Homework students and general trivia buffs the world over were greeted with a blacked-out Wikipedia screen this week; the protest by the online encyclopaedia was a reaction to the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) bills currently going through the United States Congress. 

Opponents to the bill were trying to raise awareness that if it passed, the Internet as we know it would be drastically curtailed. Of these, Wikipedia was by far the highest-profile website to protest and its action gained press coverage the world over. The reason is of course that Wikipedia is one of the most-visited websites on the Internet; no matter what the topic you are searching for (no doubt using Google, probably the most-visited site) a Wikipedia page relating to that topic will very likely appear high in the search results. 

That ranking comes from the authority Wikipedia has gained over the decade or so that it has grown, it is the first point of call for most of us when looking up a given subject. Wikipedia argues that the SOPA bill, although intended to combat online piracy such as illegal file-sharing (a battle that has raged almost since the Internet became generally available), would have consequences that are further-reaching than merely stopping the ability to access copyrighted content illegally.

One of the original proposals was to compel Internet service providers (ISPs) to block their own users from accessing sites that were deemed to be in breach of copyright; this was revised after it was pointed out that the very structure of the Web would be compromised if that happened (effectively, all the Web is, is a lot of computers connected together). However the bill still would require ISPs, as well as advertisers and sites such as PayPal to cease trading with anyone who is alleged to have breached copyright. In addition, search engines would be compelled to remove from their search results any sites that are accused of copyright infringement.

That would seriously impact on Google as well as other search engines; Google has attained its present dominant position because it was so much more effective at giving relevant results than any other search engine, when it first came on the scene in the late 1990s. Google would have to alter radically its own algorithms and if that includes inserting artificial means to filter out what authorities deem is unsuitable, the trust factor of Google's search results is forever lost. 

Wikipedia claims that its own integrity would be compromised also; the ethos of the site is that it is both accessible and editable by anyone. The site's integrity is maintained by a team of administrators whose job it is to ensure that entries are factual and neutral. This team works on a voluntary basis and were the SOPA bill in place now, the site would either have to hand its adminstration over to a team authorised by the United States government, or be blocked altogether. Once again, trust would be sacrificed. 

The protest by the online encyclopaedia was effective in so far as it made everybody aware that the Web as we know it is under threat, and lawmakers in the United States are now making noises about backtracking on some of the proposals. Ironically, the blackout itself was actually quite simple to circumvent (one way was to use cached pages from Google), which, if nothing else, illustrates the drawback of rushing through laws without sufficient understanding of the technology. Content can be and is cached on many more servers than those which are shut down by authorities, so the logical conclusion would be that access to the Internet itself would ultimately be restricted only to those 'authorised' to use it by the powers that be. 

For those of us who use the Internet for marketing, this is something we must all be aware of. Internet marketers themselves are more interested in getting the word out there about whatever business niche they are promoting, but if the tools to make that possible are placed out of reach by a draconian bill which has consequences far beyond its stated purpose, the way for people to take back control of their own lives is in danger of being taken away from us.

For that reason, it is the responsibility of all of us to oppose this bill - although they are backtracking, the danger remains that measures will come into effect while attention is diverted elsewhere, when it is not so newsworthy.  

If you use Google, YouTube, Facebook or any other social media site to promote your business, this affects you. 

A link is provided here for those who wish to register their disapproval.