Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

自動翻譯
  • AARON SWARTZ: So, for me, it all started with a phone call. It was Septembernot last

    AARON SWARTZ:所以,對我來說,這一切都始於一個電話。那是九月,不是去年

  • year, but the year before that, September 2010. And I got a phone call from my friend

    年,但前年,2010年9月。我接到了一個電話 從我的朋友

  • Peter. "Aaron," he said, "there’s an amazing bill that you have to take a look at." "What

    "亞倫,"他說,"有一個驚人的法案,你必須看看.""什麼。

  • is it?" I said. "It’s called COICA, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeiting

    是嗎?"我說。"它被稱為COICA,打擊在線侵權和假冒。

  • Act." "But, Peter," I said, "I don’t care about copyright law. Maybe youre right.

    法.""但是,彼得,"我說,"我不關心版權法。也許你是對的。

  • Maybe Hollywood is right. But either way, what’s the big deal? I’m not going to

    也許好萊塢是對的。但無論如何,這有什麼大不了的?我不會

  • waste my life fighting over a little issue like copyright. Healthcare, financial reformthose

    浪費我的生命爭奪版權這樣的小問題。醫療保健,金融改革,這些

  • are the issues that I work on, not something obscure like copyright law." I could hear

    是我工作的問題,而不是像版權法這樣晦澀的東西."我可以聽到。

  • Peter grumbling in the background. "Look, I don’t have time to argue with you," he

    彼得在後臺抱怨著."聽著,我沒有時間和你爭論,"他。

  • said, "but it doesn’t matter for right now, because this isn’t a bill about copyright."

    說,"但現在並不重要,因為這不是一個關於版權的法案.&quot。

  • "It’s not?" "No," he said. "It’s a bill about the freedom to connect." Now I was listening.

    "不是嗎""不,"他說。 "這是一個關於自由連接的法案."現在我在聽。

  • Peter explained what youve all probably long since learned, that this bill would let

    彼得解釋說,你們可能早就知道了,這個法案會讓... ...

  • the government devise a list of websites that Americans weren’t allowed to visit. On the

    政府設計了一份美國人不允許訪問的網站清單。在

  • next day, I came up with lots of ways to try to explain this to people. I said it was a

    第二天,我想了很多辦法,試圖向人們解釋這件事。我說這是一個

  • great firewall of America. I said it was an Internet black list. I said it was online

    美國偉大的防火牆。我說這是互聯網黑名單。我說這是在線

  • censorship. But I think it’s worth taking a step back, putting aside all the rhetoric

    審查制度。但我認為值得後退一步, 拋開所有的言辭

  • and just thinking for a moment about how radical this bill really was. Sure, there are lots

    而只是想了一下,這個法案到底有多激進。當然,有很多

  • of times when the government makes rules about speech. If you slander a private figure, if

    的時代,當政府制定規則的言論。如果你誹謗一個私人人物,如果...

  • you buy a television ad that lies to people, if you have a wild party that plays booming

    你買了一個電視廣告,騙人的,如果你有一個瘋狂的聚會,播放轟轟烈烈的。

  • music all night, in all these cases, the government can come stop you. But this was something

    音樂整夜,在所有這些情況下, 政府可以來阻止你。但這是一些

  • radically different. It wasn’t the government went to people and asked them to take down

    徹底的不同。這不是政府去找人,並要求他們拿下。

  • particular material that was illegal; it shut down whole websites. Essentially, it stopped

    它關閉了整個網站。基本上,它停止了

  • Americans from communicating entirely with certain groups. There’s nothing really like

    美國人從完全與某些群體交流。沒有什麼比得上

  • it in U.S. law. If you play loud music all night, the government doesn’t slap you with

    它在美國的法律。如果你整晚都在放大音量的音樂,政府就不會給你一巴掌。

  • an order requiring you be mute for the next couple weeks. They don’t say nobody can

    命令要求你在接下來的幾周內保持沉默。他們沒有說任何人可以

  • make any more noise inside your house. There’s a specific complaint, which they ask you to

    使任何更多的噪音 在你的房子。有一個具體的投訴,他們問你,以

  • specifically remedy, and then your life goes on.

