That SOPA had little to no measurable effect on the election results in Congress is not surprsing. While the online protest against the bill was an unprecedented moment for the Internet industry and social media, I believe the reality is that the average voter actually didn’t give a damn about SOPA or even know what it was. Of course, I have already asserted on numerous occasions that the majority of Web users who clicked on the online petition against the bill didn’t know what they were protesting either, but I won’t retread that ground here.
Presumbably, Internet issues will gain footing among the electorate as the Millenials age into the process. They already outnumber the Boomers, many who are still figuring out how to use AOL; and they way outnumber us meager and motley GenXers, who are net-savvy but still lived half our lives without these technologies. I am eager to read Chris Ruen’s new book Freeloading, but my understanding is that Ruen asserts that we see these tools, social media in particular, as extensions of ourselves. I tend to agree with this premise, and it stands to reason that a generation born using these technologies is going to have an even stronger association in this regard. Hence any threat, real or perceived, to these tools and media is going to be taken personally; and as the manipulators of politics know, it is emotion not reason that tends to win the day.
Still, I don’t believe it is inevitable that the Internet industry will be able to replay the same charade indefinitely that it did so well with SOPA/PIPA. In particular, the veneer that all web-based companies are the guardians of free speech will likely begin to wear thin among progressives, traditionally the voters with whom such a message tends to be effective. In the months since the defeat of SOPA, we have seen the formation of a lobbying juggernaut called the Internet Association; we have the disturbing, anti-labor components of the Pandora-backed Internet Radio Fairness Act; and we have more than a few privacy concerns with regard to how Internet companies collect personal data and how that data is used.
Combine these manifestations with the generally libertarian (at times Ayn Rand-like) ideology of Silicon Valley, and progressive voters may start to make that critical distinction between the products and the the producers — between the tools we like, or even need, and the corporate practices of those who make the tools. It’s true that if one crticizes Google, Facebook, Pandora, et al, this will often result in some reactionary response involving accusations like “technology luddite,” but such fallacious reasoning brings a very simple example to mind. Several years ago, General Electric was locked in an ongoing battle with envrinomental groups and the EPA over its disposal of PCBs into the Hudson River. At the same time, the company’s national consumer-focused ad campaign was a neo-Rockwellian vision of the world with the slogan “We bring good things to life.” And yes, a refridgerator is a good thing, as are all the jet engines that ever carried us safely from point to point around the world. But that doesn’t mean we’re okay with the PCBs in the river, does it now?
It will certainly be interesting to see how these dynamics play out over the coming year, but as a progressive, I found it telling (and more than a little pitiful) that on election eve, Google co-founder Sergey Brinn went out of his way to state publicly he was “dreading the elections” because party politics will still dominate and that his plea to either victor is to “govern as an independent.” Call me a cynic, but when a billionaire executive, who practically rules the Web, makes an ambiguous political statement I can hear from any Joe on the street, my Spidey Sense tingles. If progressives listen carefully, they will hear the familiar refrain an anti-institutional song coming from Northern California that is more reminiscent of the Tea Party hymnal than anything else.
