網絡抗議有力量

????本月18日，維基百科網站（Wikipedia）為了抗議美國參、眾兩院提出的反盜版立法而關閉網站服務一天。但當天下午（美國東部時間），我還是能夠瀏覽保存在谷歌（Google）緩存中的維基百科頁面。完成該操作輕而易舉。因此，維基百科此舉并未能完全有效地阻斷人們對其網站的訪問。但是，它確實有效地促進了人們對上述兩條法律的關注，同時激發了進一步的抗議活動。這才是重點。

????一周多之前，美國眾議院提出的《反網絡盜版法》（Stop Online Privacy Act，SOPA）和參議院提出的《保護知識產權法》（Protect IP Act，PIPA）開始并沒有引起廣泛的關注。到了18日，它們卻占據了傳統和社交媒體的頭條。事實上，這兩個法案本身并沒有發生任何重大的變化，一切只是因為它們引發的抗議活動。包括維基百科在內，一大批網站都在18日暫停了服務。

????可以想見，這場網絡抗議活動勢必會引發種種冷嘲熱諷和反擊行為?！啊斗淳W絡盜版法》的支持者們將無法訪問Moveon.org（自由組織網站——譯注），到時他們便會明白，他們等于是搬起石頭砸自己的腳?！薄稘L石》雜志（Rolling Stone）的時政記者蒂姆?狄更森在Twitter上寫道。他完全沒有領會這場抗議活動的要點，而且，不明就里的大有人在?？棺h活動并不是要懲罰這兩個法案的支持者，而是促使人們關注這兩條法律，深入了解它們的內容?！尽敦敻弧冯s志（Fortune）的母公司時代華納集團（Time Warner）也是上述法律的支持者?！?/p>

????每次發生在線抗議或啟蒙運動都會出現這種情況。無論何時，當某種思潮開始在Facebook等網站上傳播時，一定會在世界范圍內引發類似的運動。2010年，在一場提升反虐待兒童意識的運動中，人們紛紛把自己在社交網站上的檔案照片換成了他們最喜歡的卡通兒童形象。當時批評者眾口一詞地諷刺說：“毫無疑問，在Facebook上使用卡通照片，一定會終止虐待兒童的行為發生?！?/p>

????但是，事實上，沒人敢說一定會；同樣，今天也沒人敢斷言說眼下的網絡抗議活動就能阻止國會通過反網絡盜版法和保護知識產權法。（但是，鑒于人們18日的反應，抗議活動確實有可能改變這兩個法案命運的因素，因為現在關注這兩個法案具體內容的人已經越來越多。甚至連一些國會議員似乎也已經開始因此改變看法。）就算只有少數幾個人向反虐待兒童慈善組織捐款，或者通過這個活動加深了對這個問題的認識，那就說明Facebook當時的活動起到了作用。

????依托于互聯網的啟蒙運動之所以容易招致冷嘲熱諷，原因很可能正是在于它們依賴的平臺是互聯網。參與這類抗議活動的人只是靜靜地坐在電腦前，而非昂首挺胸走上街頭游行，因此整個活動的嚴肅性或多或少地打了些折扣。但是，如果出發點就是要喚醒人們的意識，那么，互聯網堪稱當今最強大的實用工具。歷盡千辛萬苦并不是目的，目的是要傳播信息。

????I just looked at a Google cache version of a Wikipedia page. It's easy to do that, so today's blackout of the online encyclopedia, in protest of proposed anti-piracy legislation, isn't totally effective in blocking access to the site. But it is effective in making people aware of the legislation and in spurring further protest, which is the whole point.

????A week ago, the House's proposed Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) and the Senate's proposed Protect IP Act (PIPA) were getting relatively light attention. Today, they're dominating both the traditional and social media. Nothing significant has happened with the legislation itself -- it's simply the blackouts. Wikipedia is just one of a many sites that have gone dark today.

????Predictably, the campaign has spurred cynical retorts. "SOPA supporters wont be able to access Moveon.org -- that'll show em," tweeted Rolling Stone political reporter Tim Dickinson. He is far from alone in missing the point entirely. The idea isn't to punish supporters of the bills; it's to inform people of what's in those bills by drawing attention to them. (Fortune's parent company, Time Warner, is a supporter of the legislation.)

????This happens whenever there are online protests or awareness campaigns. Would-be world-wise types are sure to weigh in whenever an awareness meme spreads on Facebook, for example. In 2010, people replaced their profile photos with images of their favorite cartoon kids in a child abuse awareness campaign. "Oh, sure," came the above-it-all responses, "posting cartoon pictures on Facebook will definitely end child abuse."

????But of course, nobody said it would, just like nobody is saying that today's blackouts by themselves will kill SOPA/PIPA (though, given the reaction today, it really could turn out to be the thing that turns the tide -- because now many, many more people know what's in the bills. And now it appears that some congressional minds are being changed.). If even just a handful of people donated to anti-child-abuse charities, or were simply made more aware of the problem, then the Facebook meme worked.

????It could be that Internet-based awareness movements draw criticism simply because they're Internet-based. Since the people taking part in them are sitting at their desks as opposed to marching in the streets, that somehow makes the whole thing seem less serious. But if the idea is to inform people, the Internet is the most powerful tool available. The point isn't to put oneself through as much hardship as possible -- the point is to spread information.