Wikipedia Blackout

[Mathew]

Wikipedia will be staging a blackout at 5:00 UTC tomorrow in protest of proposed SOPA and PIPA legislation. Read more here:http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout

Think it will make any difference?

[xxMATTGxx]

Reddit, Mojang (Creators of Minecraft) and some other sites are also taking part in the blackout. Both need to be stopped and controlling the internet this way is not the way to go and it was never intended to be!

[Neversoft]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MY KNOWLEDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

[GommeInc]

I didn't realise this whole SOPA business was that big a deal :S I thought they got the message when GoDaddy started protesting - you only really hear of the protests rather than anything from the Government about it, and their response to these protests. Hopefully it will make a difference, it's a ridiculous piece of legislation that goes against what the internet was for. It's only for a day, so I think I can live without Wikipedia. Anyone who can't probably needs the time away from the computer anyway.

[xxMATTGxx]

I didn't realise this whole SOPA business was that big a deal :S I thought they got the message when GoDaddy started protesting - you only really hear of the protests rather than anything from the Government about it, and their response to these protests. Hopefully it will make a difference, it's a ridiculous piece of legislation that goes against what the internet was for. It's only for a day, so I think I can live without Wikipedia. Anyone who can't probably needs the time away from the computer anyway.

GoDaddy protesting? They were agreeing with SOPA before everyone started moving their domains over to companies like namecheap who was taking advantage of it. Then now GoDaddy "no longer" supports it.

[Ajthedragon]

Now how will I do my homework. :(

[geo]

Now how will I do my homework. :(

This! Oh god, I better crack on before they do it, aha. I really does do all my homework. :(

[wixard]

NOOOOOO

i have my hardest lecture on wednesdays and he asks us ridiculously hard questions and gives us 3 minutes to come up with answers in groups so what everyone naturally does is wikipedia the **** out of a term he uses and regurgitates it back and it NEVER FAILS

now it will be revealed that we're all clueless

[Nemo]

SOPA's been pretty much shelved (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/putting_sopa_on_a_shelf034765.php) now so the main focus is in getting rid of PIPA. I very much doubt either of these will go through no matter what though. People simply won't put up with it.

[Jordy]

I think Wikipedia is definitely helping the cause even if the legislation is in tatters anyway, a major website like this going down will bring enormous media attention (And let's face it, all journalists use is Wikipedia and Twitter so they're ****** without it).

[Succubus]

Oh dear, sounds bad!
At leastmy homework is gone.

[Chris]

Well if it helps stop them then wikipedia and these other sites being shut down for a day is good. I dont think anything will be passed anyway tbh.

[MotorStefan95]

I don't agree with this SOPA stuff. The US government were criticizing China for censoring the internet search results. They are doing basically the same thing. Thank you Wikipedia for standing up for the free internet. :)

[GommeInc]

GoDaddy protesting? They were agreeing with SOPA before everyone started moving their domains over to companies like namecheap who was taking advantage of it. Then now GoDaddy "no longer" supports it.
Shows how little I paid attention :P Either way, the fact "the internet" was disagreeing with SOPA to the extent they would move their domains else where seemed like a pretty big hint that this Act is not wanted. It seemed like quite a big wake up call, but it must of fallen of deaf ears :/ I'm amazed the American Government is still trying to push it through all these Bills.

PIPA doesn't seemed talked about as much though, if anything it's the only Act which makes marginal sense.

[Nemo]

Shows how little I paid attention :P Either way, the fact "the internet" was disagreeing with SOPA to the extent they would move their domains else where seemed like a pretty big hint that this Act is not wanted. It seemed like quite a big wake up call, but it must of fallen of deaf ears :/ I'm amazed the American Government is still trying to push it through all these Bills.

PIPA doesn't seemed talked about as much though, if anything it's the only Act which makes marginal sense.

PIPA isn't being talked about as much because it wasn't as bad as SOPA, however now that that's out the way (for now), I can imagine it taking a larger spotlight.

Also their strategy seems to be working on you at least. It's a kind of a foot in the door technique, start off with something completely unreasonable that no one will agree with (SOPA), and then say something still unreasonable, but not as bad in comparison (PIPA) so that people will be fine with it. Do not be fooled Gommeeeee!

