jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (36 posts)

Wikipedia will blackout in 24 hrs

  1. GoldenBird profile image61
    GoldenBirdposted 5 years ago

    SOPA and PIPA are two proposed laws that will enable copyright holders to accuse websites which hosts pirated content. Wikipedia, in protest, will blackout English Wikipedia for 24 hours. Should Internet be free and open worldwide?

    1. Marisa Wright profile image94
      Marisa Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm still confused about SOPA and PIPA.

      If they're laws to "enable copyright holders to accuse websites which host pirated content", why is that a bad thing?

      1. WriteAngled profile image90
        WriteAngledposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm thinking along these lines as well.

      2. GoldenBird profile image61
        GoldenBirdposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think the intention is the law is good, which is to protect people's copyright. But the law will implement penalty of 5 years if a website is found violating the law. I think Wikipedia did not like the severity of the penalty, as it is likely that many websites will fail to maintain that line.

    2. HistoryProdigy profile image65
      HistoryProdigyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I enjoy wikipedia. It is no less accurate than any other website or book, it is probably the most complete encyclopedia ever written. A great human achievement.

    3. Pearldiver profile image86
      Pearldiverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So do you think we should use our Fall Out Shelters and Crystal Sets or Can we just get by with our existing knowledge and common sense? smile

  2. ediggity profile image60
    ediggityposted 5 years ago

    Oh no, the world will crumble.  Not that, how can we live without a server full of inaccurate information for 24 hrs?  smile

    1. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I guess,you read conservepedia or maybe fox references? smile

    2. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Just to play with your mighty intelligence, find the inaccurate information in the following article and help raise your rep.

      http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME

      I can dig tons of articles like that.


      If you fail to point out inaccuracy in above article, please explain us low-lifers why you want to standby your assumption of "server full of inaccurate information" claim?

      1. ediggity profile image60
        ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj596/ediggity1/Wiki.png


        http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj596/ediggity1/Wiki2.png

        Guess you really don't know what you're talking about.  At least that's what Wikipedia says.  I guess I'll believe it, because that's what's on Wikipedia.  It's no assumption, and you're not a "low-lifer", just ill informed. No need to "raise" my "rep"  It's already credible to the people that matter, unlike your precious Wikipedia. smile

        1. skyfire profile image72
          skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Aw snap yet another argument of public editing on wikipedia. Just because you're open to edit the page doesn't mean it's less credible and it will remain forever. I don't see your edit anymore, what happened ? Still unsure about how wikipedia works ? smile


          *facepalm* No wonder likes of you subscribe to conservepedia and take "believe" part in life way too seriously over credibility.

          Funny to read that "ill-informed" part is coming from you.



          Let me guess, people who use conservepedia and watch FOX news, definitely smile

          1. ediggity profile image60
            ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I removed the edit immediately after.  Im quite familiar on how it works, and that is why I don't  rely on it.  I'm not a proponent of re circulating false information, unlike you.  I don't see any relationship between this debate and what news programs we watch?  That comment really shows your true character, and inability to recognize any other opinions besides the ones you agree with.  If you want to bow down to Wikipedia be my guest, but those who truly rely on relevant information in my profession don't..  smile

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia, as long as you are intelligent enough to look at the sources. It's just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica, but more powerful for finding information.

              1. ediggity profile image60
                ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  smile

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The great thing about language, is how words have meaning, depth, and context. Any reasonable person can read what I wrote and understand it means to look at the sources, read the sources, and think for yourself. Obviously if the source is a blog saying 'This happened. It's true' it wouldn't be considered valid.

                  So tell me, what's the point of you 'fixing' what I wrote? Do you just enjoy causing difficulty where it doesn't need to exist?

                  1. ediggity profile image60
                    ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    If we were speaking I would partially agree with your statement about language; however, we are not speaking. Assumptions based off written statements are unnecessary if the author clearly writes what they intend to describe (unlike what you wrote there is ambiguity). The rest of your statement makes assumptions and judgements based of your own opinion about a "reasonable person", which not everyone shares, particularly me.  I consider your writing style and assumption about comprehension unreasonable.  I am not making anything difficult, to simply "look at the sources" on the bottom of the Wikipedia page does not mean one actually verified them, and that the actual interpretation of them by the author/s was accurate.  Rather than do all of that legwork I would rather go straight to the source. smile

  3. Aficionada profile image90
    Aficionadaposted 5 years ago

    As I understand it, one of the big problems is that, under these laws, the mere accusation of piracy could cause a site (such as HubPages) to be shut down - without due process.  A similar accusation of piracy would require that a site not accept credit cards (if it had previously sold items or services via credit card payment).

    Initially, these laws do sound well-intentioned.  But as you read more details, they become more questionable.  Check out this info and rant (with a multitude of links): http://www.craigslist.org/about/SOPA

    and this synopsis: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/commen … ?context=3

    1. WryLilt profile image87
      WryLiltposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It will basically destroy content farms, in other words. Wonder if Google has anything to do with this... LOL!

  4. Richieb799 profile image60
    Richieb799posted 5 years ago

    Is SOPA, trying to clean the internet? (get it?) wink is it prounced SOAP-A?

