iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Jessica Pearce Rotondi
 

What SOPA And PIPA Mean For Women

Posted: 01/17/2012 11:34 am

How many of us check Facebook every day? Get tweets sent to our phone or use Google to locate a restaurant or Paypal to purchase something we bought on eBay? Check Wikipedia for quick background on a company before an interview we scored on LinkedIn? What if, for an entire day, none of these sites we use so much was available?

This scenario came very close to being tested and tomorrow, a part of this altered Internet vision will become reality as Wikipedia, Reddit and Boing Boing say they are going black to raise awareness about two controversial pieces of legislation, The Protect IP Act, or PIPA, in the Senate, and the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, in the House, that would expand the power of the US government online, in part by preventing sites suspected of intellectual property theft from appearing in your search engine results. The blackout, which Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales announced on Twitter, could have been even more widespread: Before the house's decision yesterday to kill the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, a group of websites that many of us visit on a daily basis -- including Facebook, Google, Paypal, eBay and LinkedIn -- were also contemplating a day-long blackout.

As we anticipate Wikipedia, Reddit and Boing Boing going dark tomorrow and the Senate's January 24the vote on PIPA, it's worth noting that both stand to impact women in specific ways, for specific reasons:

1. Women use social media more than men
A 2011 PEW Report found that 69 percent of women use social media compared to only 60 percent of men, and that women use it more frequently, too -- almost half of female Internet users log onto social networking sites daily (48 percent) compared with 38 percent of male Internet users. A day-long blackout of Twitter and Facebook alone would have affected women more than men.

2. We use social media to connect with friends and family more than men
A May 2011 study by Digitel found that women now use social media more than the phone to communicate with friends and family, especially when compared to men: 68 percent of women use social media to stay in touch with friends, compared with 54 percent of men, and 60 percent of women use it to stay in touch with family compared to only 42 percent of men. A blackout would have taken away a major connecting force for women and their support networks.

3. For lots of women, a blog is a lifeline (and a source of income)
There are 3.9 million mom bloggers out there, according to emarketer.com, and for many, their blogs are both a way of connecting to other women outside their homes, jobs, and (sometimes remote) geographic locales and a source of income from advertisers and sponsors.

According to Mediabistro, if SOPA had passed, "Even if your piece does not include anything that could be considered copyright infringing, if it links to a source that does -- a source as innocuous as a YouTube video or a Tumblr post -- your entire article could be blocked from the Internet in the US." The risk of having their sites blocked could conceivably cause some of these bloggers to call it quits, losing cash and the constant community the mom blogosphere provides.

4. PIPA could prevent future great memes like "Hey, Girl" from seeing the light of day -- or being created at all
Some of our favorites memes this year were created by Internet users building on media images to make something new that made us think or at least laugh, but in her New York Times Op-Ed "Stop The Great Firewall of America," Rebecca MacKinnon made some disturbing comparisons between SOPA and Chinese censorship -- a form of social control the US has publicly criticized.

MacKinnon wrote that SOPA "would also emulate China's system of corporate "self-discipline," making companies liable for users' actions. The burden would be on the Web site operator to prove that the site was not being used for copyright infringement. The effect on user-generated sites like YouTube would be chilling."

What do you think? Is PIPA an effective way of ensuring against online piracy? If not, is a self-imposed blackout of social media and other sites the best way to protest it?


RELATED VIDEO:


 

Follow Jessica Pearce Rotondi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lanewyorkaise

