>What I mean is that I don't go screaming "the internet is doomed" for months before the actual vote like I've seen many forums posts and articles claim.

The only reason this didn't pass is because people screamed at the tops of their lungs.

Yeah, the way I see it if the system only works because there was a bunch of hyperbolic alarmism to balance out the awful impulse of industry-aligned legislators, the system wasn't actually working that well. It may be functioning, but the fact that this battle will get harder and harder to fight every time it happens (which could be eternal) means that's not really something that works well.

Right, this result doesn't mean the system works, it means that the big red EMERGENCY STOP button works, as long as everyone screams loud enough.

We'll see if the system itself works if the next time the industry makes a push for stupid legislation like this and the politicians push back because they know their constituents don't want it from the last time. How confident are you that this will happen?

Yes but the internet was not doomed as we now see. I could have been but it was not at the point in time (presents form vs conditional form).

I have no issues with warning people what can happen.

The internet escaped the impending doom because it didn't pass. It didn't pass because people acted. And People acted because of the numerous alarms about the impending doom.

Yes, that's not what I am arguing and I think it might be a distinction that is different from my mother tongue and English.

I've seen people arguing that "the internet is doomed" as if there is nothing one can do about it and the event that doomed it has already happened. I've even seen headlines of that form on HN. It is the same is if someone had written "the coral reef is doomed", then I would think that someone had dropped a nuclear bomb on it and that the event already happened.

As I said, I'm not against warning people what _can_ happen but I don't go around saying it already has happened. If it has happened then there is no action one can take (i.e., the dooms day scenario has already happened). That's what I wanted to convey in my first post really.

In any case it's very much a topic derailment in this case and I apologise for that.

Dude, people understand that "this copyright law has doomed the internet" means "if you stop this or undo it, it won't be a reason for the internet's doom". Fortunately, human interpretation is fluid enough that they understand this.

Just like if I say "damn it! I left the stove on! My house will burn down" the driver will say "oh shit! Let's go back" not "Since you have guaranteed that the house is going to burn down at this point I am not going to act. By a strict interpretation of your words, there is nothing that can be done. Let us continue onward to the cinema"

Seriously, man. Come on. This isn't a language thing.

I completely agree with you, however: My own native tongue actually has bigger strictness than English (since as a Slavic language with Germanic influence it has many grammatical features that are not a part of common English), so I can see where the GP us coming from. There indeed were newspapers that claimed that the Internet is already doomed and they can't do anything at all. Sadly in my country, fear mongering is the leading newspaper marketing strategy, so this is not uncommon, and some people have learned to take them with a huge grain of salt. The problem lies in the word "some" - I share the country with millions of people that believe them literally, and it can be clearly seen in our national voting results.

So my last reply on this and the nesting is not going further, as it is really very off topic. But your first example sentence is in past tense and implies that the law already has passed (at least that is my interpretation) and the second example sentence is in future tense, not present tense.

But it might also be a cultural difference and not language difference I don't know.

It doesn't really matter if the law is already passed. Undoing a law is harder than preventing a law, but not by all that much.

Transparency in politics has actually been shown to help rather than hinder lobbyists:

http://www.congressionalresearch.org/TransparencyProblem.htm...

But they can still have lunch with members of the general public (including lobbyists) in secret and make secret arrangement then present another argument for their motives in public.

If it was impossible to contact a politician in secret the amount of legal (you get a nice consultant position after the political career) and illegal bribes would hopefully go down.

This does not stop a politician from doing something in the hopes that it will be rewarded later without prior contact though.

Also to add, this is a pipe dream, something that the current crop of politicians would never accept as it would reduce them to merely being a spokesperson for the people they represent.

"If it was impossible to contact a politician"

this is why we should be voting on ideas and not on politicians. my opinions don't accept bribes for their new garage doors...

As I understand the research, it's specifically public voting records that give lobbyists a lot more power over members of congress (donations can be made conditional on certain votes, and lobbyists can verify that they are getting what they are paying for).

Interesting, but maybe lobbyists aren't 100% in it to get their putative goals. Maybe, just like managers, they get a lot of enjoyment out of manipulation and exercise of power.

That would certainly explain a lot.

I think it’s very dangerous to tell people not to go around claiming the internet is doomed.

People doing that appears to have been the very thing that built the consensus to stop the legislation.

Not to put words in anyone mouth, but I believe that what people like (my projections of) tyfon find irritating is when alarmism come without understanding.

For example people believing it had already passed or grossly misinterpreting the effects.

Of course a big part of the alarmism was thanks to memes, so it is understandable that using them as a medium left out some information...