Also how are you supposed to pronounce your name Ryan? I always think im doing it right but i can never be sure

[GommeInc]

PIPA isn't being talked about as much because it wasn't as bad as SOPA, however now that that's out the way (for now), I can imagine it taking a larger spotlight.

Also their strategy seems to be working on you at least. It's a kind of a foot in the door technique, start off with something completely unreasonable that no one will agree with (SOPA), and then say something still unreasonable, but not as bad in comparison (PIPA) so that people will be fine with it. Do not be fooled Gommeeeee!

Also how are you supposed to pronounce your name Ryan? I always think im doing it right but i can never be sure
Oh no I know it is stupid either way and not really something worthy of support, its just marginally makes more sense than SOPA but can easily be manipulated to serve other purposes e.g. what SOPA wants to do. Governments love pushing in laws slowly, by using less controversial laws and then building them up with amendments.

And it's pronounced: Rye (as in The Catcher in the Rye) and An, as in "an oblong". Have you never come a cross a Ryan? :P

[Nemo]

Oh no I know it is stupid either way and not really something worthy of support, its just marginally makes more sense than SOPA but can easily be manipulated to serve other purposes e.g. what SOPA wants to do. Governments love pushing in laws slowly, by using less controversial laws and then building them up with amendments.

And it's pronounced: Rye (as in The Catcher in the Rye) and An, as in "an oblong". Have you never come a cross a Ryan? :P

GOD DAMMIT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT MAN



Anyway reddit is gonna be down for 12 hours as well, i'll have to study or something :s

[-:Undertaker:-]

I find it strange how people here are up in arms over internet regulation, yet don't seem to mind the government regulating business, the health service, the education system, smoking inside pubs/bars and so on. When i've tried arguing against all of these i've had to go up against the usual 'oh but without government intervention, smoking in pubs will be allowed and I don't like that' which destroys the entire basic idea of how a free society works. But as with smoking in pubs/bars, people don't seem to care about the loss of freedom simply for the fact that they don't like smoking - what goes around comes around people.

How about accepting that all government regulation, although often driven by good intentions, is poisonous either intentionally or unintentionally?

[xxMATTGxx]

I find it strange how people here are up in arms over internet regulation, yet don't seem to mind the government regulating business, the health service, the education system, smoking inside pubs/bars and so on. When i've tried arguing against all of these i've had to go up against the usual 'oh but without government intervention, smoking in pubs will be allowed and I don't like that' which destroys the entire basic idea of how a free society works. But as with smoking in pubs/bars, people don't seem to care about the loss of freedom simply for the fact that they don't like smoking - what goes around comes around people.

How about accepting that all government regulation, although often driven by good intentions, is poisonous either intentionally or unintentionally?

How about no. The internet was never meant to be controlled by any government and should never be controlled by government. Stop bringing other crap into it.

Plus banning smoking in pubs is very different than controlling the bloody internet.

[Andii]

Anyone heard on the news about wikipedia going dark for a campaign to stop the US government from shutting down sites?




Edited by Catzsy (Forum Super Moderator) : Thread merged as same topic.

[xxMATTGxx]

Thread about it in current affairs. Wiki and other sites are going dark to show awareness and to protest against SOPA and PIPA.
Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

[GirlNextDoor15]

NOW LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF WIKIPEDIA..
WAS WIKIPEDING SOME KNOWLEDGE AND URGHHHHHH

[Grig]

fun ways to get around the wikipedia blackout:

1) use google cache
2) press escape as the page loads
3) turn off javascript
4) use the mobile version http://en.m.wikipedia.org/

The point isn't to make wikipedia unavailable, it's to make people talk. so far so good

Google blacked themselves out for a bit too :P.

[Chris]

fun ways to get around the wikipedia blackout:

1) use google cache
2) press escape as the page loads
3) turn off javascript
4) use the mobile version http://en.m.wikipedia.org/

The point isn't to make wikipedia unavailable, it's to make people talk. so far so good

Google blacked themselves out for a bit too :P.

I noticed the second method of this today. I think I rely on wikipedia too much!

[triston220]

Disable Javascript to circumvent the blackout.

[Eric]

Some other sites are shutting down too. It's a 24 hour blackout.

[Shar]

http://www.iaza.com/work/120119C/iaza19369674632600.jpg

[redtom]

Reddits completely out :(
You can just hit the stop loading button on wiki to avoid the blackout.

[J0SH]

Let me check on Wikipedia why Wikipedia has downtime..

