[Meta] No LessWrong Blackout?

This is correct: for Wikipedia it was life or death, which is the only reason several hundred Wikipedia editors actually voted 85-90% in favour of it. (Which is remarkable. If you said "the sky is blue" to a group of Wikipedia editors, they would immediately produce a hundred pages of referenced counterexamples. Each with a little blue number after it.)

You made the points I wished to better than I would have.

Another difference between LW and somewhere like reddit or wikipedia is they both have a large ratio of 'lurkers' to contributors, so there is a large number of users finding out about SOPA/PIPA for the first time today. Whereas my impression of lesswrong is that far more of the content is viewed by the same people who contribute content, so there isn't a silent mass of people who aren't aware of whats going on, as discussion isn't taking place in a less obvious subreddit or moderators section.

Don't mail paper letters to your representatives. Mail delivery to political elites in the US has been a nightmare ever since the anthrax attacks. Type and hand-sign a letter and fax it to your representatives if you want it to be read when it still matters.

Thanks for putting your effort where your mouth is!

You don't necessarily lose status by admitting that you do things that people only do to prove how high status they are.

Interestingly, this seems to only apply in rationalist communities. While I think it's a good norm for encouraging truth-seeking, it seems bad for winning to let each-other off the hook too easily.

To play Least Convenient Possible World:

What if Congress were considering the "Exterminate Less Wrong Act of 2012"? What kind of anti-ELWA speech or activism would you consider inappropriate here?

It does worry me that Wikipedia quite definitely reduced its perceived impartiality. It basically had one shot. This sort of thing needs to be rare.

OTOH, in public perceptions: when Wikipedia says you suck - you really, really suck.

not participating signals being apolitical; though participating would raise our status in some communities, it also reduces our perceived impartiality

Like with Wikipedia, the legislation threatens the viability/legality of LW in the US (and this would likely affect every LWer, even us non-US readers). Also, although not being protested, the RWA threatens a significant portion of open science, which could be far, far worse than just removing a website here or there (EDIT, however, this doesn't directly affect the existence of LW, so I feel the need for LW as an institution to protest is smaller).

So these laws are not necessarily something LW should maintain an apolitical stance.

Upvoted for mindkiller link :-)

I'm not really sure that creating a "perception of impartiality" is a community goal. It certainly isn't what I care about. Mostly I think its just that there is a lot of value to the kinds of conversations that are possible here, and I think that talking about "normal" politics would do more damage to those conversations compared to the specific value that it would generate. And its not even that we don't talk a lot about politics here, its just that we're more likely to talk about them in a very abstract way...

I really appreciate articles about how to calculate the total expected value of a political action that coherently respects issues of self-reflective agency on all parties. My suspicion is that we'll get less of the really good stuff if we talk about run of the mill political topics, and I think that would be sad. If this makes me "look impartial" so be it, but I don't feel impartial and don't particularly want to give that impression. Personally, I feel (and for that matter would not mind appearing) as though I'm simply partial to sanity and clear thinking because it is so rare and so useful, and I'm willing to accept certain costs or constraints to protect what I'm partial to.

while producing no real benefit

Out of curiosity, how many Congress-critters would have to recant before you would concede 'real benefit'?

Wikipedia is not completely blacked out. From their "learn more" page:

Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?

Yes. During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by disabling JavaScript in your browser, as explained on this Technical FAQ page. Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message.

(Admittedly, many people will not notice this.)

The Wikipedia blackout has been the single most effective protest against SOPA.

We got a front page headline in the UK. Admittedly only in Metro, which is complete rubbish ... but is read by every bored commuter in the country.