    專門補救,然後你的生活繼續。

  • The closest example I could find was a case where the government was at war with an adult

    我能找到的最接近的例子是,政府與成年人交戰的案例

  • bookstore. The place kept selling pornography; the government kept getting the porn declared

    書店。這個地方一直在賣色情物品;政府一直在讓色情物品被宣佈為

  • illegal. And then, frustrated, they decided to shut the whole bookstore down. But even

    違法的。然後,他們沮喪地決定關閉整個書店。但即使

  • that was eventually declared unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.

    最終被宣佈為違憲,違反了第一修正案。

  • So, you might say, surely COICA would get declared unconstitutional, as well. But I

    所以,你可能會說,COICA肯定也會被宣佈違憲。但是,我

  • knew that the Supreme Court had a blind spot around the First Amendment, more than anything

    知道最高法院有一個盲點 圍繞第一修正案,比什麼都重要。

  • else, more than slander or libel, more than pornography, more even than child pornography.

    別的不說,比誹謗和中傷更甚,比色情更甚,甚至比兒童色情更甚。

  • Their blind spot was copyright. When it came to copyright, it was like the part of the

    他們的盲點是版權。當涉及到版權時,它就像部分的。

  • justicesbrains shut off, and they just totally forgot about the First Amendment.

    大法官的大腦關閉, 他們只是完全忘記了 第一修正案。

  • You got the sense that, deep down, they didn’t even think the First Amendment applied when

    你得到的感覺是,在內心深處,他們甚至不認為第一修正案適用於當。

  • copyright was at issue, which means that if you did want to censor the Internet, if you

    版權是有問題的,這意味著,如果你確實想審查互聯網,如果你。

  • wanted to come up with some way that the government could shut down access to particular websites,

    想想出一些辦法,政府可以關閉對特定網站的訪問。

  • this bill might be the only way to do it. If it was about pornography, it probably would

    這個法案可能是唯一的辦法。如果它是關於色情的,它可能會。

  • get overturned by courts, just like the adult bookstore case. But if you claimed it was

    被法院推翻,就像成人書店案一樣。但如果你聲稱這是

  • about copyright, it might just sneak through.

    關於版權的問題,可能就會偷偷摸摸的過去。

  • And that was especially terrifying, because, as you know, because copyright is everywhere.

    而這是特別可怕的,因為,你知道,因為版權無處不在。

  • If you want to shut down WikiLeaks, it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that youre

    如果你想關閉維基解密,這是一個有點伸展,聲稱你是

  • doing it because they have too much pornography, but it’s not hard at all to claim that WikiLeaks

    做它,因為他們有太多的色情, 但它並不難在所有聲稱,維基解密

  • is violating copyright, because everything is copyrighted. This speech, you know, the

    是侵犯版權, 因為一切都有版權。這個演講,你知道,

  • thing I’m giving right now, these words are copyrighted. And it’s so easy to accidentally

    我現在給的東西,這些文字是有版權的。而且它是如此容易不小心

  • copy something, so easy, in fact, that the leading Republican supporter of COICA, Orrin

    複製的東西,如此簡單,事實上, 共和黨的主要支持者 COICA,奧林,

  • Hatch, had illegally copied a bunch of code into his own Senate website. So if even Orrin

    哈奇,曾非法複製了一堆代碼到自己的參議院網站。所以,如果連奧林

  • Hatch’s Senate website was found to be violating copyright law, what’s the chance that they

    哈奇的參議院網站被發現違反版權法,他們有什麼機會

  • wouldn’t find something they could pin on any of us?

    他們就不會找我們任何一個人的麻煩嗎?