[Shar]

if you click "Learn More" it shows the page explaining why haha

[J0SH]

It stills work on phones anyway, they failed

[Shar]

as someone else has already mentioned (in current affairs I think) that they only wanted to get people talking which they have so they haven't failed

[J0SH]

as someone else has already mentioned (in current affairs I think) that they only wanted to get people talking which they have so they haven't failed

No one else except for people on a Habbo forum is talking though. The only people it will affect is people on the day doing course work so it's pointless.

[wixard]

i've heard them speak about it on the radio actually

[Recursion]

These blackouts are beyond a joke. I know SOPA is bad and everything but it's silly for normal users.

I could deal with Wikipedia, but when I go to forums and other sites to go and find out a piece of information, only to be greeted by a black page and a wall of text, it's piss annoying.

They really should only be showing these SOPA messages to US residents. For example, on XDA-Developers they'll reopen the site when 50,000 people have signed their pledge, but people outside the US can't sign the pledge or access the site :/

[Andii]

many other sites have followed aswell :) but if this happens then everything wil be ruined like habbo :O

[Shar]

many other sites have followed aswell :) but if this happens then everything wil be ruined like habbo :O
I noticed, well that's annoying.

[Andii]

lmao if this is passed tho the whole internet will be destroyed hahaha like imagine all the internet sites with like images that are just copyed and pasted such as facebook and all social networking sites (heard from a friend btw)

[dirrty]

eurgh, everyone on facebook won't shut the **** up about it :l

[xxMATTGxx]

No one else except for people on a Habbo forum is talking though. The only people it will affect is people on the day doing course work so it's pointless.

Well that's a silly thing to say because we aren't the only forum or people in the world who would of noticed the blackout.

[J0SH]

Well that's a silly thing to say because we aren't the only forum or people in the world who would of noticed the blackout.

Not really, I haven't seen anyone on Twitter or Facebook 'talking' so I don't see how this blackout justified anything it was pointless.

[dirrty]

Not really, I haven't seen anyone on Twitter or Facebook 'talking' so I don't see how this blackout justified anything it was pointless.
it was mentioned on itv news earlier.

[J0SH]

it was mentioned on itv news earlier.

Suppose they have to find something to talk about :P

[Nemo]

Not really, I haven't seen anyone on Twitter or Facebook 'talking' so I don't see how this blackout justified anything it was pointless.

No one's back from college/school yet

[J0SH]

No one's back from college/school yet

Wikipedia's working anyway :P I don't see why anyone would have a need to complain I didn't even notice it was down, still had full access to it.

[xxMATTGxx]

Not really, I haven't seen anyone on Twitter or Facebook 'talking' so I don't see how this blackout justified anything it was pointless.

Clearly don't follow the correct type of people then. It's been on my twitter all day and was even mentioned in college. It was all on the radio this morning and the news.

[J0SH]

I follow over 400 people and I haven't seen anything. Probably people just don't give a **** :P

[dirrty]

I follow over 400 people and I haven't seen anything. Probably people just don't give a **** :P
have you even seen the trending topics on twitter? :P

[xxMATTGxx]

I follow over 400 people and I haven't seen anything. Probably people just don't give a **** :P

https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/SOPA - Choose the "All" selection and then let them load, scroll down, let them load and you'll see its being mention on twitter throughout the day.

https://www.facebook.com/AntiSOPA - 37,326 liking the page, looks like no one gives a dam!

23,227 people have currently signed a pledge over at XDA!

[J0SH]

have you even seen the trending topics on twitter? :P

#factsaboutwikipedia :P

[@]@xxMATTGxx[/@] There's 7 billion people in the world, that's a very tiny fraction :S

[xxMATTGxx]

#factsaboutwikipedia :P

[@]@xxMATTGxx[/@] There's 7 billion people in the world, that's a very tiny fraction :S

First of, *facepalm irl*

The whole point of "blackingout" is to make it aware to a lot of people. That does not people every single person in the world because that would be impossible. 7 billion people in the world will NOT see anything about SOPA. Mainly because they probably don't have internet, tv or newspapers for a start. Also the wikipedia blackout is only for the "English" version, so that reduces that amount quite a bit to be honest.

