Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[The Peeps]

The blackouts are a protest, not terrorism. You can't just say oh it fits the definition and then make exceptions like remove 'violent' from it. That just means it doesn't fit the definition.

 

The only part that fits is that they're trying to coerce people to their way of thinking - like all protests try to do.

 

I agree with the blackout because a lot of people on the internet will ignore anything they're not interested in. It's only when they're physically prevented from doing something that they actually take notice.

 

It's only for 24 hours and notice was given. It's just an opportunity for these sites to educate people and show them how serious this Bill is.

 

If you call these blackouts terrorism then you have to label every peaceful protest a form of terrorism.

[Serebii]

Are you seriously throwing a tantrum about not being able to access blacked-out sites? They're trying to impact people and spread awareness about SOPA/PIPA. Not terrorising people with lack of content.

I'm not throwing a tantrum. I'm saying that cutting off access to visitors isn't a good thing.

[EddieColeslaw]

I'm not throwing a tantrum. I'm saying that cutting off access to visitors isn't a good thing.

 

Now you're being a hypocrite - it's their site and their content, they can do whatever they want with it. What SOPA will do is take that right away from them by blacking sites out permanently instead of for 24 hours with an awareness notice on the front page.

[heroicjanitor]

Changing their site so that people see a different page is not terrorism, and it is not a threat. It's their site and they can have what they like. It's the equivalent of an ad.

[Serebii]

You have all exaggerated my statement :/

[The Peeps]

Well you called it terrorism and put up a definition of terrorism and claimed it abides to that definition.

 

And it doesn't :p

 

So which part of that was exaggerated?

 

I know you're against SOPA and you have a vested interest in this but you were wrong when you called the blackout terrorism. I accept that you don't like the blackouts and you have good reason not to - perhaps there are better ways to go about it. But it's not terrorism.

Edited January 18, 2012 by The Peeps

[Supergrunch]

If anyone's really bothered about seeing Wikipedia articles, the easiest fix is just to add ?banner=none to the end of the URL.

[Zell]

Seeing my facebook feed has made me realise how much some students rely on Wikipedia for essays and such, yet it's ironic how most of them do their work in their university's library.

 

Having said that, I used Wiki a fair bit since it's pretty darn good for Maths, but it was far from being my only source of info on the web.

[EddieColeslaw]

Seeing my facebook feed has made me realise how much some students rely on Wikipedia for essays and such, yet it's ironic how most of them do their work in their university's library.

 

Having said that, I used Wiki a fair bit since it's pretty darn good for Maths, but it was far from being my only source of info on the web.

 

Looking things up online is faster than thumbing through a book without Ctrl + F, I guess At least, for non-Arts material.

 

Didn't you use Wolfram MathWorld?

[heroicjanitor]

Looking things up online is faster than thumbing through a book without Ctrl + F, I guess At least, for non-Arts material.

 

Didn't you use Wolfram MathWorld?

 

The maths on wikipedia pages is usually done in pictures, so no ctrl-f :p

 

Wikipedia was great for maths though, it's usually done in a much better way than my notes. Mathematical/theoretical physics is all about spending ages looking at your notes trying to figure out how to apply it to your assignments though, before hopping on board the good ship wikipedia :p Wikipedia was a lot of the time more relevant than my notes for some reason.

[Zell]

Looking things up online is faster than thumbing through a book without Ctrl + F, I guess At least, for non-Arts material.

 

Didn't you use Wolfram MathWorld?

 

Yeah, that and PlanetMath. I learnt mostly from my notes, but would use the internet for finding obscure proofs and for understanding anything that wasn't explained thoroughly in the notes.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

A couple of SOPA/PIPA-related funnies:

 

 

[Serebii]

Seems it's working though. Several backers of SOPA and PIPA have withdrawn their support

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/sopa-blackout-sopa-and-pipa-lose-three-co-sponsors-in-congress.html

[The Peeps]

Good explanation of what the bill is setting out to do:

 

[Iun]

 

If you call these blackouts terrorism then you have to label every peaceful protest a form of terrorism.

 

It's a deal.

 

Actually no, my objection to this, and my reason for supporting Serebii in his assertions is that the content providers are using a disruption of service to strike fear into the general public and enact political change.

 

While I support the opposition to the Bill, taking services away from people and saing "would you like to live in a world like this, hmmm?" is, in my book, terrorism. Admittedly, my book only has about seven pages and is mostly pictures of ducks drawn in crayon, but still.