  • There’s a battle going on right now, a battle to define everything that happens on the Internet

    現在有一場戰鬥正在進行,一場定義互聯網上發生的一切的戰鬥。

  • in terms of traditional things that the law understands. Is sharing a video on BitTorrent

    在法律所理解的傳統事物方面。在BitTorrent上分享視頻是否

  • like shoplifting from a movie store? Or is it like loaning a videotape to a friend? Is

    就像在電影店裡偷東西?還是像借錄像帶給朋友?是

  • reloading a webpage over and over again like a peaceful virtual sit-in or a violent smashing

    一次又一次地重載網頁,就像一次和平的虛擬靜坐或暴力的打砸。

  • of shop windows? Is the freedom to connect like freedom of speech or like the freedom

    的商店櫥窗?連接的自由是像言論自由,還是像 "自由"?

  • to murder?

    謀殺?

  • This bill would be a huge, potentially permanent, loss. If we lost the ability to communicate

    這個法案將是一個巨大的,可能是永久性的損失。如果我們失去了溝通的能力

  • with each other over the Internet, it would be a change to the Bill of Rights. The freedoms

    在互聯網上相互交流,這將是對《權利法案》的修改。自由

  • guaranteed in our Constitution, the freedoms our country had been built on, would be suddenly

    我們的憲法所保障的自由,我們的國家所建立的自由,將被突然間

  • deleted. New technology, instead of bringing us greater freedom, would have snuffed out

    刪除。新技術,不但沒有給我們帶來更大的自由,反而會扼殺了。

  • fundamental rights we had always taken for granted. And I realized that day, talking

    我們一直認為是理所當然的基本權利。我意識到,那天,說話

  • to Peter, that I couldn’t let that happen.

    彼得,我不能讓這種情況發生。

  • But it was going to happen. The bill, COICA, was introduced on September 20th, 2010, a

    但它是要發生的。該法案COICA於2010年9月20日提出,是一個。

  • Monday, and in the press release heralding the introduction of this bill, way at the

    週一,在預示著該法案出臺的新聞稿中,方式是

  • bottom, it was scheduled for a vote on September 23rd, just three days later. And while, of

    底,被安排在9月23日進行表決,僅僅三天後。而雖然

  • course, there had to be a voteyou can’t pass a bill without a votethe results of

    當然,必須有一個投票 - 你不能通過一個法案沒有投票 - 的結果。

  • that vote were already a foregone conclusion, because if you looked at the introduction

    因為如果你看了介紹,你就會發現,這個投票已經是一個必然的結果了。

  • of the law, it wasn’t just introduced by one rogue eccentric member of Congress; it

    它不僅僅是由一個無賴的偏心的國會議員提出的;它

  • was introduced by the chair of the Judiciary Committee and co-sponsored by nearly all the

    由司法委員會主席提出,幾乎所有的議員都是共同提案人。

  • other members, Republicans and Democrats. So, yes, there’d be a vote, but it wouldn’t

    其他成員,共和黨和民主黨。所以,是的,會有一個投票, 但它不會... ...

  • be much of a surprise, because nearly everyone who was voting had signed their name to the

    因為幾乎每一個投票的人都在他們的名字上籤了名。

  • bill before it was even introduced.

    法案還沒提出來,就有了。

  • Now, I can’t stress how unusual this is. This is emphatically not how Congress works.

    現在,我不能強調這有多不尋常。這顯然不是國會的工作方式。

  • I’m not talking about how Congress should work, the way you see on Schoolhouse Rock.

    我說的不是國會應該如何工作,就像你在 "校園搖滾 "上看到的那樣。

  • I mean, this is not the way Congress actually works. I mean, I think we all know Congress

    我的意思是,這不是國會實際工作的方式。我的意思是,我想我們都知道國會

  • is a dead zone of deadlock and dysfunction. There are months of debates and horse trading

    是一個僵局和功能失調的死區。有幾個月的辯論和馬匹交易

  • and hearings and stall tactics. I mean, you know, first youre supposed to announce

    和聽證會和拖延戰術。我的意思是,你知道,首先你應該宣佈

  • that youre going to hold hearings on a problem, and then days of experts talking

    你要就一個問題舉行聽證會,然後專家們談了好幾天。

  • about the issue, and then you propose a possible solution, you bring the experts back for their

