and should not be trying to craft one.

[–]Heiwanshang 12 points13 points ago

Don't know why you got a downvote, Valve has been saying the same thing, and has numbers to back it with.

[–]Heiwanshang 9 points10 points ago

All of the above. Like with Netflix the complaint is that there isn't much selection, or you have to wait months to see new content. People want to have fast access to that content with a Netflix like cost, but studios don't want to do that. People prefer iTunes to buying CDs, but labels hate that. If people could get what they want when they want, they would buy it legitimately rather than pirating it. That's why Valve doesn't have to deal with DRM solutions, because Steam has proven to be so popular and effective.

[–]mrbucket777 2 points3 points ago

And do you know why Netflix has a limited selection and gets their movies well after they have been released? Its the movie industry that won't give them deals to get them on release and some content they just flat out refuse to license to Netflix or other streaming services.

[–]necrow 2 points3 points ago

I'm not sure how true that is. I know plenty of people that simply don't want to pay. The majority? Definitely not. I think you may be giving a little bit too much credit to those pirating, because I think it will still be a significant problem even with good distribution. That's not to say it's not the necessary first step, because it's definitely the right start. It won't fix the whole system, though.

[–]epsilonminus 27 points28 points ago

Quick question then: why haven't you done it already? You waiting for a front page request to do so?

[–]ajpos 106 points107 points ago*

Test PAC is controlled democratically. Users have to hold an official vote on an expenditure, then the chairman needs to approve it, and then I (the treasurer) signs off on it.

Currently, we are debating on how votes should work - we don't have a voting program up yet (there has never been an internet-based PAC before).

The pdf linked to here is probably the best place to learn about how the PAC will (potentially) work.

EDIT: We are so bureaucratic on purpose because we want to make sure that all of the decisions we make are the right ones.

[–]ralphthemagician 9 points10 points ago

Is there a real budget here to do a :30 or is this just going to be some 1-run spot on late night TV? Whose doing the media buying?

[–]ajpos 19 points20 points ago

It depends. As we are now, no - we don't have enough money for a recurring spot. We have about $1600 in liquid cash, with about double that in pledges and recurring donations for February. But we haven't even held our first fund-raiser yet.

The other question you're asking hasn't been answered yet, we're still working on organization.

[–]ralphthemagician 20 points21 points ago

This sounds interesting. I like the idea. I'll be brutally honest with you though: $1,600 buys you nothing. You will need at least a $100k of media alone to even be seen by enough people to be taken seriously.

TV is really, really expensive. It's also the only way to reach the people who need to be reached.

[–]ajpos 21 points22 points ago

We can do it pretty cheaply thanks to Google TV Ads. It's about $1000 per 1 million viewers.

[–]ralphthemagician 46 points47 points ago

For something like this you'd be flushing money down the toilet. Google TV ads is cool if you are opening a local restaurant or want to sell a widget on late night TV. You won't be able to get a good time slot, and you will not be able to "reach" 1MM people for $1,000.

I'm not trying to be discouraging, but there are better ways of spending small budgets. Local radio is a much cheaper and more effective way of reaching the non-internet savvy if you can't afford TV. You might be able to get some decent attention with small buys on a number of local radio stations.

[–]st3x 4 points5 points ago

+1 for radio, get the local radio talent and educate them on the issues this is the best way for "free" advertisement.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]trustmeimalobbyist 31 points32 points ago

I've run lots of PACS before and this is the absolute worst way to run a PAC! Don't do it by votes, vote on priority issues and then let the PAC people decide how to advance those priority issues.

[–]ajpos 50 points51 points ago

Then it wouldn't be Reddit's PAC, it would be my PAC.

[–]the-breeze 22 points23 points ago

I suppose, but if you have to hold a vote to spend $6 it's going to be tough to find time to accomplish anything.

[–]shunny14 8 points9 points ago

Not in a good, democratic voting system. It's the Internet. We can do magical things.

[–]Dark_Souls 7 points8 points ago

Don't be fooled. Reddit is FULL of people who don't care/don't understand anything about what you're doing.

I say this simply because it's anonymous and free for everyone with internet.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Dammit you're both got a point. It may be that it should be your pac, BUT run under very clear principles so people know where you stand AND so you yourself don't get distracted (we're all corruptable). This is pretty much how avaaz is ran. Letting everyone vote might be chaos.

