SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

Post by sp332 » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 4:16 PM UTC

thebigshane wrote: post #9

I've read the bill at least twice now and I still don't see the doomsday scenario described many times here on HN. I get the slippery-slope argument, that SOPA is just one step closer to true censorship and control over the internet, but I don't think that is enough to get so upset about (its a very small step, with obvious workarounds) Somebody please point out to me: 1) Where it says that Youtube, Facebook, Google…

Post by tomelders » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 4:31 PM UTC

cellis wrote: post #10

tomelders wrote: post #3

Freedom of the press... to do whatever the fuck they want. I propose they lose that freedom and instead we burden them with the "Responsibility of the press". That should grant them the same privileges and protection, but also makes them accountable when they pull crap like this.

I propose you should be downvoted for promoting the same type of authoritarianism that you claim to hate. Instead of trying to enforce some highly subjective rule, why not just start your own new disruptive news services?

Post by thebigshane » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 4:44 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #11

thebigshane wrote: post #9

I've read the bill at least twice now and I still don't see the doomsday scenario described many times here on HN. I get the slippery-slope argument, that SOPA is just one step closer to true censorship and control over the internet, but I don't think that is enough to get so upset about (its a very small step, with obvious workarounds) Somebody please point out to me: 1) Where it says that Youtube, Facebook, Google…

SOPA doesn't require sites to monitor their users. The complaints I've heard: 1. It requires sites to be removed from DNS if a copyright complaint is made against them. Specifically, the removal avoids due process. The copyright holder doesn't need a court order to have the offending site taken down. 2. Sites are held responsible for content their users upload. So e.g. Mediafire would be taken down because of content…

Post by cellis » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 4:45 PM UTC

tomelders wrote: post #13

cellis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I propose you should be downvoted for promoting the same type of authoritarianism that you claim to hate. Instead of trying to enforce some highly subjective rule, why not just start your own new disruptive news services?

I propose you think before you type and stop looking for things that aren't there. You're the tyrant here.

Post by thebigshane » Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 4:53 PM UTC

saucetenuto wrote: post #12

thebigshane wrote: post #9

I've read the bill at least twice now and I still don't see the doomsday scenario described many times here on HN. I get the slippery-slope argument, that SOPA is just one step closer to true censorship and control over the internet, but I don't think that is enough to get so upset about (its a very small step, with obvious workarounds) Somebody please point out to me: 1) Where it says that Youtube, Facebook, Google…

I can't speak to your points 2 or 3, but section 103 (which governs ad and payment processors) applies to domestic sites as well. If I've understood correctly, Youtube couldn't be blocked, but could be forbidden to host advertisements - which would kill it just as surely.

   U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for 
   the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other 
   than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting 
   in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods 
   or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or 
   facilitates, a violation of [...some existing laws...]

   the site is primarily designed or 
   operated for the purpose of, has only lim-
   ited purpose or use other than, or is mar-
   keted by its operator or another acting in 
   concert with that operator primarily for 
   use in, offering goods or services in viola-
   tion of— [...some existing laws...]