    關於這個問題,然後你提出一個可能的解決方案,你把專家帶回他們的

  • thoughts on that, and then other members have different solutions, and they propose those,

    的想法,然後其他成員有不同的解決方案,他們提出這些。

  • and you spend of bunch of time debating, and there’s a bunch of trading, they get members

    你花了大量的時間辯論, 有一堆的交易,他們得到的成員

  • over to your cause. And finally, you spend hours talking one on one with the different

    在你的事業。最後,你花幾個小時的時間與不同的人一對一地交談

  • people in the debate, try and come back with some sort of compromise, which you hash out

    辯論中的人,試圖回來與某種妥協,你有了一些妥協,你有了一些妥協

  • in endless backroom meetings. And then, when that’s all done, you take that, and you

    在無休止的密室會議。然後,當這一切都完成了, 你把那個,你

  • go through it line by line in public to see if anyone has any objections or wants to make

    逐字逐句地公開,看看有沒有人反對,或者想提出......。

  • any changes. And then you have the vote. It’s a painful, arduous process. You don’t just

    任何變化。然後你要進行投票。這是一個痛苦的,艱辛的過程。你不只是

  • introduce a bill on Monday and then pass it unanimously a couple days later. That just

    週一提出法案,幾天後再一致通過。這只是

  • doesn’t happen in Congress.

    不發生在國會。

  • But this time, it was going to happen. And it wasn’t because there were no disagreements

    但這一次,是要發生的。而這並不是因為沒有異議

  • on the issue. There are always disagreements. Some senators thought the bill was much too

    在這個問題上。總是有不同意見。一些參議員認為該法案太

  • weak and needed to be stronger: As it was introduced, the bill only allowed the government

    脆弱,需要加強。該法案在提出時,只允許政府在其規定的範圍內

  • to shut down websites, and these senators, they wanted any company in the world to have

    關閉網站,而這些參議員, 他們希望世界上任何公司有

  • the power to get a website shut down. Other senators thought it was a drop too strong.

    的權力,讓一個網站被關閉。其他參議員則認為,這滴力度太大。

  • But somehow, in the kind of thing you never see in Washington, they had all managed to

    但不知何故,在華盛頓你從未見過的事情中,他們都成功地

  • put their personal differences aside to come together and support one bill they were persuaded

    把他們的個人分歧放在一邊,支持一個他們被說服的法案。

  • they could all live with: a bill that would censor the Internet. And when I saw this,

    他們都可以生活: 一個法案,將審查互聯網。而當我看到這個,

  • I realized: Whoever was behind this was good.

    我意識到。不管誰是幕後黑手,都是好人

  • Now, the typical way you make good things happen in Washington is you find a bunch of

    現在,你在華盛頓做善事的典型方式是你找到一幫...

  • wealthy companies who agree with you. Social Security didn’t get passed because some

    有錢的公司誰同意你。社會保障沒有被通過是因為一些

  • brave politicians decided their good conscience couldn’t possibly let old people die starving

    勇敢的政客們決定,他們的良心不可能讓老人餓死

  • in the streets. I mean, are you kidding me? Social Security got passed because John D.

    在街上。我的意思是,你在開玩笑吧?社會保障得到了通過,因為約翰D.

  • Rockefeller was sick of having to take money out of his profits to pay for his workers

    洛克菲勒厭倦了從他的利潤中拿出錢來支付他的工人們的費用。

  • pension funds. Why do that, when you can just let the government take money from the workers?

    養老基金。為什麼要這樣做,你可以直接讓政府從工人那裡拿錢?

  • Now, my point is not that Social Security is a bad thing—I think it’s fantastic.

    現在,我的觀點並不是說社會保障是一件壞事--我認為它非常棒。

  • It’s just that the way you get the government to do fantastic things is you find a big company

    只是你讓政府做奇妙的事情的方法是你找一個大公司

  • willing to back them. The problem is, of course, that big companies aren’t really huge fans

    願意支持他們。當然,問題是,大公司並不是真正的忠實粉絲

  • of civil liberties. You know, it’s not that theyre against them; it’s just there’s

    的公民自由。你知道,這並不是說他們反對他們, 只是有...

