5 ms·

Oh no, please stop focusing only on SOPA or lesser part of Protect IP! Those two are just two battles by anti-Internet groups. They tried one tactic with SOPA

by Joakal 15y ago

Oh no, please stop focusing only on SOPA or lesser part of Protect IP! Those two are just two battles by anti-Internet groups. They tried one tactic with SOPA to fool people in thinking it was delayed until next year: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nfrru/sopa_has_not_been_postponed_to_2012_the_committee/ http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nfrru/sopa_has_n... There had been many anti-Internet attempts implemented and proposed: SOPA, DMCA, PROTECT-IP, COICA, CEST, OPENA, ACTA and more. PLEASE. Demand Internet Freedom bills in place of such bills. Protect not only current and future Internet businesses, but also the future of children's access to knowledge and ability to share (Some people think the anti-SOPA are just Internet companies). For example, making it illegal for government or corporations to shut down domains without due process. There's more potential in the SOPA by simply re-wording it to be pro-Internet Freedom. Bonus: It'll make such Internet Freedom bills a template for pushing Internet Freedom on other countries! Especially UK and Australia. If they won't stop outlawing/controlling parts of the Internet, then we need to fight back in outlawing anti-Internet attempts. The war against the Internet will continue after SOPA. Edit: I sent a message to reddit admins again (several attempts already in past). If you know any of the reddit admins, please pass on this Internet Freedom message quickly! 2nd Edit: hueypriest acknowledges the message: "We are well aware that the fight will continue long after SOPA/PIPA, and that this is just the first battle."

