To some, January 18th -- the day the Internet came together in protest of SOPA and PIPA -- was seen as a day of important democratic action. To others, like the RIAA's CEO Cary Sherman, it was seen as a great failure of the democratic system. An act of "demagoguery" rather than "democracy." That was the gist, and the wording, of a controversial op-ed Sherman wrote for The New York Times in early February, entitled What Wikipedia Won't Tell You. In it, he claimed that Wikipedia and Google tricked the greater Internet public into believing that SOPA and PIPA were bad. Here's a quote: Talk about a "self-serving political declaration." To me, that sounds a lot like Mr. Sherman isn't a big fan of informing the public. Better to let everyone believe that opposing SOPA is the equivalent of supporting foreign criminals. That's why when Andrew Keen, author (and friend of Internet Evolution), posted a tweet the other day requesting questions to ask Sherman on his radio show, I suggested: "Do you really consider an informed democratic public to be a bad thing (as you seemed to in your NYT op-ed)?" You can take a look at Sherman answering my question and others on Keen's show below (note the grimace that crosses face as he's being asked). But here are a couple of notable points: - "Readers online" accepted misinformation being spread by Google and Wikipedia about SOPA and PIPA based on the assumption "if it comes from these sources, it must be true." - Members of Congress were "very frustrated that they couldn't get out their side of the story." (Aww.) - Those on the Internet have to hold themselves to the "same high standards" as newspapers and broadcast journalists do in the offline world, "with clarity and integrity." More... After analyzing all the evidence and reading through all the facts, it is my unbiased journalistic opinion that Cary Sherman can go fuck himself.