Maddox is a polemicist. He actively enjoys and cultivates such a persona and to what end? It seems to me his goal is to play devil's advocate as a kind of link bait. What I've seen of his work is pointedly provocative in an intentionally non-PC way. However I don't feel that simply being clever, and holding points of view that are seemingly diametrically opposed to the mainstream, is actually an effective way to effect change.
For instance, in this particular article, Maddox claims that we need a "spark to light the lazy tinder". There is here an implicated false dichotomy where either some draconian legislation passes, e.g. SOPA, and everyone "wakes up" or no other efforts will prove progressive. I don't buy it. In fact, I don't buy any argument that makes the claim that due to the current state of political economy we are unable to see the kinds of changes we want without total and complete revolution. I feel it's absurd to dismiss efforts such as yesterday's which net results that include some 13 new senators opposing the bills.
He is being very blunt, but what he is saying rings true because none of this is a long-term solution. These are baby steps and soon enough it will lose this momentum and get passed someway. People could boycott and hurt companies with what matter the most, but most people do not seem to be willing to do this because it inconvenience them. I can see how NDAA got passed, but when it comes to the internet, you would think that most of these sites would be boycotting. If this can't spark boycotts than I have no idea what will.
His point was "opposing the bills today." We'll have to do the same song and dance again in the very near future because the ignorance behind SOPA/PIPA isn't going away. So yes, we won the battle, but not the war, so to speak.
The solution to that isn't to not fight now in hopes that more people join later in outrage. It is to use current success to push the debate onto the opponents' turf. Counter the lobbying to (over)extend copyright protection schemes with lobbying to reduce them (more narrowly tailor them), which easily reads as increasing individual freedom and the scope of the public domain. Push back.
For instance, in this particular article, Maddox claims that we need a "spark to light the lazy tinder". There is here an implicated false dichotomy where either some draconian legislation passes, e.g. SOPA, and everyone "wakes up" or no other efforts will prove progressive. I don't buy it. In fact, I don't buy any argument that makes the claim that due to the current state of political economy we are unable to see the kinds of changes we want without total and complete revolution. I feel it's absurd to dismiss efforts such as yesterday's which net results that include some 13 new senators opposing the bills.