  • not much money in it.

    裡面沒有多少錢。

  • Now, if youve been reading the press, you probably didn’t hear this part of the story.

    現在,如果你一直在閱讀媒體,你可能沒有聽到這部分的故事。

  • As Hollywood has been telling it, the great, good copyright bill they were pushing was

    就像好萊塢一直在說的那樣,他們所推行的偉大的好的版權法案是

  • stopped by the evil Internet companies who make millions of dollars off of copyright

    被那些靠版權賺取數百萬美元的邪惡的互聯網公司所阻止。

  • infringement. But it justit really wasn’t true. I mean, I was in there, in the meetings

    侵權。但它只是... 它真的不是真的。我的意思是,我在那裡,在會議上

  • with the Internet companiesactually probably all here today. And, you know, if all their

    與互聯網公司 - 實際上可能都在這裡今天。而且,你知道,如果所有的

  • profits depended on copyright infringement, they would have put a lot more money into

    他們會把更多的錢投入到

  • changing copyright law. The fact is, the big Internet companies, they would do just fine

    改變版權法。事實上,大的互聯網公司,他們會做得很好。

  • if this bill passed. I mean, they wouldn’t be thrilled about it, but I doubt they would

    如果這個法案通過。我的意思是,他們不會感到興奮, 但我懷疑他們會。

  • even have a noticeable dip in their stock price. So they were against it, but they were

    甚至他們的股價出現了明顯的下滑。所以他們是反對的,但他們是

  • against it, like the rest of us, on grounds primarily of principle. And principle doesn’t

    像我們其他人一樣反對它,主要是基於原則的原因。而原則並不

  • have a lot of money in the budget to spend on lobbyists. So they were practical about

    有很多錢的預算花在遊說者身上。所以他們很實際

  • it. "Look," they said, "this bill is going to pass. In fact, it’s probably going to

    它。"看,"他們說,"這個法案會通過。事實上,它可能會

  • pass unanimously. As much as we try, this is not a train were going to be able to

    一致通過。雖然我們很努力,但這不是一列我們能夠做到的火車。

  • stop. So, were not going to support itwe couldn’t support it. But in opposition,

    停止。所以,我們不會支持它--我們不能支持它。但在反對。

  • let’s just try and make it better." So that was the strategy: lobby to make the bill better.

    讓我們只是試圖讓它變得更好."所以這就是策略:遊說讓法案變得更好。

  • They had lists of changes that would make the bill less obnoxious or less expensive

    他們列舉了一些可以使法案不那麼令人討厭或不那麼昂貴的改動。

  • for them, or whatever. But the fact remained at the end of the day, it was going to be

    對他們來說,或什麼。但事實仍然是,在一天結束時,它將是

  • a bill that was going to censor the Internet, and there was nothing we could do to stop

    一個法案,將審查互聯網, 我們沒有什麼可以做的,以阻止

  • it.

    它。

  • So I did what you always do when youre a little guy facing a terrible future with

    所以,我做了你經常做的事情,當你是一個小傢伙 面對一個可怕的未來,與

  • long odds and little hope of success: I started an online petition. I called all my friends,

    長的機率,成功的希望不大。我開始了網上請願。我打電話給我所有的朋友。

  • and we stayed up all night setting up a website for this new group, Demand Progress, with

    我們熬夜建立了一個網站 為這個新的團體,需求進步,與

  • an online petition opposing this noxious bill, and I sent it to a few friends. Now, I’ve

    網上請願書,反對這個有害的法案,我把它發給了幾個朋友。現在,我已經

  • done a few online petitions before. I’ve worked at some of the biggest groups in the

    以前做過幾次網上上訪。我在一些最大的集團工作過。

  • world that do online petitions. I’ve written a ton of them and read even more. But I’ve

    的世界,做網上請願。我寫了一大堆,看了更多。但我已經

  • never seen anything like this. Starting from literally nothing, we went to 10,000 signers,

    從來沒有見過這樣的事情。從什麼都沒有開始, 我們去到10,000個簽名者。

  • then 100,000 signers, and then 200,000 signers and 300,000 signers, in just a couple of weeks.