    1. WryLilt profile image87
      WryLiltposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Haha!

    2. David 470 profile image88
      David 470posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Fitting name.

  5. Aficionada profile image90
    Aficionadaposted 5 years ago

    Actually, Google is on the list of those who are opposed to it.  Matt Cutts posted (on Google-Plus) a link to instructions for those who wish to participate in the blackout tomorrow (with their own individual websites).

    From the craigslist link:

    "Supporters of PIPA and SOPA: RIAA, MPAA, News Corp, TimeWarner, Walmart, Nike, Tiffany, Chanel, Rolex, Sony, Juicy Couture, Ralph Lauren, VISA, Mastercard, Comcast, ABC, Dow Chemical, Monster Cable, Teamsters, Rupert Murdoch, Lamar Smith (R-TX), John Conyers (D-MI)"

    "Opponents of PIPA and SOPA: Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, craigslist, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, eBay, AOL, Mozilla, Reddit, Tumblr, Etsy, Zynga, EFF, ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Darrell Issa (R-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX)"

    Not only might it affect content farms, but it could easily affect a lot of individual blogs and websites.  All it would take is for some other website to accuse you of copying their content or selling some knock-offs, and your entire website could potentially be taken down.  GoldenBird says that could be for five years!

    According to other sources I have scanned, it only requires one instance of presumed piracy on the entire website to break this law.  So, if only one Hubber out of thousands posted some pirated content (hmmm... could such a thing ever happen here?), then all of HubPages could possibly be shut down.

    The craigslist link said that a better law is being proposed.  That may be the one that addresses the piracy problem without opening a Pandora's box.

    1. WryLilt profile image87
      WryLiltposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for the info! Wish HP was doing a blackout.

      1. Aficionada profile image90
        Aficionadaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You're welcome!

        Meeee tooooo!!

    2. David 470 profile image88
      David 470posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm glad Google is against it -- of course I can see why...

      Why is mastercard for the law?? I use mastercard.

      I sure hope this does not happen. What is the chance of these bills being passed?

      1. Aficionada profile image90
        Aficionadaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I assume that the credit cards companies think it is a quick fix - a way to punish some website that accepts their card in payment for fake copies of Ralph Lauren designs or Chanel perfume, for example.  The credit card companies may think (I'm guessing, you understand) that it will help prevent customers from coming back to the credit card company with complaints about merchandise.


        The craigslist link (which I found courtesy of Sophia Angelique) has many, many other links that I have not investigated. Some of them seem to link to articles that indicate Congress is starting to backpedal - so maybe the protests are being heard.  But it is still advisable for us to contact our representatives and voice our opinions.  I haven't done so yet - I'm reminding myself too that I need to do so.

  6. Kyle Payne profile image61
    Kyle Payneposted 5 years ago

    Government should not be involved in personal things such as this. When the federal of state governments involve themselves, it undermines individual liberty in a loathsome way, and threatens to disband the liberty that our nation has.

    1. WryLilt profile image87
      WryLiltposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Liberty?

      The best way to stop people doing something is to tell them they're free to do it.

  7. Debby Bruck profile image84
    Debby Bruckposted 5 years ago

    Hello GoldenBird. I guess my latest blog on SOPA and tonight's wikipedia blackout stirred you to write on the forum.

    I have provided some links to contact your congressional representatives if you wish to be active and state your opinion.

    Check it out, "Wikipedia SOPA Protest Turns The Lights Out Wednesday January 18 2012"

    I think these events have already had an impact and they are backing down from passing these bills.

    Plus, President Obama has implied he is against SOPA and PIPA as they would interfere with a free and open internet.

    I have also posted a couple of POLLS on that Hubpages to find out if anyone has personally experienced being blocked.

    I myself have run across a number of news media pages with videos, news reports and television programs that prevent me from viewing. This is frustrating when someone from UK or elsewhere sends me the link.

    Obviously, everyone knows that countries like China block their people from viewing the entire internet.

    How would you feel if this was standard operating procedure in America?

    1. GoldenBird profile image61
      GoldenBirdposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      My personal opinion is, that it's not really a requirement to have such laws as these ones, with such severe penalty of 5 years imprisonment for a person who just knowingly / unknowingly posted a 'pirated' picture in facebook.

      Most websites respect copyrights of others, and the DCMA was working pretty well.

      Making more severe laws does not solve the problem, but worsens the situation. A government can also discuss a problem.

      1. Debby Bruck profile image84
        Debby Bruckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hi GB ~ True. The alternative would be having people in each government sit down to 'discuss' the problems and find equitable solutions, rather than heavy handedly block everyone.

  8. rebekahELLE profile image86
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago
  9. EmpressFelicity profile image79
    EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago

    SOPA sounds like the online equivalent of the government penalising the entire post office because *one* person sent a parcel containing counterfeit goods.

    1. Debby Bruck profile image84
      Debby Bruckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Or make everyone take off their shoes at the airport because of one shoe bomber.

      A good equivalent analogy.

  10. kirstenblog profile image75
    kirstenblogposted 5 years ago

    This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been removed. ███ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ .███ ███

  11. talin401 profile image57
    talin401posted 5 years ago

    I dont like blackouts

 
working