Hacking Politics: How Geeks, Progressives, the Tea Party, Gamers, Anarchists, and Suits Teamed Up to Defeat SOPA and Save the Internet (55 page)

Controversies have linguistic markers, a temporal dimension, and a political-economy valence or potential outcome. We use textual cues, here SOPA, PIPA, and COICA, as ways of filtering a broader range of blogs, online media, organizational and personal sites to draw in sites that addressed the controversy. Second, we emphasize the time dimension. We understand controversies as having a beginning, an end, and internal dynamics that can shift and change in ways that are revealing. Temporally-sensitive tools offer better insights into the shape of influence, framing, and action than do tools that capture broad, time-independent states. As a result, we find a public sphere that is more diverse and dynamic than has generally been portrayed by prior computationally-instantiated analyses of the networked public sphere. Third, we combine the text and link analysis with detailed human analysis, including interviews, desk research, and coding, particularly around highly-visible stories and sites that emerge as significant from the network analysis.

This allows us to typify the phenomena we observe in the data in terms of the unfolding political economy and the discursive structure of the controversy over time. In this, our work preserves a bit more of the richness and complexity of historical and sociological analysis of social movements, using computation to create a corpus of objective data guiding our selection of particular interventions and organizations for more detailed analysis, and highlighting relations among sites and interventions at given moments over the course of the controversy.

The following narrative and maps present the storyline of the seventy months between the introduction of COICA in September of 2010 and the defeat of PIPA in January of 2012. The data are 10,456 stories from one thousand three hundred seventy-nine distinct sites that mentioned one or more of the bills during that period. The maps represent the stories published each week. The size of each node reflects the number of other nodes active during that week that linked to the node, giving us an initial observation of who was a highly-linked node during that week. Node colors represent media type; we identify 11 different media types.

Consistent with most prior work on the blogosphere, we treat links as evidence of attention. The location of the node provides a measure of how close any two nodes are based on how many other nodes link to both nodes during that period. We treat such nodes as related in attention. The use of the maps reflects our sense that attention is time-dependent, not constant over long periods, and that a highly-linked node at time t1 will be influential on everyone at that time,
even if that particular node is barely noticeable from the perspective of a full 18 month period. It allows us to capture who set the agenda in any given week, so that when that agenda is then taken up by later nodes we can still observe the origins of an intervention. Our approach suffers several obvious lacunae. We do not analyze Facebook or Twitter data; nor do we cover mailing lists, IRC, or simple email. All these likely played a large role. Nonetheless, our approach captures a larger ratio of the diverse sources operating in a defined controversy than prior studies have generally sought to analyze.

We coded 11 media types, with nodes colored as indicated below. The numbers that follow refer to the respective [r,g,b] value, and color names are descriptive. Listed in alphabetical order, these media types are: (1) Blogger(s): blue, [0,0,255]; (2) Gaming Site: azure blue, [0,119,255]; (3) General Online News Media: light blue, [0,238,255]; (4) Government: sea green, [0,255,153]; (5) Independent Group: lime green, [0,255,38]; (6) News Aggregator: chartreuse, [81,255,0]; (7) Private Sector: yellow green, [200,255,0]; (8) Tech Media: red, [255,0,43]; (9) Social Linking Site: light orange, [255,196,0]; (10) SOPA/PIPA/ COICA-Specific Campaign: orange, [255,77,0]; (11) User-Generated Content Platform, Networking Site, or Internet Tool: pink, [255,0,157].

We identify nine core findings from our analysis.

First, the networked public sphere is much more dynamic than previously observed. In any given week or month, a major node like Wikipedia may be secondary, while an otherwise minor node, such as the blog of a law professor commenting on an amendment or a technical paper on DNS security, may be more important. The dynamic nature of attention in controversies over time means that prior claims regarding a re-concentration of the ability to shape discourse miss important major fluctuations in influence and visibility. Perspective, opinions, and actions are developed and undertaken over time. Fluctuations in attention given progressive development of arguments and frames over time, allow for greater diversity of opportunity to participate in setting and changing the agenda early in the debate compared to the prevailing understanding of the power law structure of attention in the blogosphere. It also likely provides more pathways for participation than were available in the mass-mediated public sphere.

Second, individuals play a much larger role than was feasible for all but a handful of major mainstream media in the past. A single post on reddit, by one user, launched the GoDaddy boycott; this is the clearest example in our narrative. But we also see individuals embedded in what would in the past have been peripheral organizations playing a role in ways that would have been historically impossible. Notably, Mike Masnick of Techdirt became the single most important professional media site over the entire period, overshadowing the more established media. Individual blogs by academics were able to rise at various moments, like the visible role that law professor Eric Goldman’s blog posts played in early December 2011, when the manager’s amendment to SOPA came out and the OPEN Act was introduced.

Third, traditional non-governmental organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge played a critical role as information
centers and as core amplifiers in the attention backbone (below) that transmits the voices of various, more peripheral players to the wider community.

On several occasions various letters would be written by experts, and then posted and amplified by the EFF or Public Knowledge. These organizations also played a critical role in informing the network about changes and upcoming legislative events.