    然後是10萬個簽名者,然後是20萬個簽名者和30萬個簽名者,在短短几周內。

  • And it wasn’t just signing a name. We asked those people to call Congress, to call urgently.

    而且這不僅僅是籤個名而已。我們要求這些人給國會打電話,緊急打電話。

  • There was a vote coming up this week, in just a couple days, and we had to stop it. And

    本週將有一次投票,就在幾天後,我們必須阻止它。我們必須阻止它。

  • at the same time, we told the press about it, about this incredible online petition

    同時,我們告訴媒體關於它, 關於這個令人難以置信的網上請願,

  • that was taking off. And we met with the staff of members of Congress and pleaded with them

    正在起飛。我們會見了國會議員的工作人員,並懇請他們。

  • to withdraw their support for the bill. I mean, it was amazing. It was huge. The power

    撤回他們的支持 對於該法案。我的意思是,這是驚人的。這是巨大的。權力

  • of the Internet rose up in force against this bill. And then it passed unanimously.

    的互聯網起來反對這個法案。然後一致通過。

  • Now, to be fair, several of the members gave nice speeches before casting their vote, and

    現在,為了公平起見,幾位成員在投票前都作了很好的發言,而且。

  • in their speeches they said their office had been overwhelmed with comments about the First

    他們在發言中說,他們的辦公室已被有關第一委員會的評論所淹沒。

  • Amendment concerns behind this bill, comments that had them very worried, so worried, in

    這個法案背後的修正案的擔憂,這些意見讓他們非常擔心,非常擔心,在。

  • fact, they weren’t sure that they still supported the bill. But even though they didn’t

    事實上,他們並不確定自己是否還支持該法案。但即使他們不

  • support it, they were going to vote for it anyway, they said, because they needed to

    他們說,他們無論如何都會投贊成票的,因為他們需要。

  • keep the process moving, and they were sure any problems that were had with it could be

    進程,他們確信任何問題都可以得到解決。

  • fixed later. So, I’m going to ask you, does this sound like Washington, D.C., to you?

    稍後修復。所以,我想問你,這聽起來像華盛頓特區嗎?

  • Since when do members of Congress vote for things that they oppose just to keep the process

    從什麼時候開始,國會議員投票支持他們反對的東西,只是為了保持這個過程。

  • moving? I mean, whoever was behind this was good.

    搬家?我的意思是,不管是誰在背後都是好的。

  • And then, suddenly, the process stopped. Senator Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon, put a

    然後,突然間,這個過程停止了。來自俄勒岡州的民主黨參議員羅恩-懷登,把一個。

  • hold on the bill. Giving a speech in which he called it a nuclear bunker-buster bomb

    擱置該法案。在演講中,他稱這是一顆核掩體炸彈。

  • aimed at the Internet, he announced he would not allow it to pass without changes. And

    針對互聯網,他宣佈不會允許它在沒有改變的情況下通過。而且

  • as you may know, a single senator can’t actually stop a bill by themselves, but they

    你可能知道,一個參議員實際上不能阻止一個法案,但他們是

  • can delay it. By objecting to a bill, they can demand Congress spend a bunch of time

    可以拖延它。通過反對一項法案,他們可以要求國會花一堆時間

  • debating it before getting it passed. And Senator Wyden did. He bought us time—a lot

    辯論後才獲得通過。而Wyden參議員做到了。他為我們爭取了時間

  • of time, as it turned out. His delay held all the way through the end of that session

    事實證明,他的拖延一直持續到該屆會議結束。他的拖延一直持續到該屆會議結束。

  • of Congress, so that when the bill came back, it had to start all over again. And since

    國會的,所以當法案回來時,它不得不重新開始。而由於

  • they were starting all over again, they figured, why not give it a new name? And that’s when

    他們重新開始,他們想,為什麼不給它一個新的名字?就在這時

  • it began being called PIPA, and eventually SOPA.

