On a quick glance, I assumed there was a page error.
Their page works if you take the time to read it, but I assume most non technical users will open the page, see the page error, assume the page is down for technical reasons, and go about the rest of their day.
Hi, I'm the guy who made this page. We've been talking about SOPA for weeks, and announced that we were blacking out several days ago. I think that our readership is on top of that, but I might be persuaded to amend the message... I thought it was fairly clear.
What about "503: Service Intentionally Unavailable"?
Edit: Actually, I don't want to change it. I don't think our readers will read three words and skip the explanation. I think much more highly of them than that.
The thing is, people are trained to skip error pages. What do you think would happen if you format it as parked domain page? It's not the users you'd perhaps think lowly of that have the most trained impulse to close error pages; it's the more technical users.
Let's be clear that among the blackout messages, yours is unequivocally the best. Specifically, it is concise and effective in a way that neither Wikipedia nor Google's messages are.
That said, I do agree that it would be more effective sans-503 error.
I like it. I think it works for Boing Boing. It would be problematic at a general news site. I'd assume most BB readers are regular readers. And they probably lean 'geek.' In that context, it works.
I changed the headline, as well as included a personal story. Under PIPA/SOPA, there's a high probability my site would've been blacklisted a few months ago due to user-uploaded content, even though I created 99.9% of the information on the site.
I love that they are doing this, BUT the big header "503: Service Unavailable" is what is first read and in my experience, most users will just stop in their tracks and return later (assuming the site is having technical issues) without reading the rest.
We made some deliberate decisions to try to make it look as little as possible like a real error code. I think most people will realize that it's not an actual technical issue, nothing else on our site looks like this and we've given them plenty of warning through posts.