4 ms·

I don't know what the OP means by 'blackout', but apparently others on r/SOPA have repeatedly used it to mean 'complete shutdown'. http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA

I don't know what the OP means by 'blackout', but apparently others on r/SOPA have repeatedly used it to mean 'complete shutdown'. http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/o8aty/petition_to_googlefacebooktwitter_etc_for/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/o8aty/petition_to_goog... http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/search?q=blackout&restrict_sr=on http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/search?q=blackout&restrict_...

Joakal 15y ago
"This domain has been seized to comply with SOPA act (1). If this was in error, please follow these simple steps: 1) File a domain release request to your local Federal Court. 2) " etc. By 'simple', make it look like it'll take a long time and a lot of legalese. A good touch is an official-looking logo.
- Mithrandir 15y ago
  I can see some senator(s) coming along and crying about how companies have too much power because these companies promote "intellectual property theft," then a year later complaining that government needs to get out of business because the companies are going bankrupt. Oh the irony.
  - Joakal 15y ago
    The Internet giants could come out and cry about how congress is killing the people's future as well the children's future. Extended: They are willing to take a day's loss and a loss of a politically neutral reputation for this brief event because such anti-Internet bills will harm the people and children. They believe it's wrong that the biggest support for the bills are from groups with a conflict of interest for death of sharing instead of adapting to newer technology that empowers people.
    - Mithrandir 15y ago
      (This is just my opinion.) I would argue that a company that comes out against the SOPA does it more out of interest in having control over its content, what it does and not having a monopolistic third-party shut them down. They do it for survival of themselves first. I'm sure that most of them care about internet freedom (after all, companies are composed of people who have their own freedom of expression); and if it didn't affect them whatsoever, I'm sure that many companies would take a stand against the SOPA and we'd be in the same position as we are now. Of course, companies that have supported the bill have done so out of interest in having control of their 'material.' So we have two different points of view, one for and one against. However, both come from a need for control of content (some would call it greed, but that has negative connotations which I don't feel like addressing.) My comment that you replied to has nothing to do with companies supporting or not supporting the SOPA, for freedom or not, but rather that some politicians (see the ones who support the SOPA) see things from an individual standpoint: i.e., they support business freedom except when it interferes with either their supporters (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) or what they 'believe' in. In other words, they want their cake and they want to eat it too.
gojomo 15y ago
Both of those links have people using 'blackout' in unclear and mixed ways. Several of the hits for the 'blackout' search discuss click-through interstitials and temporary page-blackening (a technique that has been used before in mutli-site protests without completely withholding services, for more than a few seconds' delay). The Declan McCullaugh 'nuclear option' prediction in CNET [1] only mentions the home pages simultaneously "turn[ing] black with anti-censorship warnings that ask users to contact politicians". The Wikipedia (en) thread where a lot of this escalation-of-attention can be traced to included a mixture of both disablement-blackout (as I believe the Italian Wikipedia did for its domestic protest) and interstitial 'blackout' discussion. The term is very broad without added context clarifying each use. [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57349540-281/sopa-opponents-may-go-nuclear-and-other-2012-predictions/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57349540-281/sopa-opponent...

Joakal 15y ago

"This domain has been seized to comply with SOPA act (1). If this was in error, please follow these simple steps: 1) File a domain release request to your local Federal Court. 2) " etc. By 'simple', make it look like it'll take a long time and a lot of legalese. A good touch is an official-looking logo.

Mithrandir 15y ago
I can see some senator(s) coming along and crying about how companies have too much power because these companies promote "intellectual property theft," then a year later complaining that government needs to get out of business because the companies are going bankrupt. Oh the irony.
- Joakal 15y ago
  The Internet giants could come out and cry about how congress is killing the people's future as well the children's future. Extended: They are willing to take a day's loss and a loss of a politically neutral reputation for this brief event because such anti-Internet bills will harm the people and children. They believe it's wrong that the biggest support for the bills are from groups with a conflict of interest for death of sharing instead of adapting to newer technology that empowers people.
  - Mithrandir 15y ago
    (This is just my opinion.) I would argue that a company that comes out against the SOPA does it more out of interest in having control over its content, what it does and not having a monopolistic third-party shut them down. They do it for survival of themselves first. I'm sure that most of them care about internet freedom (after all, companies are composed of people who have their own freedom of expression); and if it didn't affect them whatsoever, I'm sure that many companies would take a stand against the SOPA and we'd be in the same position as we are now. Of course, companies that have supported the bill have done so out of interest in having control of their 'material.' So we have two different points of view, one for and one against. However, both come from a need for control of content (some would call it greed, but that has negative connotations which I don't feel like addressing.) My comment that you replied to has nothing to do with companies supporting or not supporting the SOPA, for freedom or not, but rather that some politicians (see the ones who support the SOPA) see things from an individual standpoint: i.e., they support business freedom except when it interferes with either their supporters (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) or what they 'believe' in. In other words, they want their cake and they want to eat it too.

gojomo 15y ago

Both of those links have people using 'blackout' in unclear and mixed ways. Several of the hits for the 'blackout' search discuss click-through interstitials and temporary page-blackening (a technique that has been used before in mutli-site protests without completely withholding services, for more than a few seconds' delay). The Declan McCullaugh 'nuclear option' prediction in CNET [1] only mentions the home pages simultaneously "turn[ing] black with anti-censorship warnings that ask users to contact politicians". The Wikipedia (en) thread where a lot of this escalation-of-attention can be traced to included a mixture of both disablement-blackout (as I believe the Italian Wikipedia did for its domestic protest) and interstitial 'blackout' discussion. The term is very broad without added context clarifying each use. [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57349540-281/sopa-opponents-may-go-nuclear-and-other-2012-predictions/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57349540-281/sopa-opponent...