121–130 of 202 posts
Can't they just do a "fake" blackout -- every user's first visit of the day gets blacked out, but with a link to re-enable Wikipedia? I mean, get awareness out, but then still let us read the articles (even with white-on-black text, maybe?)
The train has been stopped, but it's still on track. Time to push it into the other direction and maybe even let it derail spectaculously. But there is more needed than raising awareness with this blackout. This awareness should be exploited (in a good way) appropriately. - We as those that do understand the issue have the responsibility to explain the problem to the majority. I still find it very difficult to effect…
I agree. We need to be the first one to inform people about this legislation and the threat it poses to the internet. We shouldn't waste this opportunity to do so, or they will restart the legislation and sneak it in somewhere whenever we let our guard down. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." --Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4,1777
I'm tired of these acronyms, it got confusing today. Are politicians just trying to smuggle it through under a different name at this point? I can't think of a name from recent events with more negative connotations than SOPA, which seems to be why it was abandoned. Are these anti-SOPA messages worth the cost of downtime at this point?
We still need to inform people about the issue and it's better if we're the first people to inform them. Because we know they'll try again later, we need to remain vigilant and prepare for next time. It's much too early to relax. That's exactly what they want us to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If SOPA passes, Wikipedia could be taken offline forever . Is that really a preferable situation? Also, if you're that scared, you've been given fair warning. Download a copy for your archives, so you can keep using Wikipedia while it's offline.
No, if SOPA passes and Wikipedia is targeted, Wikipedia can move to another country . It's just the people in the USA who won't be able to access it (like people in other countries with national firewalls)
What's to protest? SOPA is pretty benign now. This just in: The DNS will not be affected. Lamar Smith took it out. And even before, two weeks ago, I posted that only foreign websites which would be prosecuted under US law would possibly be affected by this. So maybe bit.ly and the other URL shorteners would be affected, but that's not a big deal. Before you throw a knee-jerk downvote on this, ask yourself ... are you…
"only foreign websites which would be prosecuted under US law would possibly be affected by this" "not a big deal." Says you. That is a pretty big fucking deal. EDIT: I've read your submission. Your argument seems to be "ICE already does this, so we might as well let SOPA legitimize it" . I hope you can see why most sensible people would find this logic dissatisfying.
If you say yes, then you are really just against intellectual property protection of any kind, and believe that copyright should be abolished. Because by definition whatever protection the government afford copyright holders, someone can set up an offshore website with an offshore registrar and simply invite US citizens to get everything for free. And they can make money off ads, too :)
Or better yet, what about trademark infringement? What about counterfeit goods being sold from offshore websites? Should they stay up and do whatever they want, putting "Rolex" on their fake watches?
Basically,
a) Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality. When they strive for neutrality and balance on much more sensitive issues, taking a stance on one particular issue affecting one particular country, you violate that.
b) Wikipedia runs on the kindness of strangers, some of whom could potentially be supporting SOPA. It is egregious to spend a month asking for donations on every page and then turn around and deny some of them service.
Fundamentally, it is not the job of an open and free repository of human knowledge to take political stances, however harmful and important the topic might be. To those making the point that this threatens the entirety of the internet, that is true. However
- The point of being neutral is that you don't get to choose what you're neutral about.
- Should Wikipedia shutdown hypothetically over nuclear arms (as an example) - something that could potentially destroy all of humanity? Where do you need to be on the destructiveness scale for Wikipedia to take a stance?
I'm not doing as good a job of summarizing this as Paul Carr does - do read his piece.
To me, the real lesson from SOPA and PIPA is that the tech industry needs to spend a lot more money bribing (oh, excuse me, lobbying) senators and representatives to counter all the money flowing from the entertainment industry. Also, it's an embarrassment that BOTH of California's senators not only support PIPA, they are listed at co-sponsors.
They're both Hollywood's senators, not Silicon Valley's.
I'm against SOPA as much as the next person here on HN but I disagree with shutting down Wikipedia. Paul Carr wrote a piece today that argues this case well -> see http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-wikip... Basically, a) Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality. When they strive for neutrality and balance on much more sensitive issues, taking a stance on one particular issue affecting one particu…
I'm against SOPA as much as the next person here on HN but I disagree with shutting down Wikipedia. Paul Carr wrote a piece today that argues this case well -> see http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-wikip... Basically, a) Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality. When they strive for neutrality and balance on much more sensitive issues, taking a stance on one particular issue affecting one particu…
You can't be neutral on a moving train - Howard Zinn