161–170 of 202 posts
I do understand the 'late to the party, hard to miss' factor, but the opposite could have spurred more action from other sites.
Hoping for a quicker response 'next time', but still damn good on you!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the party may still suffer long-term consequences Two party system, long term is only long enough for the other side to screw up, so 4 or 8 years tops.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic about it and I'll tell you why. In democracy the mass-media has traditionally played the role of a fourth branch of government. However in recent times the traditional mass-media companies ended-up too controlled, either by owners that are also in politics, by legislation, or by the sheer pressure of catering to shareholders. But if you think about it, the social changes that the Internet…
"I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."
As Clay Shirky observed, the response was "swift, voluminous, negative and incredulous."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/...
Within 24 Hours, Vanity Fair turned Brisbane from an object of outrage into one of sheer mockery.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/01/Should-emVani...
But the most damning remarks came from readers themselves. The comments on Brisbane's post, and the one from Executive Editor Jill Abramson that followed, were absolutely incandescent.
So yes, the total implosion of the 4th Estate is coming into the open. And that's a very new development. That other big difference is that 10,000 calls to a Senator's office is a lot. So what happens if they ALL get 1,000,000? It's an absolutely off-the-charts response. You know there's opposition. You expect a few grenades to be tossed. Instead, a thermonuclear bomb detonates.
It's entirely possible that the response to Wikipedia's move will be the single largest driver of negative traffic in the history of Washington DC. It's the kind of searing experience that tells previously complacent politicians that, suddenly, they've got a major electoral issue. And not just on this one bill, but on literally everything they do.
I agree with folks who say this cannot end with the derailment of SOPA/PIPA. It has to continue until the flow of campaign cash from lobbyists ends, and the revolving door is welded shut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because even if the law is something US-specific, its effects (should it pass) are not.
Nonsense. There are loads of bad US laws (e.g. terrible employment rights, terrible anti-discrimination rights) that the rest of the world, or EU don't copy and aren't affected by. The affects of SOPA passing would probably be a benefit to many countries, since more companies & jobs would come to their juristiction (some countries in EU do this with more favourable corporate tax laws, or look at Switzerland and Cayma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the party may still suffer long-term consequences Two party system, long term is only long enough for the other side to screw up, so 4 or 8 years tops.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic about it and I'll tell you why. In democracy the mass-media has traditionally played the role of a fourth branch of government. However in recent times the traditional mass-media companies ended-up too controlled, either by owners that are also in politics, by legislation, or by the sheer pressure of catering to shareholders. But if you think about it, the social changes that the Internet…
eWeek stated, "The language of SOPA is so broad, the rules so unconnected to the reality of Internet technology and the penalties so disconnected from the alleged crimes that this bill could effectively kill e-commerce or even normal Internet use. The bill also has grave implications for existing U.S., foreign and international laws and is sure to spend decades in court challenges."
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?)
It's just one day . Are you really that reliant on Wikipedia that you can't go a single day without using it? It seems to me a lot of the people against the blackout don't have any long-term reasons why it might be bad, only discomfort.
With the English site black out, this will affect the world far more than just America.
As a matter of fact this is probably something that we should study and be prepared for.
How do the other data/encyclopedia sites fare during the black out? Is there a real effect, how long does it last?
What is the impact on non US visitors? Shouldn't the black ideally focus on people from the States?
Heck actually, this will probably offend a lot of people who aren't in the states - Indian sites can easily spin this as cultural propaganda (for example).
The more I think about it, the more the point raised higher up in this thread (regarding neutrality) starts bothering me.
A complete black out of the English Wikipedia is (hopefully) a once in a life time event. Considering the diversity of people who come to the site and the different cultural baggage everyone brings, this action will have far more repurcussions than just SOPA/PIPA.
While time zonal differences should mitigate this effect, the blackout should not affect visitors from countries where SOPA makes little difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
@jimmy_wales : English only, but protest action is global for English.
Thanks, so en.wiki will be gone for the whole world. Not sure how I feel about that as there is nothing non-US citizens can do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The USA still is the most influential country in the world, and this fight is international, just as the web is international." As a US citizen, I didn't want to be the one to say this (in response to e.g. https://twitter.com/#!/foxhuntingx/statuses/1589645062094274... ) because it might sound arrogant, but seriously, Herr Duerksen is correct: People in Australia, UK, and other non-US places affected by the en.wikip…
Often when other countries take the US's lead it's for an advantage, or by force (see Bush-Blair and the recent Spanish thing). I'd be interested to know what the international pressure people are doing now or after Sopa is abandoned, if they still try to get other countries to do something similar.