[J0SH]

First of, *facepalm irl*

The whole point of "blackingout" is to make it aware to a lot of people. That does not people every single person in the world because that would be impossible. 7 billion people in the world will NOT see anything about SOPA. Mainly because they probably don't have internet, tv or newspapers for a start. Also the wikipedia blackout is only for the "English" version, so that reduces that amount quite a bit to be honest.

Clearly a lot of people aren't supporting it because they don't want to stop pirating and Wikipedia 'blacking out' isn't going to make anyone say "Hold on a minute, I better stop downloading" hence why I said they failed, it's stupid that's my opinion and it won't change :)

[xxMATTGxx]

Clearly a lot of people aren't supporting it because they don't want to stop pirating and Wikipedia 'blacking out' isn't going to make anyone say "Hold on a minute, I better stop downloading" hence why I said they failed, it's stupid that's my opinion and it won't change :)

Another facepalm coming up, SOPA is not just about stopping people downloading illegally. You know them gifs people create on tumblr with clips from films, tv shows and all of that? They can be stopped with SOPA. You know those gaming videos people do on youtube? Those can be stopped by SOPA. SOPA is not just about stopping people from downloading illegally.

Wait, what do you mean they failed? Websites aren't protesting/blacking out to stop people from downloading illegal. They are doing it because they do not support SOPA altogether!

[Recursion]

Clearly a lot of people aren't supporting it because they don't want to stop pirating and Wikipedia 'blacking out' isn't going to make anyone say "Hold on a minute, I better stop downloading" hence why I said they failed, it's stupid that's my opinion and it won't change :)

I really don't think you understand what SOPA is.

[dirrty]

the websites that are doing the blackout, are doing so for the sole purpose of raising awareness in regards to sopa lol.

[buttons]

NOOOOOO

i have my hardest lecture on wednesdays and he asks us ridiculously hard questions and gives us 3 minutes to come up with answers in groups so what everyone naturally does is wikipedia the **** out of a term he uses and regurgitates it back and it NEVER FAILS

now it will be revealed that we're all clueless
hahaha we're not allowed to use wikipedia for any of our work :(
god never realized how much i need that website till today

also this blackout thing aint working for me cause i still have no idea what its about and cba googling it to read, the only place i can be arsed reading anything from is wikipedia

[xxMATTGxx]

hahaha we're not allowed to use wikipedia for any of our work :(
god never realized how much i need that website till today

also this blackout thing aint working for me cause i still have no idea what its about and cba googling it to read, the only place i can be arsed reading anything from is wikipedia

Good news for you then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more :P

[Recursion]

http://vimeo.com/31100268

[J0SH]

I really don't think you understand what SOPA is.

"Today, the Wikipedia communityannounced its decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action)to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundationhere (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark)). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States – theStop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:PROTECT_IP_Act)in the U.S. Senate – that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia."

That's all I read from the article posted, so my posts where based on that information.

[Recursion]

Watch the video above.

[Nemo]

"Today, the Wikipedia communityannounced its decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action)to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundationhere (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark)). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States – theStop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:PROTECT_IP_Act)in the U.S. Senate – that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia."

That's all I read from the article posted, so my posts where based on that information.


f passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia."

It says right there that it's more than just illegal downloading..


Im gonna go ahead and assume you had a blonde moment.

[Chippiewill]

I find it strange how people here are up in arms over internet regulation, yet don't seem to mind the government regulating business, the health service, the education system, smoking inside pubs/bars and so on. When i've tried arguing against all of these i've had to go up against the usual 'oh but without government intervention, smoking in pubs will be allowed and I don't like that' which destroys the entire basic idea of how a free society works. But as with smoking in pubs/bars, people don't seem to care about the loss of freedom simply for the fact that they don't like smoking - what goes around comes around people.

How about accepting that all government regulation, although often driven by good intentions, is poisonous either intentionally or unintentionally?
Nope. You cannot start comparing everything because they all involve "regulation" that's like saying we shouldn't have any laws because they're all regulations, we shouldn't have any military (Even for purely defensive purposes) because they regulate foreign threats, we shouldn't put murderers in prison because it regulates crime. Some regulation is positive, some is negative. No one person gets to decide that, however the people by popular vote do and just because you have a pompous attitude about it does not mean you are right.

