SOPA - Fight Against Internet Censorship

Mijzelffan said:
This is all blown so much out of proportion I am gonna give myself the liberty to call this post pure propaganda.

If you read an actual news site about the matter, rather than listen to paranoid internet pirates, you'll see it isn't what all the paranoids make it out to be.
Click to expand...

No, this is actually happening. It's pretty obvious. And I did read actual news sites about it- several, actually.

I'm not sure why the *bleep* you're so determined to cover your ears and scream NO NO NO NO LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when this isn't just a paranoid loony fringe thing- it's a plain fact that is pretty well known to most people. It's basically being forced through by the entertainment industry, who want to remove basically all of Youtube from the internet. It is violation of personal rights, and if you're so bloody stupid as to think that if you play Cornelius Fudge long enough it'll go away, then more power to you, but shut the *bleep* up!

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that Congress won't do something stupid. Stupid is what Congress is best at.

The massive outcry will probably lead to it not passing, and if it does then Obama will veto it, as he's promised to, but to pretend that there's no risk at all is just foolish.
 
Messed Up Freakshow of Cryptic Sarcasm said:
Mijzelffan said:
This is all blown so much out of proportion I am gonna give myself the liberty to call this post pure propaganda.

If you read an actual news site about the matter, rather than listen to paranoid internet pirates, you'll see it isn't what all the paranoids make it out to be.
Click to expand...

No, this is actually happening. It's pretty obvious. And I did read actual news sites about it- several, actually.

I'm not sure why the fuck you're so determined to cover your ears and scream NO NO NO NO LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when this isn't just a paranoid loony fringe thing- it's a plain fact that is pretty well known to most people. It's basically being forced through by the entertainment industry, who want to remove basically all of Youtube from the internet. It is violation of personal rights, and if you're so bloody stupid as to think that if you play Cornelius Fudge long enough it'll go away, then more power to you, but shut the fuck up!

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that Congress won't do something stupid. Stupid is what Congress is best at.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know we're on the internet and ignoring someone else's arguments is a key element when it comes to discussing, idem dito for ad hominems, but please, read my post above, where I fully explain why it's not a big deal. And no, it's not just based on the idea congress won't do something stupid. Because while I do believe they won't, I have given some arguments as for why it won't be a big deal even if it passes, and even for when it is as a big deal as you make it out to be.

Also, if you could stop being butthurt for a moment, for some reason you think everything you say is a fact and use some ad hominem's to explain why I am wrong, but at least I provided a source to back up my claims. Where's yours?

The massive outcry will probably lead to it not passing, and if it does then Obama will veto it, as he's promised to, but to pretend that there's no risk at all is just foolish.
Click to expand...

Even more evidence for my claim as for why it won't be a big deal.
 
Mijzelffan said:
How does it feel, wearing a tin foil hat? Something you'd recommend?
Click to expand...
I'll try to take that non-literally. I don't see how all the sudden I'm paranoid just because I oppose two bills and support the idea of other opposers having their voices heard.

Mijzelffan said:
Do you really think the US government would be stupid enough to ban sites that would cause a worldwide uproar when closed?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that wasn't the point of my post. You know how some videos disappear off Youtube due to copyright concerns? That kind of thing would increase dramatically.

Mijzelffan said:
If they were to close stuff like facebook the white house would probably experience an Egypt-like revolution, just saying.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I think it's stupid to say SOPA/IP Protect would cause Facebook to be shut down.

Judging by your attitude, there must be something good that can come from these two bills. Do you have any proof or at least some kind of tiny scrap of a source with information about their content? Or are you going to continue to defend something that you clearly haven't done ten seconds of research on?
 
QuizmoManiac said:
I hope Canada doesn't follow in U.S. footsteps here.
Click to expand...
I'm more than willing to bet other countries will jump on the bandwagon if this passes.
 
Mijzelffan said:
Yes, I know we're on the internet and ignoring someone else's arguments is a key element when it comes to discussing, idem dito for ad hominems, but please, read my post above, where I fully explain why it's not a big deal. And no, it's not just based on the idea congress won't do something stupid. Because while I do believe they won't, I have given some arguments as for why it won't be a big deal even if it passes, and even for when it is as a big deal as you make it out to be.

Also, if you could stop being butthurt for a moment, for some reason you think everything you say is a fact and use some ad hominem's to explain why I am wrong, but at least I provided a source to back up my claims. Where's yours?

The massive outcry will probably lead to it not passing, and if it does then Obama will veto it, as he's promised to, but to pretend that there's no risk at all is just foolish.
Click to expand...