On the other hand... it is a very interesting experiment and afaik nothing similar has been done before. Duncan Bannatyne wrote something about success in business along the lines of: study what everyone else does, then do the opposite.

[–]trustmeimalobbyist 4 points5 points ago

No you let the donors vote on the issues, not every donation

[–]DylanX928 4 points5 points ago

I don't want to join this group, I'd just like to donate $5.00 to try and help my internets stay untouched.

[–]gamerlen 11 points12 points ago

Gotta wait for my paycheck but sure I'll toss you a fiver for it.

[–]waxoff 1 point2 points ago

Hmm. It'd be good to be able to donate to a specific issue rather than an entire platform. As the Test PAC states, we're fairly diverse. I'd want to know my dollars are going to only the issues I specifically support. (E.g. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but I don't agree with enough of what he says to vote for him.)

[–]ajpos 7 points8 points ago

Well, this is possible with Piryx. Since we're not going to use Piryx, we'll have to make it part of our in-house payment processing service.

The reason there are no options yet is that we don't know what our expenditures will be yet. When we think of some, you will be able to choose.

[–]kojopolis 9 points10 points ago

Can you make Paypal donations possible?

[–]ajpos 23 points24 points ago

We're working on this. Due to Federal reporting guidelines, we have to report the name, occupation, and employer of anyone who donates over $200. Paypal makes doing that really, really hard.

I can also tell you that Paypal won't be an option for at least a week.

[–]nbs11 23 points24 points ago

Here are a couple suggestions from something who has worked on political campaigns. Paypal can in fact collect political contributions it just must be set up correctly. I would recommend (if the funds allow it and if they allow such a loosely democratic organization to use it) NGPVAN (ngpvan.com) if you plan to really have a national fundraising and advocacy plan. If you plan on using paypal, here is he page you are looking for (https://merchant.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=merchant/political_fundraising). Hope I could help.

[–]ajpos 9 points10 points ago

Wow, thanks! I know of ngpvan and a lot of other online tools used by campaigns, including several specifically for PACs. For now, we're just going to use FECfile and do everything the hard way. (Maybe we'll upgrade when we can afford it).

Again, thanks for the Paypal link. I didn't know that existed.

[–]nbs11 10 points11 points ago

Additionally you could pull off a Stephen Colbert and create a completely legal shell 501(c)(3) corporation to collect donation and then donate to your PAC (thus avoiding all regulatory issues involved in collection of donations), but that is unbelievably sketchy even though it is technically legal.

[–]On_Tap 17 points18 points ago

Kind of funny/sad to rely upon the same payment system which froze Wikileaks' donations. Aren't there other alternatives?

[–]DRUTLOL 18 points19 points ago

Authorize.net

I use it for my business (the online payment portion) and it is fantastic.

[–]savanik 5 points6 points ago

As a CISSP, I can recommend Authorize.net. Properly configured, you can largely eliminate many PCI-DSS compliance issues.

[–]TehGeoffe 7 points8 points ago

What about simply explaining near the link to PayPal that donations of over 200 dollars will be returned? You could include instructions regarding how to donate large sums in a way that allows for the attachment of the information you require.

[–]ajpos 7 points8 points ago

Will do this tomorrow. Thanks.

[–]Ponderay 1041 points1042 points ago

If you make anti SOPA mean pro piracy you're going to lose.

[–]boomfarmer 736 points737 points ago

And if you make anti-SOPA mean anti-censorship, you have a chance at winning.

[–]Switche 269 points270 points ago

I still don't really understand why censorship was the flag everyone was waving. Those bills would have ruined Internet businesses and bogged down all the user-driven innovations that have governed the Internet for the past decade.

That speaks to more people in all walks of life, across the political spectrum, even the apolitical. It just takes a little more cleverness to make concise.

However, now that SOPA/PIPA are no longer part of the context, and the spin has become anti-piracy, you won't really win many minds by crying censorship; censorship requires specifics to convince people it's a valid angle, and you'll just sound pro-piracy. I think you'd get further just going all out and saying you're against Internet regulation.

Anti-regulation is not typically a popular idea for the left, but it aligns with the interests of most people in this case, because we know the status quo is what we want.