SOPA and PIPA are opposing the fundamental principles of the internet (DMCA is still pretty draconian), it should not be controlled or affected by any governmental organisation because, the internet is a global entity, this should be regarded as in similar vein as any single country taking claim to a portion of Antarctica for instance, the internet is "for the people" so to say, it represents freedom of speech and global union. Currently all countries which have something similar to SOPA and PIPA have eventually used it for some form of censorship an obvious example of China which uses it not only to restrict freedom of speech but as a political tool, another country (I cannot remember the name of) brought in a similar law, initially used it to bring down child pornography, then it was used to bring down piracy websites and then they blocked access to online casinos because they wouldn't pay taxes despite not being in that country.

This won't even stop piracy, the internet is designed to resist censorship and many utilities such as TOR and VPNS would prevent this, and you can now get a decentralised DNS from a rethought out application of bitcoin which means that domains are P2P just as much as bittorrent.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How about no. The internet was never meant to be controlled by any government and should never be controlled by government. Stop bringing other crap into it.

Plus banning smoking in pubs is very different than controlling the bloody internet.

Who said? our basic freedoms such as allowing people to smoke inside our own property (just like a computer is our own business) where 'never meant' to be regulated by government, but they now are mainly due to the fact that selfish people such as yourself have the idea that it (freedom) not worth defending if you don't like whats being regulated in question. Perhaps the internet does need to be regulated, yeah? for our own safety, as they say - regulate it for a number of reasons; copyrights (theft), national security (nice and vague), health (well sitting on a computer isn't exactly healthy), crime (pornography and abuse), hacking etc.

Of course I don't agree with regulating it in the slightest, but I do love irony.


Nope. You cannot start comparing everything because they all involve "regulation" that's like saying we shouldn't have any laws because they're all regulations, we shouldn't have any military (Even for purely defensive purposes) because they regulate foreign threats, we shouldn't put murderers in prison because it regulates crime. Some regulation is positive, some is negative. No one person gets to decide that, however the people by popular vote do and just because you have a pompous attitude about it does not mean you are right.

Laws are different from regulation, i'm talking about regulation which infringes the freedoms of innocent people;- laws against homosexuality, equality laws which remove freedom of speech, disability laws for example which require business to install costly lifts, the minimum wage which forces employeers to pay a certain wage, maternity/paternity leave which forces individuals to grant paid-leave of months to others against their will.

If you believe in freedom, then stand up for it - not when it simply suits you.


SOPA and PIPA are opposing the fundamental principles of the internet (DMCA is still pretty draconian), it should not be controlled or affected by any governmental organisation because, the internet is a global entity, this should be regarded as in similar vein as any single country taking claim to a portion of Antarctica for instance, the internet is "for the people" so to say, it represents freedom of speech and global union. Currently all countries which have something similar to SOPA and PIPA have eventually used it for some form of censorship an obvious example of China which uses it not only to restrict freedom of speech but as a political tool, another country (I cannot remember the name of) brought in a similar law, initially used it to bring down child pornography, then it was used to bring down piracy websites and then they blocked access to online casinos because they wouldn't pay taxes despite not being in that country.

The internet, if it is to be free, is a part of a free society - defend the free society and liberty when its under attack at all times, otherwise you are not arguing a principle and your stance for freedom is worthless rubbish.


This won't even stop piracy, the internet is designed to resist censorship and many utilities such as TOR and VPNS would prevent this, and you can now get a decentralised DNS from a rethought out application of bitcoin which means that domains are P2P just as much as bittorrent.

Just like banning smoking won't stop cancer, as cancer isn't linked to second hand smoke - and even if it were linked to cancer, thats still a choice to walk into a smoke-filled bar.

Where were you when that freedom was under attack? what goes around comes around ladies and gentlemen.

[xxMATTGxx]

Who said? our basic freedoms such as allowing people to smoke inside our own property (just like a computer is our own business) where 'never meant' to be regulated by government, but they now are mainly due to the fact that selfish people such as yourself have the idea that it (freedom) not worth defending if you don't like whats being regulated in question. Perhaps the internet does need to be regulated, yeah? for our own safety, as they say - regulate it for a number of reasons; copyrights (theft), national security (nice and vague), health (well sitting on a computer isn't exactly healthy), crime (pornography and abuse), hacking etc.

Of course I don't agree with regulating it in the slightest, but I do love irony.



Laws are different from regulation, i'm talking about regulation which infringes the freedoms of innocent people;- laws against homosexuality, equality laws which remove freedom of speech, disability laws for example which require business to install costly lifts, the minimum wage which forces employeers to pay a certain wage, maternity/paternity leave which forces individuals to grant paid-leave of months to others against their will.

