101–110 of 294 posts
It would also show that there's a technologically advanced audience here that has great concerns of the anti-Internet attempts.
I wanted to vote no, because it seems so Pyrrhic, maybe a little gimmicky: "See, we shut down a site you don't use!" But if you're asking people to make a sacrifice you're not willing to make yourself, you're a bad leader, period. I'm not saying HN is the bastion of the tech world. But if we're upvoting the Reddit shutdown (at least I did), and we can't turn around and do it ourselves, well, we're not made of very to…
p.s. Pyrrhic is not the right word, maybe futile
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Show, don't tell . For most viewers, just showing a notice explaining SOPA will be too abstract. Shutting down your site or service, while putting up a notice, has a higher chance of bringing the point home.
I think you got it backwards. Just displaying a notice is "telling." Actually shutting down is "showing" by doing.
pg, if you're going to blackout, could you try advocating Internet Freedom alongside going dark against the SOPA as a way to show HN wishing to have Internet Freedom to do business? It would also show that there's a technologically advanced audience here that has great concerns of the anti-Internet attempts.
It might still have an effect that sites, small or not, are all affected, so the long tail so to speak can have its own effect.
Something similar was brought up at reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/obl5l/ask_rsopa_is_the....
1) The more sites decide to shut down on the 18th, the easier it becomes for major websites like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to join. It also increases the chances that this is going to be covered by the mainstream media. 2) Perhaps a blackout will give some HNers the final push (and time) to make some phone calls to their representatives. 3) It can serve as a demonstration of what the web will be like if SOPA kick…
FWIW, I think if Google, Twitter, and/or Facebook joined, they'd just put up custom messages (maybe with a link?) to an anti-SOPA page. Of course, the question is, how do they define their political neutrality after this?
I wanted to vote no, because it seems so Pyrrhic, maybe a little gimmicky: "See, we shut down a site you don't use!" But if you're asking people to make a sacrifice you're not willing to make yourself, you're a bad leader, period. I'm not saying HN is the bastion of the tech world. But if we're upvoting the Reddit shutdown (at least I did), and we can't turn around and do it ourselves, well, we're not made of very to…
Blacking out sites ahead of that only helps illustrate to people the harm the law will do.
I wanted to vote no, because it seems so Pyrrhic, maybe a little gimmicky: "See, we shut down a site you don't use!" But if you're asking people to make a sacrifice you're not willing to make yourself, you're a bad leader, period. I'm not saying HN is the bastion of the tech world. But if we're upvoting the Reddit shutdown (at least I did), and we can't turn around and do it ourselves, well, we're not made of very to…
Pragmatically speaking, maybe YC could come up with a statement threatening to move businesses outside the US to circumvent some of the provisions of the law. Shutting down HN - i doubt any congressman is in here to notice. In any case i could use a daily detoxification, so yes. p.s. Pyrrhic is not the right word, maybe futile
Edit: Blah, I couldn't find any sources to back up my earlier statement. It's just how I've often used the phrase. My bad, I stand corrected.