If it isn't anti-regulation, it should just be pro-innovation, and make the case that piracy is a non-issue, especially to the innovative and/or quality content providers willing to price their products reasonably. It's a strong argument that is growing in popularity.

[–]ScubaPlays 68 points69 points ago

it should just be pro-innovation

YES! What is bad about these bills isn't necessarily the fact that they stop piracy, it is the fact that they give too much control and create collateral damage. Innovative business, not new laws, will solve the entertainment industries' issues. The real issue I see is how can that be explained to them.

[–]YaoSlap 6 points7 points ago

If we want to fuel innovation we should also try and untangle the mess that our patent system has turned into. At this point it is just one nice way to sue people.

[–][deleted] 105 points106 points ago

A SOPA/PIPA future tale:

MPAA dislikes upstart independent film company offering their movies free online

Step 1: MPAA hires an outsider to post a direct link to an infringing file on that companies' forums.

Step 2: DNS censorship occurs. Indi company is too poor to fight it.

Step 3: MPAA Profit.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points ago

What a horror story.

[–]for_the_record 13 points14 points ago

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not anti-industry, it's just many people are not comfortable with entrenched industries over reaching their authorities for overly selfish gains. These old companies either adapt, die by the wayside or fight to the death (they're doing the third) to better distribution methods. Few are ok with outright copying (there's always a few assholes who will pirate regardless of solutions presented), but we're tired of seeing potentially good distribution platforms being strong armed by guys with way more money than the underdogs. Build it well, and they will come.

[–]NuclearPotatoes 18 points19 points ago

Listen to this guy.

[–]shady8x 2 points3 points ago

I am not just going to listen to him, I am going to copy his comment and repost it everywhere!

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points ago

Unfortunately the debate still resides in "pro/anti piracy" instead of what it actually is. Piracy shouldnt even be mentioned if such a commercial were created; it really doesnt even factor in to why so many people/groups were against SOPA

[–][deleted] ago*

[deleted]

[–]derfsurfer 11 points12 points ago

Why didn't you just call Microsoft and go through the long and drawn out process of entering numbers to re-activate after changing some hardware? ... oh.

[–]vuls 9 points10 points ago

[–]chilltem 45 points46 points ago

All because of online piracy... that's it, that's the last time I download The Muppets. I'd rather pay an extra 20 bucks then have these mother fuckers roaming around censoring the internet. These guys are not really about stoping online piracy as much as they are about having more control.

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points ago

It's not about the piracy...

[–]my_drug_account 55 points56 points ago

Sorta like the war in the middle east wasn't about nukes?

[–]Peacer13 49 points50 points ago

Somewhat like how the "War on Drugs" isn't about drugs?

[–]Hipst3rHunt3r 58 points59 points ago

In the same way the "War on Titan" is an irrelevant Cowboy Bebop reference?

[–]MagicGunner 30 points31 points ago

You best check yourself before you wreck yourself, Cowboy Bebop is always relevant.

[–]JerkingOffToKarma 24 points25 points ago

Somewhat like how the Patriot Act isn't about fighting terrorism?

[–]royisabau5 19 points20 points ago

Sort of like how the pipe isn't actually a pipe?

[–]waltonky 17 points18 points ago

Ceci n'est pas une comment.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

Comment?

[–]secretDissident 2 points3 points ago

It's not a bunch of trucks... it's a series of tubes.

[–]my_drug_account 8 points9 points ago

I'm starting to see a pattern...

[–]WilsonsWarbler 18 points19 points ago

I got Netflix today since megaupload is gone. It's not terrible. It's faster than Icefilms, but there's just not that much to choose from. And no Game of Thrones... winter's coming indeed.

[–]jgmill87 23 points24 points ago

Oh well I totally shouldn't link you to this site here since that would be illegal considering it contains thousands of movies and tv shows to watch including game of thrones.

[–]kevinkm77 12 points13 points ago

Copyright infringement! Goodbye, reddit! Mwuhuhahahahaha!

[–]WilsonsWarbler 4 points5 points ago*

Very cool. Thanks for the hook-up.

Edit: This site is asking for an email to log in. Is it safe?