Cieplak 15y ago
How can such a bill be worded to divert criticism that the bill might interfere with the government's ability to fight "terrorism"?
- Joakal 15y ago
  It's impractical to fight terrorism in taking down domains. Analogy: It's like bombing a town because one house is harbouring terrorists. Domain analogy: It's like taking down youtube.com because one channel is harbouring terrorist videos.
  - Cieplak 15y ago
    Absolutely; I would go even farther and call it absurd. I want to see open-internet bills in Congress. I want to know how to implement such a bill so that it can coexist with something like the Patriot Act.
  - lotu 15y ago
    How about, taking down domains to prevent terrorism would be like removing street signs to prevent car bombings.
    - sirclueless 15y ago
      Doubly useless since the terrorists can work around a lack of signs with GPS anyways.
    - fmw 15y ago
      This is something the British actually did during World War II in order to confuse possible invading forces and spies[0]. [0]: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205019014 http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205019014
  - cellis 15y ago
    "It's like bombing a town because one house is harbouring terrorists" Govt: Even MORE reason for us to like it! Thanks alot!
- notatoad 15y ago
  or the real issue: how can we convince people that freedom is more important than defence, so that bullshit arguments like "interfering with the ability to fight terrorism" can't be used in the future to restrict basic rights like freedom of speech?
nextparadigms 15y ago
It should be a Constitutional Amendment, but I'll take a couple of Internet Freedom bills until then. The current administration would most likely veto them, though, even if we get Congress to pass them, and so would most of the current Republican candidates.
cstejerean 15y ago
It seems like every time there is some message about protesting SOPA there is a comment from you about an Internet Freedom bill. I agree with you overall but I don't know if the constant repetition is helping.
- gameshot911 15y ago
  If he believes in his ideas, then constant repetition is exactly the way to go. It's all a number game - have to get into as many heads as possible. This was the first time I've seen his message, and it's definitely one I agree with.
  - gabaix 15y ago
    I was not aware of his/her message until today. In my case the repetition was helping.
    - zizee 15y ago
      I know "me too" messages are against guidelines, but me too. I think it is important to fight back using the same weapons as your aggressor, so anti-SOPA legislation seems like a good tactic. In a perfect world it would not be necessary, but this is an imperfect world. If someone is repeatadly beating you with a stick, ignoring your protests, after a while you have to consider picking up a stick and hitting them back. * with the hiding of comment votes, how is one able to publically express the support of an opinion? I guess this is a special case where if someone is telling another to quieten down, it is ok to chime in... edit: the stick analogy and toning it down
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Constant repetition is the way to convince most people. It's how TV ads work, and it's how Iraq's "WMD" war propaganda worked, too.
  - wladimir 15y ago
    Repetition is generally hated in the "DRY" techie world. After all, why repeat yourself when you can re-use. But the brain doesn't quite work that way. The message gets stronger when repeated. Of course, that can mean your internal annoyed sceptic begins to resist it (as with commericals), but at least that's a response, more than simply ignoring it.
coffeemug 15y ago
making it illegal for government or corporations to shut down domains without due process I think that going down the path of having the legislative branch pass laws to protect rights that are already clearly protected by the constitution is a really bad idea. For example, having congress protect the right of peaceful assembly seems preposterous. Doing so would imply that encroaching on the right of peaceful assembly is even an option, which, in a civilized democratic society, it isn't. The internet should be no different. As much as technies like to complain about our representatives, the reality is that they do a reasonably good job representing the overwhelming majority of the population. Most people who have families to take care of don't know or care for SOPA, and would probably support curbing piracy, hate sites, and child pornography via DNS blackouts (if they knew what DNS meant). Like it or not, they are the majority of the electorate. The proper way to ensure that the internet remains free and open is to educate the populace. Failing that, we need to put pressure on congress on bill-by-bill basis. Failing that, it's the Supreme Court's job to declare any encroachment on our rights as unconstitutional. We don't need to pass laws to protect rights that are already protected because it legitimizes encroachment on our rights in general and blurs the lines between different branches of government in ways they weren't meant to blurred. It's a slippery slope and a really bad road to go on.
- baddox 15y ago
  I agree that it shouldn't be necessary to pass laws affirming the Constitution, but who else is going to do it? It's up to Executive branch to enforce laws, and they're not willing. The Judicial branch can declare things unconstitutional, but they have no power to enforce. If the Legislative branch is the only one willing to at least try, they might as well. Of course, we know they're also unwilling.
- baddox 15y ago
  I should add that much of the Bill of Rights was protested because it was considered redundant, since everything the govermoment is allowed to do is already listed, and everything else they're not allowed to do. Of course, we've seen that even with that redundancy it's not enough.
- Joakal 15y ago
nextparadigms 15y ago
There's also an Occupy Congress movement on January 17th, the first day Congress goes back to work, so maybe this will help scare the SOPA supporters a little, too. A strong showing for Occupy Congress and massive Internet blackouts, could send a clear message to Congress and politicians taking money to pass laws, that this is not going to fly anymore. http://www.occupyyourcongress.info/ http://www.occupyyourcongress.info/
wladimir 15y ago
I agree. Being reactionary usually means you'll play second violin. Anti-SOPA, anti-PIPA, etc. Always the underdog in the narrative. It is useful to push back, but they will keep pushing this through our throat, and will advance inch by inch. If we are to ever progress beyond 20th century retoric, "the internet" needs to grab the narrative, rewire culture, and make laws to its own advantage. If it is really such a powerful social force (as I believe it is) this should be possible.

by Joakal 15y ago

Cieplak 15y ago

How can such a bill be worded to divert criticism that the bill might interfere with the government's ability to fight "terrorism"?

Joakal 15y ago
It's impractical to fight terrorism in taking down domains. Analogy: It's like bombing a town because one house is harbouring terrorists. Domain analogy: It's like taking down youtube.com because one channel is harbouring terrorist videos.
- Cieplak 15y ago
  Absolutely; I would go even farther and call it absurd. I want to see open-internet bills in Congress. I want to know how to implement such a bill so that it can coexist with something like the Patriot Act.
- lotu 15y ago
  How about, taking down domains to prevent terrorism would be like removing street signs to prevent car bombings.
  - sirclueless 15y ago
    Doubly useless since the terrorists can work around a lack of signs with GPS anyways.
  - fmw 15y ago
    This is something the British actually did during World War II in order to confuse possible invading forces and spies[0]. [0]: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205019014 http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205019014
- cellis 15y ago
  "It's like bombing a town because one house is harbouring terrorists" Govt: Even MORE reason for us to like it! Thanks alot!
notatoad 15y ago
or the real issue: how can we convince people that freedom is more important than defence, so that bullshit arguments like "interfering with the ability to fight terrorism" can't be used in the future to restrict basic rights like freedom of speech?