If you believe in freedom, then stand up for it - not when it simply suits you.



The internet, if it is to be free, is a part of a free society - defend the free society and liberty when its under attack at all times, otherwise you are not arguing a principle and your stance for freedom is worthless rubbish.



Just like banning smoking won't stop cancer, as cancer isn't linked to second hand smoke - and even if it were linked to cancer, thats still a choice to walk into a smoke-filled bar.

Where were you when that freedom was under attack? what goes around comes around ladies and gentlemen.


My reply is: No to everything you have said. The internet does not need regulating even if you do agree that it doesn't. Smoking is nothing like this, I didn't really listen to your smoking thread or other threads because they don't interest me what so ever. Due to the fact all you go on is about the EU even if it wasn't mentioned in someone's post such as the Cruise Liner. In terms of standing up for freedom, I'll rather walk into pubs, cafes and what not that are smoke free regardless if it damages my health or not.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My reply is: No to everything you have said.

Of course it is, how dare somebody point out that this isn't about freedom and liberty as you pretend it is? its about yourself.

Government regulating and meddling in the affairs of smokers (of which you are not one)? yeah fine!
Government regulating and meddling in the affairs of business owners (of which you are not one)? yeah fine!
Government regulating and meddling in the affairs of you? how dare they!

Suck on it people, this is what happens when you don't care until it directly affects something you cherish/care about.

[xxMATTGxx]

Of course it is, how dare somebody point out that this isn't about freedom and liberty as you pretend it is? its about yourself.

Government regulating and meddling in the affairs of smokers (of which you are not one)? yeah fine!
Government regulating and meddling in the affairs of business owners (of which you are not one)? yeah fine!
Government regulating and meddling in the affairs of you? how dare they!

Suck on it people, this is what happens when you don't care until it directly affects something you cherish/care about.

Just because someone has supported against SOPA, does not mean they should support against anything else you class as "freedom" such as smoking in bloody public places. People will agree with certain regulations and will then disagree with others.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just because someone has supported against SOPA, does not mean they should support against anything else you class as "freedom" such as smoking in bloody public places. People will agree with certain regulations and will then disagree with others.

Then argue on the merits of certain regulation, not on freedom and the concept of liberty of which you do not give a figs leaf about unless it affects you.

Freedom is about being allowed to do what you love, along with allowing people to do things of which you may even loathe.

[Grig]

Then argue on the merits of certain regulation, not on freedom and the concept of liberty of which you do not give a figs leaf about unless it affects you ... thus destroying the basic concept of a free society.

And there you go, of course we will have regulations and laws, seeing as we don't live in a Utopian state. Some will effect more than others, like this one vs. the smoking population which is smaller.

Cyber crime is obviously a big issue, so is piracy, but they are taking a completely wrong approach to tackling it using this bigger umbrella of laws.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And there you go, of course we will have regulations and laws, seeing as we don't live in a Utopian state. Some will effect more than others, like this once vs. the smoking population which is smaller.

Cyber crime is obviously a big issue, so is piracy, but they are taking a completely wrong approach to tackling it using this bigger umbrella of laws.

Of course we will have basic laws, usually ones which protect the freedoms of others along with property and life. However, when laws start to undermine freedom then that is wrong and ought to be opposed whenever they come under threat just as I defend smoking based on freedom even though I do not smoke and have never even tried a cigarette as I regard it as foolish. As for the smoking population being smaller, well thats a null argument as homosexuals are also a minority - should we ban homosexuality? of course not.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phRi80HBIuU

The only candidate to oppose these bills, but also repeating what personal liberty is - it is not something you can pick and choose.

[Grig]

Of course we will have basic laws, usually ones which protect the freedoms of others along with property and life. However, when laws start to undermine freedom then that is wrong and ought to be opposed whenever they come under threat just as I defend smoking based on freedom even though I do not smoke and have never even tried a cigarette as I regard it as foolish. As for the smoking population being smaller, well thats a null argument as homosexuals are also a minority - should we ban homosexuality? of course not.