[–]sehns 9 points10 points ago

If they cared about 'creating jobs' they wouldn't film up here in Canada so much (it costs them less and they get incentives) - they basically want to control the internet like they do the media, and pull the rug out from underneath all of us. They are pure evil corporations, in the strongest sense of the cliche; and if I had to pick a bad guy for this storyline, its this guy:

http://vimeo.com/22286106

[–]KioshiRawk 2 points3 points ago

When you do that, you're giving them the control that they want. They want to eliminate file sharing so paying them become the only option.

It wouldn't be so bad except that (in the case of the music industry. I'm not familiar enough with Hollywood, but I would guess it's similar) all the money goes to the studios/labels/etc, instead of the artists who deserve it.

[–]Amerikhans[S] 107 points108 points ago

It doesn't have to be pro SOPA but rather pro online freedom.

[–][deleted] 120 points121 points ago

That's going to be twisted into pro-piracy.

[–]HunterSThompson_says 100 points101 points ago

If we let it. Look at the abortion sides - they're both pro-something, pro-choice and pro-life. We can be pro-freedom and they can be pro-whatever the fuck.

We just have to call them pro-censorship and hound on the abuse of giving hollywood the right to close down the internet. We'll come out on top easy, just stick to your talking points.

[–]Mysteryman64 79 points80 points ago

Cater to your audience as well. In liberal areas, talking about online censorship.

In Conservative area, talk about how they want to give big Hollywood liberals the power to control what you can see.

[–]Schmibitar 85 points86 points ago

Instead, in conservative areas, we could just talk about how the countries who censor things are countries like China and Iran.

[–]HazzyPls 21 points22 points ago

"SOPA represents big government". Done.

[–]winowmak3r 14 points15 points ago

Either of those would work.

[–]Exaskryz 11 points12 points ago*

It's a simple message.

"What will America be in 2012? The new China.
http://www.stopcensorshipbills.com"

This is literally 10 words (URL being a word and 2012 being a word. AFAIK, in advertising they'd both count as words).

LET'S DO THIS PEOPLE. Someone set up a website for our cause and have ads on the site to generate revenue. Redditors all over start printing ads in their newspapers to spread the word (we have to reach as many audiences as possible). Eventually, enough money is generated through ads on the website to cover the cost of a television commercial. This snowballs into allowing for more TV ads, and eventually the money to lobby against censorship bills.

Edit: Apparently the website to use is testpac.org as mentioned down below in another comment.

[–]ikancast 23 points24 points ago

Funny how we become what we hate huh

[–]dickcheney777 12 points13 points ago

Do you hate freedom son?

If you dont support our counter-propaganda you must be a communist! /s

[–]imrickjamesbyach 13 points14 points ago

You don't need to put a sarcasm tag, especially with that username...

[–]Frito_Pendejo 8 points9 points ago

The sevens are fur 'murrika.

[–]JerichoBlack 6 points7 points ago

Fight fire with...well, water would be the best option, but I suppose we could try fire.

[–]PossiblyTheDoctor 27 points28 points ago

And they're gonna take away our guns too!

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]nameandnumber 3 points4 points ago

Here's an upvote for you and Djarum.

[–]BrainSlurper 12 points13 points ago

DEY TUK ER JABS

[–]oursland 2 points3 points ago

In the neocon arena, we call this "big government."

[–]VerySpecialK 8 points9 points ago*

Just put the word china somewhere and how it's becoming similar, americans would eat that shit up.

[–]ramp_tram 6 points7 points ago

Piracy =/= Freedom

Piracy is considered bad, but stopping piracy needs to be understood to be worse, since it will be easily abused to stop other online activities.

[–]Exaskryz 2 points3 points ago

This is correct, but how do you convince the closed minds of many people? So many people are brain washed into thinking that piracy should be stopped at any cost, it's really disturbing.

[–]jandalofdoom 17 points18 points ago

That's why you don't make it pro-piracy, you make it an attack on freedom.

"Fight for freedom, fight SOPA"

[–]jesthie 42 points43 points ago

Was this the commercial?

http://viad.tv/video-12674/pipa-sopa-stop-online-piracy/

It's all I could find...

