So now we know how Mark Zuckerberg feels about SOPA. The Facebook founder made his opposition to the “poorly thought out law” clear — a little belatedly, perhaps, but plainly — in a post on the social network Wednesday. The post is blowing up: it has 495,000 Likes at time of writing, and 70,000 of those were gained in the past hour.
But as many of the commenters on that post have pointed out, talk is cheap. If Facebook really wanted to oppose SOPA, they say, it would do what Wikipedia and dozens of other popular sites across the Internet have done Wednesday. It would go dark for a day in protest, and direct users to contact their representatives.
So why hasn’t it?
Doubtless the main argument against such a move is financial. Facebook made about $4.25 billion last year; by that reckoning, a single day of outage would cost the site nearly $12 million in revenue. Advertisers would be furious; space they bought in good faith would either be blacked out or appear next to blacked-out text.
The day of protest also comes at an inconvenient moment in Facebook’s calendar. At a press event Wednesday night in San Francisco, the social network is set to introduce a set of apps based on its new Open Graph and Gestures platforms. Zuckerberg could hardly showcase those apps on a blacked-out social network, could he?
Well, yes, actually, he could. I can’t speak for all journalists, but I can say that most of us would be delighted if a by-the-book product launch (starring features we’ve known about for months) was replaced by an impromptu political rant against one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in recent years. Zuckerberg versus Congress? Sign me up for front row seats.Alternatively, just delay the launch by a day or two. You’re Facebook; it’s not like we’re not going to show up.
That argument goes double for advertisers. Facebook is in an enviable position right now. It’s one of the hottest properties on the planet. A Nielsen study has shown that users notice and interact with Facebook ads more than the alternative online forms (such as Google advertising). Who wouldn’t want a piece of that, even at the cost of losing one day’s worth of advertising?
The sales staff will tear their hair out, but you can make it up to them later. Or you could give your major sponsors a shout-out on the blackout page. Given that traffic to Wikipedia has actually increased during its day of darkness Wednesday, who’s to say they won’t actually get more click-throughs than they otherwise would have? Especially if there’s nothing else to check out on the page.
Besides, some things are just worth taking a stand for. Facebook has 800 million users; it’s on course to hit a billion this year. No one else has that kind of reach, and many of those millions don’t know about SOPA yet. Not all of them are going to check Wikipedia or visit Reddit; those sites will mostly be preaching to the choir, in any case. But we all check Facebook. The social network is where you’ll find the mainstream, middle-America voters that Congress is truly terrified of upsetting.
Granted, Facebook has a history of keeping its head down when it comes to politics and unrest. Its official response to 2011′s Egyptian uprising — the one that bears its name — was beyond cautious, although the site reportedly worked to protect activists behind the scenes. By that standard, the fact that Zuckerberg made any kind of statement at all is fairly radical.
But if he were only prepared to go the extra mile for his beliefs, and motivate his millions of users to do the same, we’d have this dangerous and destructive bill licked in an instant. In a flash, Zuckerberg would go from having the occasional dinner with the president to being a true Washington power player. Congress would have been put on warning: However much your major contributors want you to pass legislation, you don’t do it if it would anger Facebook. The lobbyists’ grip on the levers of power would be that much weaker.
I also think Zuckerberg and company have done a good job in spreading the message and Facebook being, arguably, the most common form of internet social communication has a degree of power by enabling people to communicate to their representatives. Removing a medium of protest is probably not the best strategic move.
What could Facebook achieve if it banded together and became a force for good? We’re still waiting to find out.
Source: http://www.mashable.com
No comments:
Post a Comment