Zachary Amaranth said:
Charli said:
Read the rest of my post, in the event they passed that bill, I would block them.
Of course, that wasn't the question.
But hell, a good chunk of the point is that they don't need SOPA to go after you.
So you're saying you wouldn't cover your ass now, though you're at risk, because you're not a douche. But if they passed bills that would leave you still at risk, you would cover your ass.
That doesn't make any sense.
Perhaps you should try and understand the issues at hand before you start talking. Or at least, before you tell me to "read the rest of my post."
In fat, you could "read the rest of the thread," where this is being pointed out. Or just have a peripheral awareness of the recent issues that have been going on. People are protesting PIPA/SOPA for powers that already exist; Megaupload demonstrates this.
But then, your summation doesn't cover the current scenario at all. You say:
promoting free speech and then turning around and pointing fingers at the rest of the world claiming that's not allowed.
Which isn't what's being done at all. Sorry.
And now I don't think you actually know the issues at hand, I'm trying desperately to string together what you're shouting at me, but it seems we dislike SOPA for entirely different reasons, the bill is not augmenting American government power, the power is being put in the hands who stand to profit the most from kicking small businesses with a very badly worded and easily exploitable definition of the term 'piracy'.
The megaupload case has been going on for months, and is by and large, unrelated to the bills I was attributing my decision toward, the MEDIA and Annonymus are threading the two together, and yes they coincide at a time where they are very relavant, but it did not start that way. Megaupload did have mostly pirated content on it, that fact is undeniable, and someone had to be accountable. Sadly, it should have been those who uploaded the material to Megaupload. However an opperation of that magnitude is not possible and the owner of the site suffered the consequences for letting this go unchecked. THAT is where the bill's idealisms come in and yes I agree, it is utterly wrong.
Free speech is the issue, read the bill, all of it, and it's mutated cousin PIPA and the Europe piece of shit; ACTA. Allowing corporations to censor items on the internet that they could deem infringes on their possession of an image, term or any non-physical asset that they own, via Internet service providers. The power would lie in their hands.
THAT is one of the most ridiculous threats to freedom of information and in turn speech (what can be called speech on this platform) and personal interpretation, I have ever read.
I know they can already 'go after me' but there's a very broad amount of wiggle room for what justifies a cry of infringement as well as international disputes, audiance juristiction, I still think you've completely misread me. I do not like the fact that they feel justified in their censorship to the
american public of whatever they believe infringes upon them, that is too broad, too opinionated, and I would in turn, as people say 'give those who don't act, a taste of that bitter medicine' and just block what I choose as well then, no reason other than It's mine. You don't get to look at it, Nyeh. Hell I would turn into a gigantic douchebag to prove a point, and you're talking to someone with a majority of american friends.
And sorry but there is already cases where the internet is censored via government power in various other countries and you know what people do? They get up and do something about it. There was ridiculous outcry in Qatar when they blocked google, people got out their lawyers and man... It would be my own personal way of getting people more motivated to appeal the bills as someone who cannot personally do anything.
People in general are not always aware of what is going on and just because the intellectuals of the internet have by and large managed to throw some protest behind the issue the fact remains that this bill was floating around for nearly 6 months and only now at the 11th hour was it in the public view, I need only check online media corporations and casual users facebook pages to verify that.
As a non American, but one that frequents the country, If I have to be a hypocrite to make a point then okay, but the fact is they already block alot of shit to anyone from foreign shores and if that had passed they'd have gotten a taste of what it's like.
It's not alot of fun.
The intention of this bill is good. The people who would make use of it, are not. So no, average joe will only be hurt by it but far more if it passes than if I had chosen to block my content to make a point. It is just turning around and saying "Well yes we'll have free speech but only what our nice rich corporations say it is. And anyone using our rich corporations product/terms/pitures/music, will first be censored and then after evaluation prosecuted."
Right now the ISP is not a tool in this and information misuse in a court case is included in the charges under damages. I really don't see why that is such a convoluted system that censorship has to come into it and the misuse that would come along with it. If you think someone is misusing your , settle it with them, they refuse? Go to court. Censorship is an ugly mess.
Edible Avatar said:
Charli said:
Thats sorta like beating your neighbor with a stick because he has a flu.
...while shooting yourself in the foot, because America produces a huge volume of website traffic... not to mention the buisness losses from participating companies...
Really, it would be a good idea if the average joe supported SOPA, but they don't, so you'd just be hurting people that would get pissed at the boycott instead of the government.
Anyways, if that happened, Americans could still visit websites via proxy :/
That's not it at all. It's like shoving your neighbors garbage onto his lawn because he's failed to have it taken away for 3 weeks and it's piled into a huge mess that is affecting you. Making someone aware of an issue through a point when telling the dozy git doesn't work. Being 20% aware of a problem is not enough.
I am not undermining the efforts of all those who DID get up an call their local congressmen or take steps to make their voice heard, but I will garuntee you 80% of these people just sat on their computer and talked about it on a website that was probably by and large ignored by the governement anyway (a few guilty parties being 4chan, 9gag, tumblr etc). Next time it might not be so simple.
There are ways of preventing proxy access, when you've lived under a totalitarian governement for a year you'll know that all too well and I fear for the future of the U.S. internet if something like that gets under the publics nose. I really do. The only way to motivate I see, is giving them a taste of something they don't like. Wikipedia had the right idea with that protest.
If SOPA was a fairly worded bill, I would be behind it too, It's not like I pirate a bloody thing, I buy all my games, all my shows, I'm working hard to produce and protect my own content. But it is not. And it would very very quickly become an exploitable mess that sir average joe would quickly become stepped on over.
There is no need to twist a lighthearted middle fingerism into something so sinister you people, I have read the bills, top to bottom, debated it with plenty of people. Known about it far longer than new articles about it have begun cropping up. You are just picking on my sense of morals and chosen theoretical action now and I'm not faltering in it.
I hold the people of America accountable for America to a degree, that is not wrong. Just as I would be accountable to the actions of my country to a degree.
It's a
very very small degree* but it exists. So don't pretend for one minute you've read an article about your governement doing something stupid and haven't felt that pang of annoyance. It's there.
*
Miniscule even, I don't believe for one second George Bush Jr, was elected fairly, I let that one slide.