[–]dafanman88 62 points63 points ago

That American flag inside the light bulb was fucking disgusting. The strategy of passing this bill and similar bills under the the disguise of patriotism, or job creation, or protecting kids is pathetic. The most frustrating part about it is a large majority of Americans are so brain dead and too lazy to inform themselves that all it takes is a gimmicky 30 sec ad to convince them. No need for critical thought, if the TV says Americans are losing jobs then that bill should pass right!?

[–]say-something 12 points13 points ago

I agree. This commercial is absolutely disgusting. "foreign criminals use illegal websites to steal American products"

[–]HalfBurntToast 7 points8 points ago

Yeah, it's propaganda. It's worked the same way throughout history with every country. The only way to combat it is to educate your fellow citizen.

[–]WcJessen 4 points5 points ago

Corrupt politicians in the US (and I'm sure other countries) do this all the time. They tell the people that they are under attack, or the children are being raped, and the people will vote for anything.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

as a German the open xenophobia rubbed me the wrong way too

[–]Parrrley 9 points10 points ago

Well, this specifically tells people to support SOPA and PIPA. :|

So I guess you found it.

American flag and everything, directly aimed at stirring people's patriotism.

[–]Cheebahh 4 points5 points ago

Nice use of the trigger phrase 'under attack' too. As someone who watches from over the pond, I am simply baffled as to how you lot don't pick up on it, but it must be how all programming is over there.

[–]Ubik-0328 5 points6 points ago

[–]brock_lee 223 points224 points ago

To encourage online piracy?

[–]omgiamnaked 51 points52 points ago

My online piracy is so cute.

[–]redpoemage 20 points21 points ago

[–]HunterSThompson_says 85 points86 points ago

Think of it through the lens of the abortion debate - you have pro-life and pro-choice. Nobody in their right mind is going to be anti-choice or anti-life. That just begs for hatred!

No, define yourself as pro-freedom and call them a bunch of net-censoring assholes who want to take away your yubtub and free porn.

[–]icyair 50 points51 points ago

"Do you really want to put bureaucrat between you and your internet? These Washington insiders want to make Death Panels for your grandma's Internet."

[–]fightswithbears 18 points19 points ago

"This bill would make it possible for the government to prevent you from talking about Jesus on the Facebook."

[–]flopus 3 points4 points ago

to be honest this would be 100% more effective as long as you hid who paid for it

[–]godlyfrog 2 points3 points ago

The funny thing about this is that I could easily see Scientology doing this. They've repeatedly fought against people posting their beliefs online by calling it copyright infringement.

[–]a_sticky_heresy 11 points12 points ago

GUBBERMENT TAKIN MAH KITTY VIDYAS ON TH' YUBTUBS

[–]dickcheney777 5 points6 points ago

Do not forget about tailoring the message for different demographic for maximum impact.

In the south, tie sopa with a big-government, liberal nanny state, power grab, censorship, anti-freedom, the hollywood liberals (insist on the word liberals), the obama admistration, job killing regulation and anti-capitalism.

In the developed part of the country one should focus on the freedom thingy.

[–]flopus 3 points4 points ago

In the developed part of the country

I smell a yank.

all joking aside that was a dick move

[–]oxslashxo 13 points14 points ago

Piracy shouldn't be encouraged. Piracy should be combated, you really can't justify it. In the end, the goal should be to do so without infringing on rights.

[–]bigvi 28 points29 points ago

Find the quote where congress was wanting to censor the internet like China and make a 30 second clip linking the supporters to Communist oppression and you win.

[–]keithbelfast 2 points3 points ago

This works as a very strong image. To play this game and win, it will need to be something which plays to people's emotional fears. What sort of internet control does Iran have?

[–]lolmunkies 18 points19 points ago

Could I get some clarification. Was CNN explicitly supporting SOPA, or were they just saying to stop online piracy?

[–]school_dog 16 points17 points ago

At this point I think that question starts to split hairs. Online piracy is already illegal. They want congress to stop online piracy, good in theory but how do you do that without infringing on some freedoms? It's like saying we should tell congress to stop murders. How would you effectively stop murders? Do we look at certain behaviors and tag people to be watched to stop murders? Have personality tests to detect sociopaths at a young age and detain them? Philip K. Dick wrote a good allegory that warns of these types of laws (Minority Report). Obviously we would all love to stop murders but we cant do so without infringing on civil rights.

