Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whitehouse.gov petition to veto SOPA

wwws.whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Whitehouse.gov petition to veto SOPA

#71

Post by jtheory »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #56
slamdunc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got it as well, in FF. Most of the time, these things get a one-strike-and-adios policy for me, but on this it seems important enough to try again later...

I just tried in Chrome and Firefox. Finally tried IE. Guess what? It worked. Sigh.

I saw the 404 the second time I tried to sign in. The first time worked -- seemingly -- but returning to the petition page gave me this riddle:

http://imgur.com/Flzuk

Notice the bar on the bottom showing I'm signed in. And the prompt to sign in before I can vote.

Can't seem to get past that no matter what I try. I'll try IE, I guess.

Re: Whitehouse.gov petition to veto SOPA

#72

Post by lkx »

danssig wrote: post #69
lkx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Congress can be bought, why not expose the people doing the buying, and their lobbyists, and exert pressure on them instead of writing or calling Congressmen who don't care?

Because the bribery is done completely in the open and legally. You get campaign contributions or a cushy contractor position worth millions to you personally. It's not illegal so "exposing" the companies engaging in this behavior won't have much effect on them.

Not the companies. Their corporate officers. A few pickets outside a (morally) corrupt CEOs home, or his country club might make him more careful about future business decisions. As it stands corporations are a useful shield for the sometimes reprehensible actions of the human beings who run them.

Re: Whitehouse.gov petition to veto SOPA

#73

Post by v21 »

daeken wrote: post #60
nostromo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polis is actually "one of us" -- he made a good amount of money doing startups. He opposes SOPA. In this case, call him up and send him some love for doing the right thing. He's a pretty awesome guy -- check him out here entering the lyrics to "The Internet is for Porn" from Avenue Q into the congressional record: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owyNvlVJ1qE

While that's quite funny, it bothers me that he seems to be arguing for SOPA to effectively not cover porn. Why is it that the intellectual property rights of pornographers should not be protected? Why are their rights not as important as the rights of others?

> It was a brilliant tactical maneuver. First, it delayed discussions while members of the august Judiciary committee wrangled with how to handle this unusual conversational detour. Second, it put SOPA-supporting chairman Lamar Smith, a conservative Republican whose district is largely Texas Hill Country, on the defensive by appearing to show him siding with the intellectual-property rights of people who create triple-X movies.

> Third--and this may have been the point of the entire exercise--it gave Polis an excuse to insert the full lyrics of the popular Internet meme "The Internet is for Porn" into the official congressional hearing record for SOPA. (Representative excerpt: "All these guys unzip their flies / For porn, porn, porn!")

> Because the amendment goes further than obscenity and encompasses "pornography," it could have imperiled the remainder of SOPA. U.S. courts have ruled that pornography is not a legal term of art and is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. > Polis' amendment, in other words, could doom SOPA on constitutional grounds: which "R" rated movies would be pornographic? How about Maxim? Explicit rap lyrics? More to the point, which MPAA and RIAA member companies might have to worry about their products being deemed "pornographic?"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57344507-281/internet-is-f...

Re: Whitehouse.gov petition to veto SOPA

#74

Post by andyNL »

slamdunc wrote: post #13
msluyter wrote: post #7

I created an account in order to sign this, but when I try to sign in I get a 404 -- using Chrome. Anyone else get that?

I got it as well, in FF. Most of the time, these things get a one-strike-and-adios policy for me, but on this it seems important enough to try again later...

If you are using Firefox, then install the "User Agent Switcher" add-on and switch to "Internet Explorer 8". Ta-da! You will now be able to see the site.

F^(#!~& server-side browser filtering... >:-(

Re: Whitehouse.gov petition to veto SOPA

#75

Post by TheCapn »

I like the tactic the petition used by even if they took the time to treat it seriously this is the only 2 outcomes...

1) The petition gets removed for containing infringing content

or worse...

2) The government moves towards removing imgur.com because it is doing the hosting of the infringing content

I know, I know its absurd, but who really believes that that link can bring down whitehouse.gov?

Re: Whitehouse.gov petition to veto SOPA

#77

Post by orthecreedence »

dpeck wrote: post #24
orthecreedence wrote: post #10

Every time I've voted on a whitehouse.gov petition, I've gotten an email 6 months later saying why the petition will be completely ignored, answering none of the points the petition brought up. The petition system is an ineffectual smokescreen.

Seems quite effective to me if it keeps the signers from taking any additional action for 6 months. Its likely doing exactly what those setting it intended.

Lack of communication and inaction are two very different things though. In the case of SOPA, they would pass the bill next week, then email petition singers 6 months after the fact on how anti-American the petition is. The petition in this hypothetical situation didn't delay anything, but prompted a communication at a later date.

Re: Whitehouse.gov petition to veto SOPA

#78

Post by grecy »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #57
iamdave wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What joke? Four, well reasoned and exceptionally well written petitions have gone up to this very website and the administration responded with insultingly dismissive answers that did not, end the end, address anything.

The "joke" is that the petition links to copyright-infringement hosted on imgur. Under SOPA, whitehouse.gov would be taken down because someone posted this petition :)

While I agree it's a good "joke", it's unfortunately about as useless as pointing out that people who stole billions and caused a global financial crisis are walking free while people caught stealing a TV are serving years in prison.

Unfortunately, just like every other law, SOPA will only be applied when some high power decides is should be. (and in the case of whitehouse.gov, it never will be)

Re: Whitehouse.gov petition to veto SOPA

#79

Post by rhizome »

ericd wrote: post #43
rhizome wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fascination is with poisoning the well. A lot of people have the interest and energy to do exactly one thing politically, and in this age of OWS and global uprising it's in the interests of the status quo to eliminate the effect of this low-hanging fruit. The people who create and post internet petitions are evil and/or stupid, without exception.

So you're saying that some online petitions are actually meant to diffuse dissent about the thing they're petitioning? That would be a stroke of evil genius if it's true. Doesn't strike me as being the case so much as their being driven by naive idealism, but in the case of the whitehouse one, it's at least conceivable. In the long run, it's probably just going to demonstrate to a lot of people that online petitions…

All internet petitions are simply polls with identifiable voters, making their marks on a non-binding ballot. That petitions are portrayed as effective political acts causes people with only one political act in their schedule to waste their effort.

Re: Whitehouse.gov petition to veto SOPA

#80

Post by rhizome »

mkramlich wrote: post #62
wdewind wrote: post #6

I was on a conference call w/ Zoe Lofgren (CA congress woman who is on the Judiciary fighting the hell out of this bill) and a bunch of NYC tech companies last weekend and she said petitions are essentially ignored, and instead to make phone calls to your reps and directly into the capital. This isn't to say don't sign this, but if you are really concerned, the absolute bottom line is phone calls. Anything you can do…

I understand the present day practical reason why she thinks that phone calls matter more, I really do, however phone calls are a time inefficient way of accomplishing that result. There are just so many things people could be doing with their lives, including communicating opinion about other political issues, that we should allow all of them to be done as efficiently as possible. An online petition is more efficien…

Effectiveness is inversely proportional to efficiency. Phone calls matter more because Congresspeople only have so much time, too, you know? Did you think that anybody ever reads all eight zillion emails sent in about the legality of selling horse meat?
Post reply on HN