nhaler  asked:

Re: WP, Guardian, NPR: That sounds like a tacit stance of opposition, if they haven't already declared outright support for Wikipedia's protest or protest of SOPA/PIPA in general. By posturing themselves as the supporter of a movement which 'fills in' the void Wikipedia leaves at that time, it's quite easy to present yourself as a guardian of 'free information', even though they're economically-driven multinational corporate conglomerates.

» SFB says: That’s basically it. It’s enabling the opposition without showing a side either way. That’s actually a great way of handling it, if you ask us. Remember, most traditional news orgs tend to err on the side of free speech. This and the Chris Hayes piece from the weekend are like lesson plans in objectively handling SOPA. — Ernie @ SFB

nhaler responds: Perhaps I should I have clarified that I think this positioning is fraudulent. Most media corps, with their corporate-backing and near-monopolistic hold on cable broadcast resources, are quite content with strict copyright and free speach policy. Many of them are/share the same parent companies funding these lawsuits and lobbyists who brought SOPA and PIPA here in the first place, remember. (That’s without even getting into the history of media/State subservience.)

» SFB responds: I work for the WaPo company, remember (though the blog is independent). It’s not as bad as you think it is; freedom of speech is respected by newspapers. They built their names on it so they tend to respect it. Not every media org owns a movie studio. And the ones involved in altwiki don’t have such corporate conflicts. Either way, point noted. — Ernie @ SFB