Even more evidence for my claim as for why it won't be a big deal.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'll bite. You want citations? Here!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/sopas-ugly-message-to-the-world-about-america-and-internet-innovation/2010/12/20/gIQATlhEYN_blog.html
http://lifehacker.com/5860205/all-about-sopa-the-bill-thats-going-to-cripple-your-internet
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/19/60671123.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/198777-google-chairman-says-online-piracy-bill-would-criminalize-linking
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/12/chris-dodds-defense-sopa-makes-him-sound-despot/46177/
http://dontcensorthenet.com/
http://americancensorship.org/
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-17/news/30412322_1_ip-act-rogue-websites-sopa
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2011/1116/SOPA-Does-bill-encourage-Internet-censorship

I can find more if you want.

Not to mention that the link you provided to cite your opinion actually explains why SOPA is bad:

In the US, critics warn that SOPA is unnecessarily draconian.

"Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding US internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of websites," Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay wrote in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committee.

"We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry's continued track record of innovation and job creation, as well as to our nation's cybersecurity," the companies said. The letter was also signed by AOL, Twitter, LinkedIn, Mozilla and Zynga.

Speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management this week, Google chairman Eric Schmidt voiced his own opposition to SOPA.

"The solutions are draconian. There's a bill that would require ISPs to remove URLs from the web which is also known as censorship last time I checked," he said.

In the UK the Motion Picture Association recently won a court order against BT forcing the ISP to block access to Newzbin 2, a members-only site which aggregates links to illegal content. It is now seeking to extend the block to other ISPs.

Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt is considering whether to introduce even stricter measures in the upcoming Communications Act which, like SOPA, would target search engines, payment processors and advertising firms.
Click to expand...
 
I don't have any passionate, well-thought out arguments for any of this, but at the very least I strongly oppose the bill. But I'd just like to ask you, Mijzelfan; why does a Dutch pedophile like you care so much about a United States bill, especially one you think is completely unimportant? If you think it's so unimportant, why are you arguing about it? You must be doing this just to stir shit up and piss off Americans.
 
Mason said:
Mijzelffan said:
Do you really think the US government would be stupid enough to ban sites that would cause a worldwide uproar when closed?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that wasn't the point of my post. You know how some videos disappear off Youtube due to copyright concerns? That kind of thing would increase dramatically.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok then. And yes, that would probably be the case. That's still not the same as hundreds of sites needing to close down.

Mijzelffan said:
If they were to close stuff like facebook the white house would probably experience an Egypt-like revolution, just saying.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I think it's stupid to say SOPA/IP Protect would cause Facebook to be shut down.

Judging by your attitude, there must be something good that can come from these two bills. Do you have any proof or at least some kind of tiny scrap of a source with information about their content?
Click to expand...

Let's look at it like this. Say officials are planning to build a nuclear powerplant in the middle of a city, and say there is no health risk whatsoever. Then we have the people who oppose it, because it if it was build, it would make the entire world nuclear, and we'd all have to live our lives as mutants.

Would I defend the nuclear powerplant? No, because I know it's hazardous to the city it's going to be build in. Would I side with the people who clearly exaggerate what's going on? No I wouldn't either. Maybe their cause is right, but their arguments sure as hell aren't, which is why I will not be joining them. I'm just attacking their faulty arguments just because.

Because tbh, I couldn't care less about this bill passing or not. In my opinion, it's not gonna make a big difference, and the only way to prove me wrong is to have the bill pass.

Or are you going to continue to defend something that you clearly haven't done ten seconds of research on?
Click to expand...

Ad hominem's: because there is no better way to say "I hate you because of your opinion" :D

Best slogan ever. Ad hominem's always seem to be essential in internet discussions. I never knew why though.


As for all those sources, I can show something wrong with almost all of them (guess I actually learn useful stuff in university, huh?):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/sopas-ugly-message-to-the-world-about-america-and-internet-innovation/2010/12/20/gIQATlhEYN_blog.html

The conclusion:

"The new SOPA bill may not "cripple the Internet" as some have suggested, but passage would send a strong message to the world about the way the U.S. really views the flow of information, data and content across the Web."

http://lifehacker.com/5860205/all-about-sopa-the-bill-thats-going-to-cripple-your-internet

This site asks you to call your local congressman to stop the bill, and therefore is not an objective site on the matter. As historians would put it, this source is coloured.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/19/60671123.html

The most heavy stuff in here are just quotes from opponents of the act, and while it raises some valid points, it says they're all theoretical. "They could censor" rather than "they're going to censor". The latter all you guys are saying.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/198777-google-chairman-says-online-piracy-bill-would-criminalize-linking

Just because Eric Schmidt says something doesn't make it's true. Unless it's about Google, but it's not in this case.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/12/chris-dodds-defense-sopa-makes-him-sound-despot/46177/

So the guy is an idiot, and there are better suggestions out there. That wasn't not my point. Keep the sources relevant, would'ya?

http://dontcensorthenet.com/
http://americancensorship.org/

"North-Korea is the best country on earth. I will present to you their government's official site to prove my story."