 

I feel the same way aout a lot of labour unions as well. By all means, have your gruntle removed, but don't make other people's lives difficult because that is what someone else has done to you.

[The Peeps]

Well I wouldn't say they're doing it to strike fear into people but I guess it comes down to how anyone interprets their actions.

 

Websites aren't strictly a service though... at least there's no obligation for websites like wikipedia to stay up just for the general public of internet users. If they want to take down their own website, we don't have a right to stop them because we want to use their service.

[Iun]

Websites aren't strictly a service though... at least there's no obligation for websites like wikipedia to stay up just for the general public of internet users. If they want to take down their own website, we don't have a right to stop them because we want to use their service.

 

As someone who donates to and edits Wikipedia, I'd object to that, and I'd consider that I do have a right to stop them.

[EddieColeslaw]

As someone who donates to and edits Wikipedia, I'd object to that, and I'd consider that I do have a right to stop them.

 

But is there a contract/anything in their terms and conditions promising that they cannot deny their services if you donate and/or contribute to it?

 

(I'm not saying there is or isn't, I don't know.)

[Iun]

But is there a contract/anything in their terms and conditions promising that they cannot deny their services if you donate and/or contribute to it?

 

(I'm not saying there is or isn't, I don't know.)

 

Hey, I just click "Paypal" and "5GBP" every now and then. I don't recall such a contract, mind you, I don't pay much attention to anything these days.

 

I suppose you could say that when teachers, nurses and Firefighters strike, the taxpayer doesn't get a rebate either, but we can oppose their action on that basis anyway.

[The Peeps]

It's an awkward situation but you still made a voluntary donation which is essentially giving someone money for nothing. I might be wrong but there's no contractual obligation to offer anything in return if you're given a donation? Obviously you trust that service to do only certain things with that money but it's still your choice to give them cash.

 

You're just adding content to their webspace. They own it all and it's theirs to do with as they please. Mostly talking out of my arse here so feel free to let me know if I'm wrong with any facts or whatever.

 

I can see how users would be annoyed but how annoyed would you be if they were taken down for good by this bill?

 

In a moral sense I'd say they're completely dependant on their users and you absolutely have a right to stop them taking their website down... unfortunately that's not how it works.

[Iun]

It's an awkward situation but you still made a voluntary donation which is essentially giving someone money for nothing. I might be wrong but there's no contractual obligation to offer anything in return if you're given a donation? Obviously you trust that service to do only certain things with that money but it's still your choice to give them cash.

 

You're just adding content to their webspace. They own it all and it's theirs to do with as they please. Mostly talking out of my arse here so feel free to let me know if I'm wrong with any facts or whatever.

 

I can see how users would be annoyed but how annoyed would you be if they were taken down for good by this bill?

 

In a moral sense I'd say they're completely dependant on their users and you absolutely have a right to stop them taking their website down... unfortunately that's not how it works.

 

That's a lucid argument and I can get behind it. The fact is, they have done this once, will they do it again? And why stop at 24 hours? They got what they wanted, and that empowers them. Empowered people begin to get the idea that they are right and everyone who opposes them is wrong.

[Rummy]

I think getting hung up on definitions of terrorism and whether this is or is not that, is hugely missing the much larger and more important point about the implications of the acts.

 

Regarding whether I agree with wikipedia(and many others') actions...well. Hmm. It's only a day, I survived before without it, and I like that something so huge has the power to do this. Regarding whether it's right considering some contribute, well, didn't they state this was consulted/voted on by its users and not just the decisions of the people who run it? I don't know, though.

 

If people can strike and protest IRL though, I see no reason why wiki and other such forces shouldn't be able to do the same. I kinda like that they have, actually.

 

 

Real question is whether it actually changes anything in the end, though.

[Wesley]

You have all exaggerated my statement :/

 

I'm pretty sure that you claimed to have evidence that Wikipedia has WMDs that could be launched within 45 minutes.

[dwarf]

If anyone's really bothered about seeing Wikipedia articles, the easiest fix is just to add ?banner=none to the end of the URL.

 

/press escape as you load a page, or turn off JavaScript.

[Iun]

 

 

 

 

Real question is whether it actually changes anything in the end, though.

 

Salient right there.

 

This was something unlikely to ever really pass in its original form.