Probably not the best analogy, but there it is lol.

[–]Burke_Of_Yorkshire 26 points27 points ago*

Time Warner is one of SOPA's biggest supporters. Time Warner owns CNN. Make your own call about that

[–]Parrrley 5 points6 points ago

Did it say who was paying for that commercial, or can they just make an anonymous one?

[–]The_Lobbyist 12 points13 points ago

Running a commercial doesn't mean the network endorses the view.

[–]United99 54 points55 points ago

You have to remember that CNN is owned by people who would benefit from having SOPA and PIPA and everyother law of that kind passed. So if you did gain enough funds to have the commercial air, I would suggest not having it air on CNN. This commercial obviously wasn't to direct or to influential or CNN would have never put it on air.

[–]Ocuppyeverything 47 points48 points ago

I don't think TV channels will turn down money, FOX news has commercials on MSNBC.

[–]United99 12 points13 points ago

fair point.

[–]LinuxNoob 34 points35 points ago

And balanced?

[–]crod242 8 points9 points ago

Nice retort?

You decide.

[–]nullcharstring 51 points52 points ago

Run an ad to encourage online piracy? I don't think that's such a good idea either.

[–]filmfair 49 points50 points ago

Seriously, and since when did being anti-SOPA become being pro-piracy? Copyright infringement is a serious issue. Everyone from Jon Stewart to indie artists such as comic artists posting about this on Reddit have made that clear time and time again.

[–]kan0 12 points13 points ago

You can do it with a $100 or more. Thanks Google

[–]MAGZine 3 points4 points ago

I think that YouTube ads, along with TV would be effective. YouTube will target a more passionate audience, but might not target as an effective audience as TV might.

[–]HonorAmongSteves 8 points9 points ago

Could you? Yes, absolutely - that's the beauty of the subjunctive. Will you? No, and that's the unfortunate reality of the indicative.

[–]fuzzynyanko 3 points4 points ago

I wonder if there could be a reddit superPAC

[–]ajpos 6 points7 points ago

There is one. We just launched on Thursday and already have enough cash to do something like this.

[–]illectronic1 5 points6 points ago

Link to video?

[–]xelested 14 points15 points ago

Such a stereotypical American advert.

"Foreign countries are stealing what is ours".

Because everyone knows that no American would ever pirate.

[–]OrlandoDoom[!] 32 points33 points ago

This is ridiculous. The goals of legislation like SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, are perfectly legitimate. The draconian measures by which they want to accomplish them are the problem.

What you are asking for is a commercial that supports and encourages theft.

[–]gamerlen 5 points6 points ago

Thank you. Its nice to hear someone say it.

I'm of the same mind here. What they want (stopping people from getting their product without payment) is reasonable, they just have no idea of how to accomplish this without screwing over paying customers as well.

[–]Lord_Bumberchute 18 points19 points ago

Yes.

You could.

[–]mbstang 43 points44 points ago

It's CNN...no one saw it

[–]Amerikhans[S] 24 points25 points ago

Everyone is watching the south Carolina primary debate at the moment, I believe.

[–]Hilholiday 7 points8 points ago

Today is the South Carolina Republican Primary -- everyone is watching the major news networks for the results.

[–]MyWorkHereIsDone 23 points24 points ago

Like CNN.

[–]Mcfggy 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, Its actually been on there for a few days, I think I have seen it at least a dozen times over the course of the past week.

[–]NotSayingJustSaying 1 point2 points ago

Internet > Television

[–]mikafish 3 points4 points ago

I'd donate $100 if someone else organised this thing.

[–]cyantwist 3 points4 points ago*

Don't encourage piracy. That won't fly with the general public. May be for those who consider themselves outlaws of the Internet. Instead present the real point. Give extreme examples of how SOPA can and will be abused. e.g.

  • Someone takes a picture of their girlfriend/friend/bro/whoever in a movie theater with movie posters in the background.
  • Uploads to flickr.
  • Someone in **AA decides to file an abusive SOPA takedown notice.
  • (a) Sane world scenario: flickr removes access to that picture. sends them notice. max fine on the order of $100 or less.
  • (b) Insane world scenario: flickr goes dark. Everyone (you included) who has uploaded anything to flickr can no longer access it. And there isn't any due process to contest the action.

