Sites going down/dark tomorrow

[AllieMackie]

Originally Posted by Dakotah

Ok, are they talking about shutting down this sites? Like Facebook, Twitter, etc etc?

The protest is voluntary. Facebook and Twitter were originally on board, but backed down due to being a prominent media centre for many businesses, from what I understand.

This is good info on SOPA itself (and yes this article should work):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

Tons of others are either down or making public statements. I'm having Reddit withdrawals.

[ravennr]

twitter and youtube would be much more impacted than facebook, i believe. among others (such as my beautiful reddit and many blogs i read!)

[RD]

I've gone to check Reddit no less than 10 times in the past hour I've been on the computer.

Glad that SOPA doesn't seem to be on the table anymore, but PIPA is SOPA lite and still needs to be destroyed.

If I had a site I would absolutely black it out. Everyone should. It's 24 hours to protect something that we all use extensively, every single day.

[ravennr]

showcasing just how many people are completely blind to what's happening :\
https://twitter.com/#!/herpderpedia

yikes

[happyhound]

Originally Posted by ravennr

showcasing just how many people are completely blind to what's happening :\
https://twitter.com/#!/herpderpedia

yikes

Wow. Even more surprising is the number of people telling Wikipedia to "stop being gay". Seems like most tweets have the word "gay" in it. C'mon people! Let's at least TRY to sound intelligent.

[Lilavati]

Originally Posted by ~Jessie~

I love this little .gif that The Oatmeal posted up today:

That . . OMG . . .can't breathe . . . .


And yes if you are talking about SOPA/PIPA shutting down sites, they could shut down this one . . . because people post things here that they found on the internet that could be interpreted as pirated. My importantly, the person demanding the shut down doesn't have to prove they own the content, so they can just demand, say, a site be shut down because they say they have IP being pirated there, when in truth its political commentary they don't like. And you have to go to court to get it fixed . . . And we have a lot of political commentary here that someone could object to . . .

The blackout, however, was voluntary, to show what WOULD happen to a lot of sites if the law passed.

Edit: Re: "Stop being gay." Leave aside the offensive expression . . . you people are the freaking problem. No wonder we elect idiots.

[Doberluv]

I think this is a very good article and explains why it's not just about copyrights:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/18/...sopa-and-pipa/

01/18/2012
An Internet Blackout Over SOPA and PIPA

As of midnight, Wikipedia is shut down for 24 hours, and hundreds of other popular websites have gone dark right along with it. They are standing together in protest of two controversial pieces of legislation that threaten Internet security and undermine the freedom of speech all in an effort to crack down on online "piracy" -- the illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

Hollywood, the music industry, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have gone to bat on behalf of the proposed laws on the grounds that they will help protect valuable copyrighted property. And while the goal is laudable, the ends don't justify the means. The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act have far-reaching consequences for the Internet's infrastructure, individual liberties, and innovation in the digital age.

Under the laws, upon a court order, third-party companies and websites would be forced to crack down on rogue websites -- and even ones that unwittingly host or link to material that may violate copyrights or trademarks, whether or not they have knowledge of the violation. Internet service providers would be required to block Internet addresses of offending sites -- a measure that Internet engineers warn could threaten Internet security. Search engines would be prohibited from including pirate sites in search results, a requirement that goes well beyond current law and may, in fact, violate the First Amendment. Heritage's James Gattuso and Paul Rosenzweig explain ramifications:

Limits on speech here are almost certain to be extended to other cases. If links to pirate sites are banned, why not links to sites disseminating national security secrets? Or sites "facilitating" violence by propagating extreme political positions? Moreover, other countries that have pursued content controls of their own, such as China, may be encouraged by steps in the U.S. to limit content.

It is concerns like these that have caused a firestorm in the online world, leading Wikipedia to declare that the laws "would be devastating to the free and open web" and prompting Google to campaign against the laws on its highly trafficked search engine. Meanwhile, PC Magazine reports that co-founders of top tech firms like Twitter, Google, Yahoo, and eBay wrote an open letter opposing the laws, arguing that they would undermine the "regulatory climate that promotes entrepreneurship, innovation, the creation of content and free expression online."

Here's why: Under the laws, websites like Facebook, with its hundreds of millions of users, or YouTube, where 48 hours of video are uploaded every minute, would now be accountable for all content posted on their sites. As a result, websites would be discouraged from engaging in speech or from providing a forum where others can do the same. That, in turn, will stifle innovation--the lifeblood of the economy. One study showed that among 200 venture capitalists and angel investors, almost all would stop funding digital media intermediaries if these laws are enacted.

Setting aside the burden the laws would impose on the freedom of speech and innovation, they don't even make practical sense. Trying to block content online is tantamount to blocking the Mississippi River with a two-by-four. It can't be done. Countries like Iran routinely censor content, yet information still flows through--oftentimes with the help of the United States. This attempt to crack down on pirated material is a futile effort by industries that are suffering at the hands of a technology that has surpassed it, much like when Hollywood was up in arms over VCRs in the 1980s and when the music industry threw a fit over MP3 players in the late 1990s.

The Internet is the greatest engine for free speech and innovation ever known to humankind. Certainly its power can be used for good as well as bad, but censoring content, jeopardizing the security of the Internet, and stifling innovation is not the answer for protecting intellectual property rights.

[Lilavati]

Good news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/te...urse.html?_r=1

[Doberluv]

Yeah! Round one! *ding, ding* But they'll be back.

[Lilavati]

Originally Posted by Doberluv

Yeah! Round one! *ding, ding* But they'll be back.

Of course they will. And they'll be prepared for this sort of protest next time.