Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

torrentfreak.com

81–90 of 161 posts

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#81

I have a great idea: Let's give these people more power!! You know, for like, Net Neutrality and stuff.

That was my first reaction, too. What could possibly go wrong?!

While I can't definitively say the free market is more intelligent than the USG, at least its actions aren't backed up by force.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#82
post #8

It's amazing that these operations and bills are intentionally wrapped in wording that makes them politically untouchable. I can see why lawmakers wouldn't want to investigate this. Who wants to be the congressman/woman that went against Operation Save our children ?

How about a better question: Why is this allowed in the united states? This is an absofuckingloutely clear violation of the due process in our constitution. Yes save the fucking children, but do it properly. We see the abuses that arise from improper giving of power. I guess people are waiting until basically we live in communist russia where you got to bribe cops to not give you speeding ticket, impound your car, an…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#83

Am I right in assuming that even if a domain name is seized, the IP address will still work? If this is true, couldn't there just be a hosted index of all IP's and their associated domain names so that people could get to these sites by referencing this information? Hell, it could even be a browser plugin, so that if you type the domain name in and it happens to have been seized, it will be redirected to the proper I…

doesn't matter if nobody uses it.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#84
post #35
post #8

It's amazing that these operations and bills are intentionally wrapped in wording that makes them politically untouchable. I can see why lawmakers wouldn't want to investigate this. Who wants to be the congressman/woman that went against Operation Save our children ?

or the PATRIOT Act ...

Thanks everybody for the upvotes!

For the latest on the PATRIOT Act, please see http://bit.ly/feb16news

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#86
post #8

It's amazing that these operations and bills are intentionally wrapped in wording that makes them politically untouchable. I can see why lawmakers wouldn't want to investigate this. Who wants to be the congressman/woman that went against Operation Save our children ?

Those kind of names are like linkbait titles on HN. :)

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#87
post #59
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should just stop giving them names to avoid this sort of emotional attachment.

Even in the absence of an official title a bill will be given an equally glittering nickname by the opposition.

Fine with me - everything gets spin-friendly nicknames in the media, it's just apalling when that's allowed to be absorbed into the system itself.

What really bothers me is that the lines separating media, commerce, and legislation have been blurred beyond recognition - candidates are rarely measured on any sort of substantive metric, but on fundraising numbers and media presence.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#88
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my understanding, there are no 'banned books' in the US, but rather ones that are blacklisted by library, teaching and bookstore groups making them difficult to come by. I'm personally unaware of any book that the US Government has banned, although I'm always willing to be wrong :)

hmm… you appear to be right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-commonly_challenge... That brings me to my second question: why don't we have a similar process for websites?

Because banning books invokes Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, but banning websites doesn't. In short, because they think they can get away with it for websites.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#89
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much - recently, a member of the army (or something such) wrote a book with some very sensitive details that caught the government off guard. The government's reaction? Buying all first-edition copies of the book.

Great business model, come to think of it.

It's rather like people who buy a book just so they can burn it. If I'm the publisher, that's my cue to reprint as fast as possible.

Re: U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book Bridge to Terabithia (of which a 2007 film was adapted) was at number 8 on the ALA's list of frequently challenged books because: "The censorship attempts stem from death being a part of the plot; Jess' frequent use of the word "lord" outside of prayer; concerns that the book promotes secular humanism, New Age religion, occultism, and Satanism; and for use of offensive language." Maybe it's better we don't h…

Fair point, but the merits of the book banning system: are that it appears to be relatively difficult to implement or enforce, and that it's restricted to localities instead of a whole country.

The only way to have a publication legally banned in the United States is to have it declared legally obscene. Obscenity is a local consideration and it's practically impossible to get something banned universally. The only way publications are kept out are complaints to vendors and/or the willful adoption of mandatory rating systems, which generally have a rating that is equivalent to a commercial blackout (see "AO" from the ESRB or "NC-17" from MPAA; material so rated is not generally available because most "respectable" vendors refuse to stock it).

IANAL.

Post reply on HN