Wikipedia Blackout

[Nemo]

"Today, the Wikipedia communityannounced its decisionto 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). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States – theStop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)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.



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.