Moreover, at least when it comes to the two dominant parties, carefully controlled and dishonest messaging is already the order of the day.

Logic is not the only, or even the most important, factor which undermines productive debate. It's the failure to recognize that a lot of what people believe about public policy is rooted in unprovable assumptions. If two people start with separate premises (e.g., different vision of what an ideal world looks like), all the logic in the world won't make them meet.

I don't believe the answer is more dishonesty. I believe the answer is new tools that are somehow captivating while simultaneously inoculating against the well-known human mental frailties. I sometimes idly imagine a new type of news show with built-in checks and balances to root out logical fallacies, explain assumptions, and guard against cognitive biases. I'm not yet sure how to make people watch it though. ;)

The state of public debate sucks, but I think we've made progress. Just because we have further to go doesn't mean we should start going backwards. Also, when you're so certain your "side" is right that you start wanting to cheat, it's time to check your own premises and cognitive biases and see if there's any way you may be giving your policy opponents shorter shrift than they deserve.

Logic operates on premises - and because there is no universal/objective value system we all argue from different/subjective viewpoints - so it's likely that the person you disagree with doesn't start with the same premises. You can have a perfectly logical argument but if it's arguing for a different outcome or from a different viewpoint you aren't going to agree with the other person.

Fundamentally, can an entire industry that makes art and music be rotten to the core. Probably not, it is full of people like us would are making things and doing things and building careers, and a lot of them are probably also concerned about thxe future of the Internet with SOPA. So we have to respect our audience and opponent's attention span and intelligence, and get some simple effective messages distributed before we miss the window of opportunity.

The reasons the Republicans control the debate is because they come to a decision on an issue, and focus on getting their message and viewpoint across in the simplest way possible. They do not play devil's advocate, do not focus on arguments against their point, because it's an ineffective use of their time when being listened to. They frame issues in a way that people can understand them, and, in their own perverse way, respect their audience for the fact they often are not very interested in the details and would like someone to sum up their views succinctly and in a way that makes a value judgement possible quickly.

Where they cross the line is where they outright lie. But it's not their responsibility to point out the flaws in their own argument, nor is it their responsibility to avoid logical fallacies in making their case if those appeals to emotion make the issue more 'real' for their audience.

Meanwhile, Democrats trying to do the right thing end up in-fighting over the most minute detail of how to frame their argument in a way that is both pure and honest. They acknowledge the argument of the other side, and always posit themselves as a refutation to the primary mover, the Republicans (or in this case, the big media industry.) They do not frame the argument. They do not set the grounds for discussion. They do not assert their power.

A lot can be learned by watching the way the right-wing spin machine works. It is a tool that can be used for good or evil, and used in a way that is ethically sound. Of course, it is important to avoid the trap of going too far, and we can see clearly the result of doing so. But this doesn't mean that we can't channel the power of messaging, framing, and so on in order to bring about progress.

For example, we've already lost this debate in so many ways. The response to this shouldn't just be "block this bill" it should be "block this bill", and:

- Here is a concise message that summarizes our position: "Don't break our Internet," "Get your hands off our Internet", "Leave the Internet alone," "Stop trying to break the Internet" (Edit: Right now, Google's position is "Please don't censor the web!" Say that in the voice of a little girl and you might understand why this messaging sucks. Don't say please. Don't use the word censor. Tell them to fuck off without using profanity.)

- Here is a pledge that you as a representative must sign about passing Internet legislation or else you will not receive any votes from this consitutency.

- Here is a bill we would like you to pass (pushed by lobbyists from Google/Facebook/etc) that prevents future legislation from tampering with the free flow of information on the Internet.

- We now refer to the companies pushing SOPA as the "Old Media", "Content Monopolies", "Pre-Internet Media", "Legacy Content Providers", "Anti-Artist Media", or "Copyright Law Abusers". We refer to sites like Spotify and Youtube as "Modern Media", "Open Media", "Pro-Artist Media", or "Modern Content Providers."