In case you didn't get that, you can't use those sites as a source, as they will claim the bill is pure evil, regardless of what the bill actually does. Just like the supporters say the bill won't cause any harm.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-17/news/30412322_1_ip-act-rogue-websites-sopa

Title: "SOPA is 'Internet censorship,' says Google & Twitter & Facebook" -from the title. Last time I checked they were biased, and therefore not a valid source.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2011/1116/SOPA-Does-bill-encourage-Internet-censorship

Same for this one.

I can find more if you want.
Click to expand...

Go ahead. Tip: the source is less likely to be biased when it's not from the US.

Not to mention that the link you provided to cite your opinion actually explains why SOPA is bad:
Click to expand...

It explains why it's bad, but not as bad as most people here make it out to be. It's called exaggerating. You're saying this will end the free internet forever, and all sites will be immediatly blocked when caught even linking to illegal content, right? And how the US will censor every site that opposes them just because? Then show something proving that's exactly what will happen. I'm not denying anything besides that worst case scenario that is presented as a 100% truth everywhere.


Crocodile Dippy said:
I don't have any passionate, well-thought out arguments for any of this, but at the very least I strongly oppose the bill. But I'd just like to ask you, Mijzelfan; why does a Dutch pedophile like you care so much about a United States bill, especially one you think is completely unimportant? If you think it's so unimportant, why are you arguing about it? You must be doing this just to stir shit up and piss off Americans.
Click to expand...

Even more ad hominems. Are they really needed? Could you please stop with calling me a pedophile (this is like what, the third time you called me that)? I'm just trying to have a civil discussion here, and they really are not needed.

Also, like I said before (or was that in this post? It took me long to write it, so I don't remember), I don't care about the bill. I'm doing this because you people present unfactual information presented as fact, and I'm trying to correct that. I'm not trying to piss of anyone. You're just getting pissed off because you appearently don't like it when people have a different opinion than you.
 
This still doesn't explain why you give a shit. Angry Dutch paedophiles don't usually have many ties with U.S., unless they've fled there after molesting someone, so I don't fully understand your rage at people who oppose the bill.


Your entire argument strategy seems to be a) get really mad for no reason, and b) shout a lot about 'ad hominems' to avoid actually responding to criticism.

Mijzelffan said:
You're just getting pissed off because you appearently don't like it when people have a different opinion than you.
Click to expand...

You showed up and started calling us propagandists and tinfoil hat wearers.

You're pretty clearly trying to piss someone off.
 
Messed Up Freakshow of Cryptic Sarcasm said:
This still doesn't explain why you give a shit. Angry Dutch paedophiles don't usually have many ties with U.S., unless they've fled there after molesting someone, so I don't fully understand your rage at people who oppose the bill.
Click to expand...

For the third time, please stop calling me a pedophile.

Also, I am not raging. Maybe the tin-foil hat statement was a bit cynical, but that's all. Also, why does it matter wether I'm from the US or from the Netherlands? This bill supposedly affects all of us when it passes, so I should be able to have an opinion. And even if it didn't affect me, I still should have my right for an opinion on the matter.
 
Mijzelffan said:
Messed Up Freakshow of Cryptic Sarcasm said:
This still doesn't explain why you give a shit. Angry Dutch paedophiles don't usually have many ties with U.S., unless they've fled there after molesting someone, so I don't fully understand your rage at people who oppose the bill.
Click to expand...

For the third time, please stop calling me a pedophile.

Also, I am not raging. Maybe the tin-foil hat statement was a bit cynical, but that's all. Also, why does it matter wether I'm from the US or from the Netherlands? This bill supposedly affects all of us when it passes, so I should be able to have an opinion. And even if it didn't affect me, I still should have my right for an opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

1) You seem to not only be very opinionated about this, but very angry at the prospect that you might be wrong. How the hell did you draw this conclusion, and what happened to make you so certain of it despite the massive evidence to the contrary?

2) It's U.S. legislation, so if we're clueless about this, you have even less of a clue.