nextparadigms 15y ago

It should be a Constitutional Amendment, but I'll take a couple of Internet Freedom bills until then. The current administration would most likely veto them, though, even if we get Congress to pass them, and so would most of the current Republican candidates.

cstejerean 15y ago

It seems like every time there is some message about protesting SOPA there is a comment from you about an Internet Freedom bill. I agree with you overall but I don't know if the constant repetition is helping.

gameshot911 15y ago
If he believes in his ideas, then constant repetition is exactly the way to go. It's all a number game - have to get into as many heads as possible. This was the first time I've seen his message, and it's definitely one I agree with.
- gabaix 15y ago
  I was not aware of his/her message until today. In my case the repetition was helping.
  - zizee 15y ago
    I know "me too" messages are against guidelines, but me too. I think it is important to fight back using the same weapons as your aggressor, so anti-SOPA legislation seems like a good tactic. In a perfect world it would not be necessary, but this is an imperfect world. If someone is repeatadly beating you with a stick, ignoring your protests, after a while you have to consider picking up a stick and hitting them back. * with the hiding of comment votes, how is one able to publically express the support of an opinion? I guess this is a special case where if someone is telling another to quieten down, it is ok to chime in... edit: the stick analogy and toning it down
nextparadigms 15y ago
Constant repetition is the way to convince most people. It's how TV ads work, and it's how Iraq's "WMD" war propaganda worked, too.
- wladimir 15y ago
  Repetition is generally hated in the "DRY" techie world. After all, why repeat yourself when you can re-use. But the brain doesn't quite work that way. The message gets stronger when repeated. Of course, that can mean your internal annoyed sceptic begins to resist it (as with commericals), but at least that's a response, more than simply ignoring it.

coffeemug 15y ago

making it illegal for government or corporations to shut down domains without due process I think that going down the path of having the legislative branch pass laws to protect rights that are already clearly protected by the constitution is a really bad idea. For example, having congress protect the right of peaceful assembly seems preposterous. Doing so would imply that encroaching on the right of peaceful assembly is even an option, which, in a civilized democratic society, it isn't. The internet should be no different. As much as technies like to complain about our representatives, the reality is that they do a reasonably good job representing the overwhelming majority of the population. Most people who have families to take care of don't know or care for SOPA, and would probably support curbing piracy, hate sites, and child pornography via DNS blackouts (if they knew what DNS meant). Like it or not, they are the majority of the electorate. The proper way to ensure that the internet remains free and open is to educate the populace. Failing that, we need to put pressure on congress on bill-by-bill basis. Failing that, it's the Supreme Court's job to declare any encroachment on our rights as unconstitutional. We don't need to pass laws to protect rights that are already protected because it legitimizes encroachment on our rights in general and blurs the lines between different branches of government in ways they weren't meant to blurred. It's a slippery slope and a really bad road to go on.

baddox 15y ago
I agree that it shouldn't be necessary to pass laws affirming the Constitution, but who else is going to do it? It's up to Executive branch to enforce laws, and they're not willing. The Judicial branch can declare things unconstitutional, but they have no power to enforce. If the Legislative branch is the only one willing to at least try, they might as well. Of course, we know they're also unwilling.
baddox 15y ago
I should add that much of the Bill of Rights was protested because it was considered redundant, since everything the govermoment is allowed to do is already listed, and everything else they're not allowed to do. Of course, we've seen that even with that redundancy it's not enough.
Joakal 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago

There's also an Occupy Congress movement on January 17th, the first day Congress goes back to work, so maybe this will help scare the SOPA supporters a little, too. A strong showing for Occupy Congress and massive Internet blackouts, could send a clear message to Congress and politicians taking money to pass laws, that this is not going to fly anymore. http://www.occupyyourcongress.info/ http://www.occupyyourcongress.info/

wladimir 15y ago

I agree. Being reactionary usually means you'll play second violin. Anti-SOPA, anti-PIPA, etc. Always the underdog in the narrative. It is useful to push back, but they will keep pushing this through our throat, and will advance inch by inch. If we are to ever progress beyond 20th century retoric, "the internet" needs to grab the narrative, rewire culture, and make laws to its own advantage. If it is really such a powerful social force (as I believe it is) this should be possible.