- "Copyright infringement" is not "piracy" but is "missharing." "Net Neutrality" is "Free Internet" or "Web Freedom". DRM is on "Chained Content" or "Locked Content". Etc.

It's not dishonest. It's controlling the debate from a position of power and righteousness.

Thank you for writing this. I've really been feeling the same way. Not very many people understand group psychology and they argue and fight in ways which are self-defeating.

We are not even fighting deeply irrational people, mostly they are smart rational people employed by big industry and taught the simple fact: appealing to people's emotions and unconscious mind is the foremost way democratic decisions are won.

It might be an awful truth but it is reality and a rational person must therefore accept it or face defeat over and over again.

I hope you and others do something great with this insight.

I don't like the framing of creative artistic works as "content", though. It's our culture, the culture that defines us as human beings.

Logic is only a means to an end. With the advent of computer technology it is too easy to think that logic is what runs (or should run) the world, or that some political positions are "logical" and others are not. But logic, like technology, can be used for any end.

The important debate is one of ethics, intuition, (future) human values, and cost/externalities. And should indeed be framed as such. I am not advocating dishonesty, as it is easily called out and used against you.

What is a story? A linear sequence of cause and effect, with some kind of overall shape. see this Kurt Vonnegut video where he explains story shapes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ

If you can construct a compelling narrative- which is empathetic with the listener enough that you know they will be able to insert themselves into the story, and imagine that they are them main character, then you win- that one battle.

If you try to program a person like they are a computer, by simply listing a series of what you feel are logical statements, you will come across as condescending, and self absorbed. You will fail. When you notice that they are not following you, and you interpret this as "Oh they must be missing a library. var TCPIP = import("internets").tcpip;" you just make the problem worse.

1. Free communication, not filtered. You shouldn't need permission, of any kind, from anybody, to get on the Internet. No one should have license to kick you off. Translation of a domain name to a dotted quad is free speech activity.

2. Don't create liability by association. You cannot justify encroachment of my rights by preventing the abuses of others. If I make reasonable efforts to enforce your copyright, why shouldn't I have safe harbor against further liability? Why is it my job to do your policing for you?

3. Don't make your problem my problem. Copyright violation is a problem, but that doesn't justify adding costs and risks and complications to millions of people who have nothing to do with the problems of the MPAA.

4. Copyright does not justify compromised rights. Copyright is important, but not so important that we should compromise a person's right to speak. A business model built on compromised rights is not ultimately beneficial to society, no matter what the short or medium term costs may be.

I'd be wary of using that kind of argument because why does Mr. Average Joe care who polices piracy online? Maybe I'm too cynical about people but I think that they respond better when you angle it to how it'll affect them personally. The fact that the MPAA's problem has become our problem is of little consequence to the end user.

If I make reasonable efforts to enforce your copyright, why shouldn't I have safe harbor against further liability?

Again, maybe my cynicism, but I think this is already too complicated (i.e. not soundbite-y). "We don't want the government in control of what you can look at on the internet" is definitely vaguer, but it's more memorable.

Really? It isn't necessary to force every square peg of an objection into the round hole of 1st amendment free speech rights.

Even more generally, bad public policy can still be constitutional. Objections should be organized around the unsoundness of the policy in addition to any Constitutional objections. Defense in depth, so to speak.

We are a success

When the audience was polled for how many people worked in a NY start-up, a massive amount of hands were raised. When asked how many of these start-ups were hiring, a majority of hands were raised again. The point was shown and explained that we are a striving tech scene and are bring job opportunities to NY.

We- the job creators- are fighting against intrusive government regulation

It's been mentioned, most notably in the reddit blog post by alienth, that there will be a burden on the tech community, and especially the smaller start-ups, in keeping up with these legal requirements of censorship.

We are anti-piracy

One of the speakers at todays NYTM protest (I believe it was Alexis Ohanian, but I could be wrong) mentioned they are a copyright holder. They don't want to see piracy, nor copyright infringement - but they also don't want to oppress innovation.