Fourth, widespread experimentation of new and special-purpose sites played a critical role in converting discussion into action. Several different organizations and individuals experimented with dozens of special-purpose sites and mobilization drives, some of which were indeed successful in garnering attention and converting it to action, emails or phone calls to Congress, the symbolic strike of January 18, 2012, or consumer boycotts. Among these, Demand Progress was an early player against COICA, Dontcensorthenet played a large role around the introduction of PIPA, and Fight for the Future emerged as a force around the introduction of SOPA; each of these players instituted successful efforts prior to the ultimate Wikipedia boycott. Similarly, the reddit boycott on GoDaddy was a transformative moment in the campaign over corporate support or opposition to the bill. The widespread experimentation in these sites was their critical feature. It replicated with regard to online mobilization the same kind of innovation model we have seen for Internet innovation more generally: rapid experimentation and prototyping, cheap failure, adaptation, and ultimately rapid adoption of successful models.

Fifth, highly visible sites within the controversy cluster were able to provide an attention backbone for less visible sites or speakers, overcoming the widely perceived effect of “power law” distribution of links. Fight for the Future benefited from links from more established sites, like the Mozilla front page. The phenomenon was not limited, however, to the largest emerging sites, but was available for more discrete interventions as well. Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute, for example, authored a careful critique of the oft-repeated but poorly founded claim that piracy cost the copyright industries fifty-eight billion dollars a year. Cato itself did not receive a very substantial number of links, but was sufficiently visible within the link economy for Techdirt to link to it, and the Techdirt story was, in turn, linked to by both reddit and the EFF, further amplifying this critique. Sometimes amplification is direct—a top site links directly to an initial intervention. Sometimes an intervention can be transported to larger audiences over a series of amplification hops of increasing visibility. This dynamic, interventions that get noticed by increasingly more visible sites, and are then themselves amplified by yet-more visible sites, is what we call an “attention backbone.”

Sixth, at least on questions of intellectual property, the long-decried fragmentation and polarization of the Net was nowhere to be seen. Political activism crossed the left-right divide throughout the period; the opposition was every bit as bipartisan as was congressional support. Demand Progress and Dontcensorthenet are the two most obvious nodes in this bipartisan effort, but we also see more traditional left and right political blogs, like DailyKos and HotAir, joining in the fight on the same side.

Seventh, subject area, professional media, in this case tech media, played a much larger role in shaping the political debate than the traditional major outlets.
Techdirt, CNET, Arstechnica, and Wired carried the burden of media coverage throughout the period.

Eighth, consumer boycotts and pressure played a role in shaping business support and opposition. The two most visible instances were the reddit boycott on GoDaddy and the pressure gamers put on game companies to oppose SOPA/ PIPA, which bore fruit in the last six weeks of 2011.

Ninth, the network was highly effective at mobilizing and amplifying expertise to produce a counter-narrative to the one provided by proponents of the law. Technologists, law professors, and entrepreneurs emerged at various stages of the controversy to challenge proponents and make expert assertions that went to the core of the debate: the meaning of changes in various drafts; the effects of the laws on DNS security or innovation, or the constitutionality of the bills.

The Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in September 2010. A September 20, 2010 report in The Hill framed the bill as an uncontroversial, bi-partisan effort, spearheaded by Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Hatch (R-UT) and backed by all major industries involved and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Senator Leahy stated that “Protecting intellectual property is not uniquely a Democratic or Republican priority—it is a bipartisan priority.”

The basic framing that this new law would save millions of jobs and billions of dollars and had broad bipartisan support remained the core narrative of proponents over the following year and a half. The counter-narrative that drove the major Internet protests of January 18, 2012 and ultimate abandonment of the statutes began to emerge almost immediately. Its progression suggests a more dynamic, diverse, and decentralized networked public sphere than was true of the mass mediated public sphere or has been described in prior computationally-instantiated descriptions of its shape and structure.

The first fortnight after the introduction of COICA consisted of a two-stage pump. Traditional media paid no attention to the law, with the exception of The Hill’s single story. The alarm was raised by West Coast tech media, in particular CNET and Wired, which were the first sites to report on COICA critically on September 20, 2010, and Techdirt, which linked to both stories and framed them in terms of threat. By the following week, however, action had shifted from tech media to NGOs, most prominently the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the left-leaning Demand Progress. We do, however, also see efforts by industry—in this case
CE.org
, the consumer electronics industry, opposing the bill. In this second week, EFF plays two roles that it will sustain during this first wave of the controversy. First, it provides an information clearinghouse about what is happening in the legislative arena. And second, it plays a role that others like Public Knowledge or Techdirt play in future iterations of the debate: it amplifies peripheral voices and makes them visible throughout the (still small) network engaged in the controversy. In this case, EFF is amplifying a letter by eighty-seven Internet engineers who wrote
to the Senate Judiciary committee that the legislation “will risk fragmenting the Internet’s global domain name system (DNS), create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure.” By posting this letter on a site of major visibility, the EFF here, and others later, essentially create an attention backbone, along which an otherwise peripheral intervention can travel to the attention of many more participants than the initial speakers could have reached given the visibility of whatever outlets are directly under their control.

Week 1

Week 2