3) Your "opinion" seems to be less "this is how I feel" and more "ha ha fuck ALL of you! Something about ad hominems!"
 
Mason said:
I don't hate you because of your opinion, I hate the way you attack everyone's opinions. You're actually seeming hypocritical. Did it occur to you people might be willing to listen to what you had to say in favor of the bills if you provided an explanation first instead of immediately assuming we'd attack you?
Click to expand...

I might be hypocritcal because I'm not exactly remembering everything I have said because it's 2am here and for some reason I am still discussing this.

Also, didn't I explain myself from the start? Or do you mean the "I'm not pro the bill" thing? Because I never said I was, so I don't really felt like I had to explain the opposite.

Also, people genreally attack others on opinions against general consensus. Such is the internet, sadly.

And don't worry about the tin-foil thing, the power plant thing was much worse. Nuclear power plant analogy? No thanks.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a pretty good analogy myself. But I'm not trying any offense with it (I'm just pretty bad at analogy's, so when I finally think up one I tend to use it), so I'm sorry that it offended you.

Mason said:
I feel like I'm derailing the discussion into semantics, and I don't feel like disturbing the sensitive and entertaining chemistry of Mijzelffan's and Scarecrow's debate. I withdraw.
Click to expand...

Too late.

Messed Up Freakshow of Cryptic Sarcasm said:
Mijzelffan said:
Messed Up Freakshow of Cryptic Sarcasm said:
This still doesn't explain why you give a shit. Angry Dutch paedophiles don't usually have many ties with U.S., unless they've fled there after molesting someone, so I don't fully understand your rage at people who oppose the bill.
Click to expand...

For the third time, please stop calling me a pedophile.

Also, I am not raging. Maybe the tin-foil hat statement was a bit cynical, but that's all. Also, why does it matter wether I'm from the US or from the Netherlands? This bill supposedly affects all of us when it passes, so I should be able to have an opinion. And even if it didn't affect me, I still should have my right for an opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

1) You seem to not only be very opinionated about this, but very angry at the prospect that you might be wrong. How the hell did you draw this conclusion, and what happened to make you so certain of it despite the massive evidence to the contrary?

2) It's U.S. legislation, so if we're clueless about this, you have even less of a clue.

3) Your "opinion" seems to be less "this is how I feel" and more "ha ha fuck ALL of you! Something about ad hominems!"
Click to expand...

1. I don't care if I'm wrong. Who knows, I might be wrong. You just can't prove it untill it turns out I'm wrong. I just disagree with your evidence, and your stating what you think is gonna happen as what s gonna happen.

2. If we're all cluesless, then why are we discussing this?

3. Yes, because I'm saying "fuck your sources". I'm not saying "fuck your opinion", because that's what I think it is: your opinion. Not a fact. You're presenting it as a fact of what's going to happen.
 
Whoops, deleted my post because I misunderstood something, but it looks like you didn't point it out so whatever. I'm too tired to figure out if your questions are rhetorical. I'd rather watch you and Scarecrow discuss this. Out.
 
You know what, you converted me. SOPA is bad stuff and will destroy the internet as we know it. If I were a US citizen I would've written my local congressman a letter about this, but sadly I am not.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to be up in 5 hours, and can probably use the sleep.
 
It's not too worrying to me.

Opposers of the bill include:

Opponents of the bill include Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, the Brookings Institution, and human rights organizations such as Reporters Without Borders, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU and Human Rights Watch.[...]Tumblr, Techdirt, the the Center for Democracy and Technology
Click to expand...

Supporters of the bill include:

Viacom, other douchebags
Click to expand...
 
note that the "other douchebags" are

Electronic Arts, Capcom USA, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Sega, THQ, Square Enix, Take Two, and Ubisoft
Click to expand...

and that's just in the field of vidcons. The complete list include big names like News Corporations.
 
oh. i thought wikipedia would probably leave something out (why did i look there), but wow. i don't think the chance is huge that it will pass, still, but i don't live in/near the usa so i don't know much about stuff like this.
 
Wait doesn't this bill violate Freedom of Speech in the first amendment? If so, if it passes, the Supreme Court will rule it as unconstitutional.
 
Good news, the voting for SOPA has been delayed until after Congress's winter recess. The bill won't pass quietly if it's passed at all.
 
Mason said:
Nintendo's supporting a bill in the United States? GTFO my country Nintendo.
Click to expand...
Eh heh heh, I'm sorry about that.

http://gizmodo.com/5870241/presented-without-comment-every-single-company-supporting-sopa-the-awful-internet-censorship-law

I don't see Nintendo on this list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back