Innovation is better

Pretty much the same counter argument as above, and it was also mentioned that the MPAA was scared of the VHS back when it was introduced; citing that it would ruin them - but instead it became a large part of the movie industries revenue model. The point was made that they should be embracing the internet and that with those innovations they can make boatloads more money without having to censor us.

Don't get me wrong, I'm genuinely excited that the protest happened and had the level of support that it did. I think that overall it was great, but that there is definite room for improvement in terms of getting everyone on the same page.

I think we shouldn't overestimate our job creation factor. Jobs yes, but what jobs? For 20-30 y.o. men? These are not the people that are jobless this time around.

This is, in fact, the main reason to oppose SOPA and PIPA. It gives the entertainment industry even more takedown powers (ads, financial instutions, domain names) and even less oversight.

You could argue that SOPA/PIPA isn't unreasonable if there were added protections of due process and significant penalties for abusing the system. But there isn't. If the DMCA is currently being abused, it stands to reason that SOPA/PIPA will be as well.

"Fair Use" has been damaged; it's much harder to use a snippet of something now without risking it being taken down.

Youtube's technical copyright protections are remarkable - I'm amazed that this model isn't a lot more popular throughout industry. Maybe Google needs to give this tech away for free and the tech community can show that they're trying to do something about rampant piracy. Except, I can't help feeling that a Youtube video isn't much of a problem. Even though I know the rights holders do see it as a problem, and happily block access to people in different territories or have content taken down.

I think it's a little harder to argue that DMCA doesn't work for tech companies given that it's been in effect for a long time and no-one has gone bankrupt as a result of it. However, some examples of incorrect takedowns that have resulted in loss of money for an artist would be very interesting.

To be fair, that's because your sample set most likely only includes companies that were successful enough to become highly visible.

Imagine you owned a small, boutique t-shirt store. Your business depends on local artists bringing you t-shirts that they designed, you display them, and sell them. Taking your cut, to pay your bills and send your kids to school.

On a cloudy Tuesday afternoon, the Feds show up. They take your merchandise, close down your shop, and shut down your bank account. Nobody tells you why. There is no court case and no due process. Nobody you can talk to about this.

You are confused by this and depressed. No idea what happened. You go to the movies to take your mind off of things. And then it hits you, you now know who came after you...

You remember that one of the artists supplying you with t-shirts designed a t-shirt that had a girl, with a dragon tattoo on it.

It need not be technically accurate. What matters is that you want the listener to think: "stop - say what? How is that possible?"

Then you can explain what is really going on.

We need to leave torrents, file sharing, the Pirate Bay, and the others out of this and focus in on domain seizures, the cutting of funding, the lack of due process.

Most importantly we need to Explain it in a way that they can relate to!!!. Don't talk about Google and other sites being censored, search result censorship, and all of that as much as you should be saying things like:

"The government is giving media companies the power to:

- take down your Facebook post, your YouTube video of your cute baby son singing along to a copyrighted song...

- shut down your mom and pop shop website because you used a logo you shouldn't have by accident, mentioned a wrong name, or even slightly threatened to take away a single customer from a larger company

- etc. etc. etc. all without due process! All it takes is some company making a single complaint and you can be lose money, business, sources of funding, your domain name"

That's the kind of conversation that we, who know about this stuff, need to tell the public. Remember, a lot of these people think Internet Explorer is the Internet. They think you have to type in a URL in Google then click a link to get where you want to go (I've even seen someone type in www.google.com in Google's own search box!). We need to talk to them in a language they understand. It's not their fault they aren't tech savvy but it's still our responsibility to make sure they understand what we're talking about.

No jargon. No big words. Make it relatable. Don't talk down to them but do educate them on the issues, not technology.

> No jargon. No big words. Make it relatable. Don't talk down to them but do educate them on the issues, not technology.

My take-away: tell stories about people.

"It claims to be about piracy, but it won't have any effect on piracy because tech-savvy people like pirates can easily get around the restrictions, it will only harm legitimate internet users like you."

From then on the person is inoculated against the "but piracy!" argument.