Why should anyone get punished for someone else's "crime"? It's not even a crime; IANAL but IMO it falls under fair use or whatever equivalent you have in your country. And you must give past examples of how the **AA has tried to sue dead grandma, etc. to show everyone how heartless they are.

Art/Marketing majors can dramatize it to appeal to appropriate audiences.

[–]CyberMcGyver 4 points5 points ago

A friend once told me a great saying about marketing:

"We know you aren't gullbile, you're just busy".

Ask someone to take 4 hours of their time to effectively weigh pros and cons of a single bill is ludicrous. This is what elected officials are for,they are to do this for you.

The problem with democracy? These elected officials who you elect to weigh pros and cons of a legal document are asking you what kind of view they should be taking on said document... Even though you elected them to do it for you...

For this reason Public Relations has risen to the point it has in our society. Emotions are more easily tapped in to than providing a long winded logical argument. People literally don't have the time to raise 3kids, maintain a job, and be aware of the whole process and where they fit in. And the equilibrium will never be reached within the current political frameworks.

THIS is why marketing campaigns prey on emotion. candidates have 30 seconds to convince someone of an entirely complex issue which, if thought out over several hours of discourse, would be logical. So the only alternative to achieve success (i.e. re-election, bills past etc.) is through quick emotional triggers.

It is unfortunate, but until the significance of being aware of political happenings is ingrained as culturally important there won't be much change. Easiest way is through early education. No not indoctrination, but parents should be letting kids know this isn't boring stuff, but super important stuff they should be paying attention to regardless of what they want to apply themselves to.

[–]elmstterror 12 points13 points ago

I'm against piracy and against SOPA..don't confuse the two.

[–]Gargoame 7 points8 points ago

Sounds like a job for the Colbert Stewart Super PAC.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

You mean The Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC?

[–]vjarnot 2 points3 points ago

Yes, you could.

[–]mecrosis 2 points3 points ago

Lets form a super pac and start doing our own influencing.

[–]erfling 2 points3 points ago*

I do some video stuff. I did some free stuff for my local occupy. I volunteer to help.

[–]Falmarri 2 points3 points ago

This is exactly the point that citizens united addressed. If it weren't for CU, then the answer would be "no".

[–]YakiVegas 2 points3 points ago

Anyone got a link to the commercial? We should modify it slightly and paste it all over the web.

[–]thewarrenterror 2 points3 points ago

Time Warner, which owns CNN, explicitly supports SOPA. John King said as much during the Republican debate the other night. Good luck getting an anti-SOPA ad run on any channel owned by such a company.

Coincidentally, have you noticed that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have been uncharacteristically quiet on this issue? Viacom supports SOPA too.

[–]javadaplisperl 5 points6 points ago*

Nobody will air your commercial. This is why:

CNN -> Turner Broadcasting System -> Time Warner (the big corporation) <- Waner Bros (one of MPAA members).

Fox News, 20th Century Fox (MPAA again) -> The Fox Entertainment Group -> News Corporation (root) (Rupert Murdoch's company)

MSNBC, NBC, Universal Pictures (MPAA member) -> NBCUniversal -> Comcast (51%), General Electric (49%)

ABC -> The Walt Disney Company (root) <- Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group (MPAA member)

EDIT: The relationship between CBS and Viacom (owner of Paramount Pictures, MPAA member) is quite complicated. They acquired each other and then split off.

Four (perhaps even five) out of six members of MPAA are connected to big TV news stations. Thus, it is not surprising that almost all big news stations support SOPA/PIPA. Imagine if all of the news stations in the US only aired commercials supporting SOPA/PIPA, millions of Americans would be affected by it. However, those Americans are also your friends, family, and colleagues, so they should trust what you say much more than what the TV says, but you have to talk to them about that. Tell them to be guarded against the biased influence of news sources like TV and newspapers, and show them how to use the internet to get more neutral and accurate news.

[–]DoctorYuyi 6 points7 points ago

I'm not pro-piracy. I'm anti-censorship.

I'd support SOPA if it didn't make it so the government could rape the internet.

[–]oxslashxo 14 points15 points ago

Ummm piracy is by no means right. There is no way you can justify piracy, ever. If piracy can be properly combated without destroying our rights, let it be done.