Of course I do not agree with this as it repels freedom and liberty and actually goes against the US constitution. It also against giving people proper rights, which has been happening in a while. I was not arguing on population censuses, what I was saying was more people are up in arms about this because of the large population percentage. As for your argument of homosexuality, we still have a ban on gay marriages in most places, which then effects this smaller minority.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Another topic, but i'll briefly go into it anyway as its all about liberty and freedom...


Of course I do not agree with this as it repels freedom and liberty and actually goes against the US constitution. It also against giving people proper rights, which has been happening in a while. I was not arguing on population censuses, what I was saying was more people are up in arms about this because of the large population percentage. As for your argument of homosexuality, we still have a ban on gay marriages in most places, which then effects this smaller minority.

With gay marriage, the correct response to preserve freedom & liberty is to get the government out of marriage - not to have the government enforce peoples idea of marriage on the other side. Therefore, in a free society people could exchange contracts between one another and call them whatever they wish aswell as allowing insitutions to have their own definition of marriage (such as Churches sticking to the usual definition of what marriage is, whereas other places of registery would allow homosexual 'marriage'). My point is, that when I say this and have done in the past, a lot of people think they have a right to impose their definition of marriage on Churches just as the state currently imposes its definition of marriage on homosexuals.

..and thats not defending personal liberty, thats using the state to impose your values and views upon others.

[FiftyCal]

GTA Forums is doing this too, now its called Grand Theft Censored and Niko has tape over his mouth. Lolz

[xxMATTGxx]

*post*

That's a lot of people and that's just for Wikipedia.


Thank you.

The Wikipedia blackout is over — and you have spoken.

More than 162 million people saw our message asking if you could imagine a world without free knowledge. You said no. You shut down Congress’s switchboards. You melted their servers. From all around the world your messages dominated social media and the news. Millions of people have spoken in defense of a free and open Internet.

For us, this is not about money. It’s about knowledge. As a community of authors, editors, photographers, and programmers, we invite everyone to share and build upon our work.

Our mission is to empower and engage people to document the sum of all human knowledge, and to make it available to all humanity, in perpetuity. We care passionately about the rights of authors, because we are authors.

SOPA and PIPA are not dead: they are waiting in the shadows. What’s happened in the last 24 hours, though, is extraordinary. The internet has enabled creativity, knowledge, and innovation to shine, and as Wikipedia went dark, you've directed your energy to protecting it.

We’re turning the lights back on. Help us keep them shining brightly.

[Chippiewill]

Laws are different from regulation, i'm talking about regulation which infringes the freedoms of innocent people;- laws against homosexuality, equality laws which remove freedom of speech, disability laws for example which require business to install costly lifts, the minimum wage which forces employeers to pay a certain wage, maternity/paternity leave which forces individuals to grant paid-leave of months to others against their will.
People have to be baby-sat, FACT. What separates Tobacco from illegal drugs? Tobacco is Taxed. As far as I'm concerned it should all be outright banned. In regards to "laws against homosexuality" and "equality laws" YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME COIN, unfortunately legislation is needed to prevent discrimination against Disabled, Ethnicities, sexism because people resist change. Of course a company needs to be forced to add in wheelchair access just as a child needs access to a good education.


If you believe in freedom, then stand up for it - not when it simply suits you.
I stand up for freedom when FREEDOM is being taxed, not people being inconvenienced slightly. Further, an attack on my is not an attack on the argument, get back on topic.


The internet, if it is to be free, is a part of a free society - defend the free society and liberty when its under attack at all times, otherwise you are not arguing a principle and your stance for freedom is worthless rubbish. The internet is far more a principle against oppression than smoking in pubs or being allowed to not give maternity leave.


Just like banning smoking won't stop cancer, as cancer isn't linked to second hand smoke - and even if it were linked to cancer, thats still a choice to walk into a smoke-filled bar.
Maybe it is a choice, but I'm glad of the inconvenience to smokers because it prevents overly passive smoking.


Where were you when that freedom was under attack? what goes around comes around ladies and gentlemen.
As I have said I will stand up when there's an actual freedom to defend, and not some people moaning that they have to accommodate races other than Caucasian in their hotel.

Final reason why it shouldn't be allowed is that it breaks security in verifying DNS records are valid (Hijacking spoofed records, which is what the ISPs would be forced to do, breaks SSL encryption amongst other things meaning MITM attacks can occur), if your website is pulled down unfairly you cannot sue back at those who took it down (This is the equivalent of the Police smashing up your shop and beating your customers and then realising it's the wrong store and not being liable for it).