    它開始被稱為PIPA,並最終SOPA。

  • So there was probably a year or two of delay there. And in retrospect, we used that time

    所以大概有一兩年的時間耽誤在那裡。現在回想起來,我們利用這段時間。

  • to lay the groundwork for what came later. But that’s not what it felt like at the

    為後來的事情打下基礎。但是,這不是它的感覺是什麼在

  • time. At the time, it felt like we were going around telling people that these bills were

    時候。當時,感覺我們到處去告訴人們,這些法案是

  • awful, and in return, they told us that they thought we were crazy. I mean, we were kids

    可怕的,而作為回報,他們告訴我們 他們認為我們是瘋了。我的意思是,我們是孩子

  • wandering around waving our arms about how the government was going to censor the Internet.

    晃來晃去揮舞著我們的手臂 關於政府如何去審查互聯網。

  • It does sound a little crazy. You can ask Larry tomorrow. I was constantly telling him

    這聽起來確實有點瘋狂。你可以明天問拉里。我一直在告訴他

  • what was going on, trying to get him involved, and I’m pretty sure he just thought I was

    這是怎麼回事,試圖讓他參與, 我敢肯定,他只是認為我是...

  • exaggerating. Even I began to doubt myself. It was a rough period. But when the bill came

    誇大其詞。甚至我開始懷疑自己。那是一段艱難的時期。但是,當賬單來的時候

  • back and started moving again, suddenly all the work we had done started coming together.

    回來後又開始行動,突然間,我們所做的一切工作都開始了。

  • All the folks we talked to about it suddenly began getting really involved and getting

    所有和我們聊過的人都突然開始真正的參與進來,並得到了

  • others involved. Everything started snowballing. It happened so fast.

    其他人参與。一切都開始滾雪球。事情發生得太快了

  • I remember there was one week where I was having dinner with a friend in the technology

    記得有一個星期,我和一個朋友吃飯,在技術的

  • industry, and he asked what I worked on, and I told him about this bill. And he said, "Wow!

    行業,他問我在做什麼,我告訴他這個法案。他說,"哇!

  • You need to tell people about that." And I just groaned. And then, just a few weeks later,

    你需要告訴人們這件事."我只是呻吟。然後,就在幾個星期後。

  • I remember I was chatting with this cute girl on the subway, and she wasn’t in technology

    我記得我在地鐵上和這個可愛的女孩哈拉,她不是搞技術的

  • at all, but when she heard that I was, she turned to me very seriously and said, "You

    但當她聽到我是時,她轉過身來很嚴肅地對我說,"You

  • know, we have to stop 'SOAP.'" So, progress, right?

    知道,我們必須停止'SOAP.'"所以,進步,對嗎?

  • But, you know, I think that story illustrates what happened during those couple weeks, because

    但是,你知道,我認為這個故事說明了在那幾個星期裡發生了什麼,因為... ...

  • the reason we won wasn’t because I was working on it or Reddit was working on it or Google

    我們贏的原因並不是因為我在努力,或者Reddit在努力,或者谷歌。

  • was working on it or Tumblr or any other particular person. It was because there was this enormous

    是工作在它或Tumblr或任何其他特定的人。這是因為有這個巨大的

  • mental shift in our industry. Everyone was thinking of ways they could help, often really

    我們行業的心理轉變。每個人都在想辦法幫忙,往往真的是

  • clever, ingenious ways. People made videos. They made infographics. They started PACs.

    聰明、巧妙的方式。人們製作了視頻。他們製作了資訊圖表。他們開始了PACs。

  • They designed ads. They bought billboards. They wrote news stories. They held meetings.