How many of us check Facebook every day? Get tweets sent to our phone or use Google to locate a restaurant or Paypal to purchase something we bought on eBay? Check Wikipedia for quick background on a ...
How many of us check Facebook every day? Get tweets sent to our phone or use Google to locate a restaurant or Paypal to purchase something we bought on eBay? Check Wikipedia for quick background on a ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:56 AM on 01/20/2012
THIS IS AN AMAZING STORY. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NOT A TOP STORY. WHAT THE MEDIA IS DOING IS CRIMINAL WHILE OUR AMERICAN TROOPS ARE FIGHTING ON FOREIGN SOIL. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY RON PAUL GETS NO SUPPORT IN THE MEDIA. VERY SAD FOR OUR COUNTRY.
photo
lindarae
independent, just looking for truth and justice
11:36 AM on 01/18/2012
My understanding is that the main idea of this bill is to protect intellectual properties infringement but the implementation appears to open the door for censorship and impact freedom of speech rights. I am not happy about the fact that the government and/or corporations that "suspect" violations would have the power to remove, block or otherwise shut down sites without notification, hearings etc. Sounds draconian and I am happy that people are voicing non support-----sounds like officials are starting to listen too.
10:49 AM on 01/18/2012
The US's war on piracy is like the US's war on drugs... Both are a lot of talk and meaningless actions with no positive net result in the end. We need to take the little band aid off this deep festering wound, and go further into the problem, and fight the attitudes of entitlement and lack of respect that lead to these actions in the first place. Sooner or later if you take away the rights of law-abiding citizens, the only people that will have the content you are supposedly trying to protect are the criminals you are trying to take it all from.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:50 AM on 01/18/2012
People in Hollywood haven't figured out yet that the reason people don't go to the movies as much anymore is because people just don't like THEM. People like Alec Baldwin, Morgan Freeman and so on have tainted their careers with their politics. You would have to stick toothpicks in my eyes to ever watch a Morgan Freeman movie again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SayBlade
This micro bio intentionally left blank.
12:02 PM on 01/18/2012
Sure. Bill Clinton tainted his political career with his saxophone playing. George W. Bush did irreparable damage to his politics by playing guitar. Barack Obama ruined his politics by posing as a moody photo subject. None of them should ever have sought political office and stuck with their artistic endeavours. Ronald Reagan falls into that category too.

Do you have any hobbies, interests or things outside your work world that tug at your heart?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
summer261987
if only~~
02:52 AM on 01/18/2012
i know pipa & sopa's main purpose is to protect intellectual properties (let's face it, internet is the very reason singers and music industry are "struggling" now). i understand completely. i will not be happy if my creation is being copied without my permission. but if it's going to affect our freedom of speech in the internet, then many of us will not be happy. i think what's important is how this thing will be implemented, how they determine which one is copyright infringement and which isn't. it will pretty much decide the future of freedom in online community.
12:19 PM on 01/18/2012
Musician's and artist's have always struggled. As a content creator myself, I can tell you that most musician's have embraced the internet as a platform to reach larger audiences. The record labels, who hold the rights to the intellectual property they don't create (merely market) are the one's who are pushing for this legislation. It's a failure on the part industries to come up with new models of service delivery in the information age. Most artists make their money off of concert sales and merchandising.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Christine Brandel
11:39 PM on 01/17/2012
To me these laws are about opening the door to censorship. It's easy to forget the slippery slope. It's also easy to forget what we take for granted so that's why I'm blacking out my pages as part of the SOPA Strike.
KIampfbeobachter
Misanthropic economic and political shaman
07:31 PM on 01/17/2012
Censorship is exactly what this legislation is all about. This government with this president at the top feels increasingly endangered by the www. To be able to suppress unwanted information is all that this is about. The developments of the Arab spring have not gone unnoticed at the seats of govern-
ments around the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norma Ward
05:36 PM on 01/17/2012
Unfortunately, as shown here, the United States Trade Representative is attempting to foist America's entertainment industry's anti-piracy agenda on other nations:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/06/piracy-and-counterfeiting-us-trade.html

So much for sovereignty.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blackspeare
05:08 PM on 01/17/2012
Copyright for the so-called protection of intellectual property is indeed a dinosaur in these modern times. It has been much abused and has become a mechanism to enrich a few at the expense of many. In the past when it took substantial time to create, yes protection was needed, but today with computers and the Internet things can be created virtually within days. Writers, composers, etc make most of their money within the first year of their creation, there is no need to to give them years of protection. And don't get me started on "residuals and royalties" for here we have the most abused aspect of copyright. Actors, TV/screenwriters, networks have already made their money----why enrich them for, in essence, doing nothing? The most egregious abuse was and still is the late Merv Griffin, who in about 10 minutes composed the jingle for "Jeopardy"----and his estate still collects royalties. Even Merv, when he was alive, couldn't keep a straight face, when asked about this----by the way, the royalties are in the millions!