I was disappointed when Time magazine named "the Protester" person of the year for 2011. A blackout of major web services would amount to little more than a stunt. Sure, the mainstream media will run the story for the first day...but for how long will these services remain willfully unavailable? Who will cave in first and go back online without resolution?
It seems to me that the popularity of activism and protesting do little to affect change, whereas more commonly yes than no they simply represent an inconvenience to everyone else who can't be bothered with another struggle/burden in their lives. There must be more mature and effective means of defeating SOPA than having a group of web services throwing a temper tantrum.
“It seems to me that the popularity of activism and protesting do little to affect change…”
What makes you think that? Most major shifts begin with activism and protests. These are the ways that the populace makes their voice heard in large masses, much like lobbying is typically the way corporations have theirs heard. Sometimes protests go unheeded, and sometimes this leads to revolutions. Other times, the protesters disband without having achieved anything. The protester was named person of the year for 2011 because of the clear effects that protesters did have in 2011—from the Middle East to Europe. The true effects have even been felt here, in the form of the Tea Party, though that was before 2011. Occupy has had less success in achieving concrete change, but plenty of success in achieving shifts in the media narrative.
Moreover, what is immature about this? A temper tantrum? What makes you call this a temper tantrum? Temper tantrums are, by definition, uncontrolled. This is an extremely controlled and planned response. This is law we're talking about. A law that threatens these businesses, and, through them, their customers. But most of their customers have no idea this law is even in the works, or don't really get how it could affect them. What better way is there of telling them the effect beyond... Well... Telling them?
In a functioning representative democracy, there can be no more effective means to defeating a law than informing the public and getting the public to contact their representatives and inform them that there is a problem en masse. This is a means to achieve that.
It's about awareness, there are many many people that aren't educated on SOPA that use these services. If a service like FB or Google does something that interrupts your routine, makes you notice something you might not have understood completely, then something's been accomplished. That's thousands more people that might not have contacted their representatives, that after a 'stunt' like a blackout, may very well make that call or at least send an email.
As for the time article, I don't know how you could be disappointed. It's global. It's Tunisia, it's Egypt, yes even some of the Occupy moments, and others too around the world. Protest, dissent, the idea that you can make a showing and try to make a difference, is important.
Protests work quite well when they have:
1) A clear call to some action
2) That most voters already support, or would if they though about it a bit.
In general protests do decrease popular support for their cause a bit if the protests are disruptive, but they can make up for it by making an issue the focus of wider debate. In authoritarian countries they also let people in the majority figure out that they are in the majority, which is very important when you're trying to figure out if you want to commit to helping to overthrow a regime.
It seems to me that the popularity of activism and protesting do little to affect change, whereas more commonly yes than no they simply represent an inconvenience to everyone else who can't be bothered with another struggle/burden in their lives. There must be more mature and effective means of defeating SOPA than having a group of web services throwing a temper tantrum.