    他們設計了廣告。他們買了廣告牌。他們寫新聞報道。他們舉行會議。

  • Everybody saw it as their responsibility to help. I remember at one point during this

    每個人都把幫忙當作自己的責任。我記得在這期間有一次

  • period I held a meeting with a bunch of startups in New York, trying to encourage everyone

    期間,我在紐約和一幫創業公司開了個會,想鼓勵一下大家

  • to get involved, and I felt a bit like I was hosting one of these Clinton Global Initiative

    我覺得自己有點像在主持克林頓全球倡議的活動一樣。

  • meetings, where I got to turn to every startup in theevery startup founder in the room

    會議,在那裡,我得到了轉向每一個創業者在 - 每一個創業者在房間裡的創始人。

  • and be like, "What are you going to do? And what are you going to do?" And everyone was

    並像,"你要做什麼?And what are you going to do?" And everyone was

  • trying to one-up each other.

    試圖單挑對方。

  • If there was one day the shift crystallized, I think it was the day of the hearings on

    如果說有一天,這種轉變具體化了,我想是在聽證會那天,關於

  • SOPA in the House, the day we got that phrase, "It’s no longer OK not to understand how

    SOPA在眾議院,那天我們得到了這句話,"不理解如何是不行的了。

  • the Internet works." There was just something about watching those clueless members of Congress

    互聯網的工作原理."只是有一些關於看那些無知的國會議員的東西

  • debate the bill, watching them insist they could regulate the Internet and a bunch of

    辯論的法案,看著他們堅持可以監管互聯網和一群

  • nerds couldn’t possibly stop them. They really brought it home for people that this

    書呆子不可能阻止他們。他們真的把它帶回家的人,這

  • was happening, that Congress was going to break the Internet, and it just didn’t care.

    正在發生,國會要打破互聯網,它只是不在乎。

  • I remember when this moment first hit me. I was at an event, and I was talking, and

    我還記得這一刻第一次擊中我的時候。我當時在一個活動中,我在說話,然後... ...

  • I got introduced to a U.S. senator, one of the strongest proponents of the original COICA

    我被介紹給了一位美國參議員,他是最初的COICA最有力的支持者之一。

  • bill, in fact. And I asked him why, despite being such a progressive, despite giving a

    法案,事實上。我問他,為什麼,儘管他是一個進步的人,儘管他給了一個。

  • speech in favor of civil liberties, why he was supporting a bill that would censor the

    支持公民自由的言論,為什麼他支持一項法案,將審查《世界人權宣言》。

  • Internet. And, you know, that typical politician smile he had suddenly faded from his face,

    互聯網上。而且,你知道,他那種典型的政客笑容突然從臉上消失了。

  • and his eyes started burning this fiery red. And he started shouting at me, said, "Those

    他的眼睛開始燃燒這個火紅色。他開始對我大喊大叫,說,"那些人。

  • people on the Internet, they think they can get away with anything! They think they can

    在互聯網上的人,他們認為他們可以得到任何東西!他們認為他們可以逃脫。他們認為他們可以

  • just put anything up there, and there’s nothing we can do to stop them! They put up

    只要把任何東西放上去,我們就沒有辦法阻止他們!他們把

  • everything! They put up our nuclear missiles, and they just laugh at us! Well, were going

    一切!他們架起我們的核導彈,卻嘲笑我們!好吧,我們要

  • to show them! There’s got to be laws on the Internet! It’s got to be under control!"

    給他們看!網絡上一定要有法律!一定要控制住!"。一定要控制住!&quot。

  • Now, as far as I know, nobody has ever put up the U.S.'s nuclear missiles on the Internet.

    現在,據我所知,從來沒有人把美國'的核導彈放在互聯網上。

  • I mean, it's not something I’ve heard about. But that’s sort of the point. He wasn’t

    我的意思是,它'不是我聽說過的東西。但這就是問題的關鍵所在。他不是...

  • having a rational concern, right? It was this irrational fear that things were out of control.

    有一個理性的關注,對不對?這是這種非理性的恐懼,事情已經失去控制。

  • Here was this man, a United States senator, and those people on the Internet, they were

    這裡有一個人,一個美國參議員, 和那些人在互聯網上,他們是誰?