Stop using weak analogous circumstances to push your own agenda.

[-:Undertaker:-]

People have to be baby-sat, FACT. What separates Tobacco from illegal drugs? Tobacco is Taxed. As far as I'm concerned it should all be outright banned. In regards to "laws against homosexuality" and "equality laws" YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME COIN, unfortunately legislation is needed to prevent discrimination against Disabled, Ethnicities, sexism because people resist change. Of course a company needs to be forced to add in wheelchair access just as a child needs access to a good education.

Then, again, you don't believe in free choice, a free society and liberty so stop pretending that you do.


I stand up for freedom when FREEDOM is being taxed, not people being inconvenienced slightly. Further, an attack on my is not an attack on the argument, get back on topic.

You stand up for freedom at all times, not when it suits you. I give the example of above where you say that people ought to be forced to accept peoples of differing abilities/colours/sexualities onto their property simply because you think thats morally right. I also think thats morally right. But is it moral for me to force others to do what I think morally right? no, of course its not.

All of these measures you support are measures of force by the state, and thats not freedom at all.


The internet is far more a principle against oppression than smoking in pubs or being allowed to not give maternity leave.

To you it is, to others not .. thats freedom duh.


Maybe it is a choice, but I'm glad of the inconvenience to smokers because it prevents overly passive smoking.

Then i'm glad of the inconvenience to internet users, maybe i'm even glad.

Pot kettle black, suck on it and eat that my friend because you deserve everything you get.


As I have said I will stand up when there's an actual freedom to defend, and not some people moaning that they have to accommodate races other than Caucasian in their hotel.

Then you still don't have an idea of what freedom is, therefore stop pretending you care about it.


Final reason why it shouldn't be allowed is that it breaks security in verifying DNS records are valid (Hijacking spoofed records, which is what the ISPs would be forced to do, breaks SSL encryption amongst other things meaning MITM attacks can occur), if your website is pulled down unfairly you cannot sue back at those who took it down (This is the equivalent of the Police smashing up your shop and beating your customers and then realising it's the wrong store and not being liable for it).

Yeah but I don't care if your inconvenienced (sound familiar?).


Stop using weak analogous circumstances to push your own agenda.

I still don't think you quite understand liberty, and you pretending to care about it is embarrassing whilst watching you state that you want to er, ban things or control things of which you do not like .. just like the government now wants to ban elements of the internet and control it.

Liberty is a principle, not a word you can tack on to an argument when you are in need of freedom.

[Richie]

http://richie.votexweb.com/9229b197.png


Hopefully the protests make a difference

[Chippiewill]

Then, again, you don't believe in free choice, a free society and liberty so stop pretending that you do.
Well technically I'm a determinist so no, I don't believe in free choice, but that's besides the matter. No I do not believe that we require entirely free societies, it serves no purpose and to be perfectly honest it seems like you're encouraging people to be ubermensch.


To you it is, to others not .. thats freedom duh.
Sorry, I didn't realise that the right to smoke in a pub was used to fight oppression in countries like China and Iran, and that the banning of such practise is a huge leap to a 1984 esque society, how sorry for your loss and for this grave, grave misunderstanding.


Then you still don't have an idea of what freedom is, therefore stop pretending you care about it.
A line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise we're left lawless and as barbarians.


Yeah but I don't care if your inconvenienced (sound familiar?).
It's not an inconvenience it's a crime.


I still don't think you quite understand liberty, and you pretending to care about it is embarrassing whilst watching you state that you want to er, ban things or control things of which you do not like .. just like the government now wants to ban elements of the internet and control it.
I don't think you understand that TRUE liberty was described a hundred or so years ago by Nietzsche and it's a terrible idea.


Liberty is a principle, not a word you can tack on to an argument when you are in need of freedom.
If this is true then you are just as much at fault here.


-snip-
American domain name servers do not an internet make.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't believe in free choice


I don't think you understand that TRUE liberty was described a hundred or so years ago by Nietzsche and it's a terrible idea.

Thank you, thats all I needed - kudos for being honest in the end amongst all the babble.

I'll be reminding you each and every time you post on internet regulation that true freedom (an unregulated internet or even a half-regulated internet) is a, to quote, a terrible idea.

Just for the record, the choice is there's either liberty or there isn't - liberty isn't democracy.