Can you imagine a world without Google or Facebook? If plans to protest the potential passing of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) come to fruition, you won’t need to; those sites, along with many other well-known online destinations, will go temporarily offline as a taste of what we could expect from a post-SOPA Internet.
Companies including Google, Facebook, Twitter, PayPal, Yahoo! and Wikipedia are said to be discussing a coordinated blackout of services to demonstrate the potential effect SOPA would have on the Internet, something already being called a “nuclear option” of protesting. The rumors surrounding the potential blackout were only strengthened by Markham Erickson, executive director of trade association NetCoalition, who told FoxNews that “a number of companies have had discussions about [blacking out services]” last week.
According to Erickson, the companies are well aware of how serious an act such a blackout would be:
This type of thing doesn’t happen because companies typically don’t want to put their users in that position. The difference is that these bills so fundamentally change the way the Internet works. People need to understand the effect this special-interest legislation will have on those who use the Internet.
The idea of an Internet blackout should seem familiar to anyone who’s been paying attention to the debate so far. In addition to a blackout already carried out by Mozilla, hacking group Anonymous proposed the same thing a couple of weeks ago, suggesting that sites replace their front pages with a statement protesting SOPA. That suggestion itself came a week after Jimmy Wales had asked Wikipedia users about the possibility of blacking out that site in protest of the bill.
(MORE: ‘Anonymous’ Blacks Out the Internet in Response to SOPA Debate)
As a way of drawing attention to the topic, it’s something that will definitely work. Just Google alone going dark would cause havoc online, but the idea of it happening at the same time as Facebook, Twitter et al. follow suit seems almost unimaginable.
The question then becomes how to translate the inevitable confusion and outrage from those who don’t know what SOPA is into activism. The key, I assume, lies in the execution of the blackout: Will the sites that voluntarily go down be entirely unavailable or will they follow the Anonymous-proposed model of replacing the front page with a statement explaining what is going on, why and how users can best become involved in the discussion? If the sites do go entirely dark, is the hope that the resulting outrage will be enough to fuel news stories about the reason behind the decision? And that users will not transfer their frustration to the sites themselves, as opposed to the bill they’re protesting?
The fact that Facebook and Twitter are both said to be considering taking part in the blackout is simultaneously heartening and worrying. The former because, well, they’re standing up for what they collectively believe in — and that’s a good thing. But the latter because the lack of availability for social media on the proposed blackout day feels like it’s giving up the best chance to harness the frustration and energy people will feel about the temporary loss of the Internet as they know it, and a great possibility to focus and direct that energy into productive activism against SOPA. Then again, it may take losing Facebook and Twitter to really drive home how dramatically SOPA could affect the Internet.
All of this may come to nothing, of course. The companies may decide not to black out their sites and find other ways to protest SOPA. That could be for the best; collectively closing down the most trafficked sites on the Internet to prove a point will certainly garner a lot of attention, but the effects it’ll have beyond that (and the reactions it’ll cause as a result) are difficult to predict and could easily end up causing a backlash against the sites responsible at a time when they least want it. But still … just try to imagine an Internet without Google, Facebook or Yahoo. Even for a day. Almost makes you want it to happen, just to make people realize how reliant we are on the Internet as we know it now, doesn’t it?
MORE: Sorry, Folks: Game Publishers Didn’t ‘Drop’ SOPA Support
Graeme McMillan is a reporter at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @Graemem or on Facebook at Facebook/Graeme.McMillan. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.
__NOTOC__

Jimmy Wales, Presidente Emérito de la Fundación Wikimedia, preguntó a los usuarios de Wikipedia sobre la posibilidad de cerrar el sitio. 

Como protesta contra el proyecto de ley SOPA (en inglés ''Stop Online Piracy Act'', 'Acta de Cese de la Piratería en Línea'), las empresas Google, Facebook y Twitter, así como Amazon.com y Wikimedia, planean cerrar sus sitios el 23 de enero, un día antes de la fecha límite para la aprobación de dicha ley. La protesta se da debido a que se realizaría el cierre de sitios sospechosos de piratería sin investigaciones previas.

Previamente, Jimmy Wales, Presidente Emérito de la Fundación Wikimedia, preguntó a los usuarios de Wikipedia en inglés sobre la posibilidad de cerrar el sitio como protesta contra el proyecto de ley. Además de Wales, otras personalidades que se oponen a este proyecto de ley son Sergey Brin, cofundador de Google; Eric Schmidt, ex Presidente de Google; y Vinton Cerf, considerado uno de los "padres" de la Internet.

Otros cibersitios que cerrarían ese día son Yahoo!, Foursquare, la Fundación Mozilla, AOL, eBay, Etsy, PayPal, LinkedIn, OpenDNS y Zynga.





=== Protestas anteriores ===

En noviembre, la plataforma Tumblr cerró intencionalmente su servicio a los usuarios, quienes tuvieron la opción de comunicarse con sus respectivos Representantes para expresar sus preocupaciones, generando casi 90.000 llamadas.

Las protestas contra SOPA fueron dominantes en diciembre, cuando más de 37.000 dominios de Reddit fueron transferidos como protesta contra la empresa registradora de dominios Go Daddy, la cual revirtió su apoyo inicial por SOPA tras el descontento de multitud de sus clientes.



=== Proyecto de ley ===

SOPA es un proyecto de ley que extiende las competencias del Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos y amplía las capacidades de los titulares de derechos de autor para combatir el tráfico en línea de contenidos y productos protegidos, mediante la restricción al acceso a empresas que brindan un servicio de facilitación de pago, la restricción en los motores de búsqueda que vinculan con tales sitios y el requerimiento de los proveedores de Internet para que bloqueen el acceso a tales sitios.


El proyecto de ley también tiene partidiarios, tales como 3M, Adidas, Burberry, CVS (en inglés ''Computer-controlled Vehicle System''), News Corporation e ITIF (en inglés ''Information Technology and Innovation Foundation'').

"El objetivo de SOPA son las ciberpáginas extranjeras que venden medicamentos falsificados y copias robadas de películas de Hollywood ... ''no'' cibersitios estadounidenses como YouTube o tu blog favorito", escribió Richard Bennett, investigador sénior de ITIF, para ''New York Post'', expresando la necesidad de esta ley. "Los criminales de Internet que venden medicamentos falsos o películas pirateadas simplemente se instalan en China o en una lejana república insular, a sabiendas de que no se verán acosados ​​por la policía, independientemente de cuántas vidas o puestos de trabajo estadounidenses pongan en peligro".



=== Noticias relacionadas ===
* 
* 
*