4 ms·
Wikipedia, other websites go dark in anti-piracy bill protest
I looked at CNN's frontpage take on the SOPA blackouts. Here is their definition of SOPA:
If SOPA passes, copyright holders would be able to complain to law enforcement officials and get websites shut down. Search engines and other providers would have to block rogue sites when ordered to do so by a judge. Sites could be punished for hosting pirated content -- and Internet companies are worried they could be held liable for users' actions.
I placed the emphasis around the offending line. This wordplay makes SOPA sound more palatable. Under DMCA, copyright holders already have the right to demand that websites take down offending material. Under SOPA, a judge can order the search engine itself to be shutdown. Search engines, news aggregation sites, and online community providers must be proactive in removing links before a judge is even involved. Under SOPA, the definition of a "rogue site" is anything that happens to have a link or piece of information representing a violation of copyright.
See "No Duty to Monitor" at http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html
- swordswinger12 15y agoEh, give CNN some credit. They could've done a whole lot worse, that article did a decent job of presenting both sides.
- abraxasz 15y agoI very much agree. I honestly think that the article was fair. CNN didn't try to hide that it's parent company was supporting SOPA (which is maybe obvious for american folks, but for a foreigner like me, it was worth mentioning), and detailled the arguments of both sides.
- weaksauce 15y agoThe corporate parent alliances are not always obvious to Americans either; it's very much needed in an article like this.
- eavc 15y agoAgreed - no worse than the average article on a complex topic, really.
- drhowarddrfine 15y agoDidn't scroll down enough to see your post. I agree, too.
- kristopolous 15y agocheck out anything from pcmag.com on SOPA if you want to see spin that makes you dizzy, I could link to a lot of articles, but I invite you to read the pieces on the site itself.
- cbr 15y ago"Media companies have united in favor of it, while tech's power players are throwing their might into opposing it."
- tripzilch 15y agoAlso implying that the "tech power players" are not media companies is silly.
- ugh 15y agoHow so? Can you point out passages? That seemed like pretty standard reporting to me. They explain what’s happening and bring out the position of each side, with an emphasis on presenting the views of those who take part in today’s protest. There is also a disclaimer, though you might argue it’s a bit far down.
- CWIZO 15y agoTake the title "Wikipedia, other websites go dark in anti-piracy bill protest". I immediately read that as "wikipedia is supporting piracy". YMMV
- badclient 15y agoDon't blame CNN for that, we should blame ourselves. We should have called this the anti-jobs bill from the get go.
- joezydeco 15y agoCBS radio pretty much said the same thing. "..went black to protest anti-piracy measures". We're all so busy blacking things out we forgot that the media needs guidance in framing the issues.
- roguecoder 15y agoA press release calling this "the internet censorship bill" could have gone a long way. Possibly along with more comparisons with China and Iran; appealing to xenophobia and American exceptionalism seems a usually-winning strategy.
- pgbovine 15y agoquite ironic given the poster's highly-editorialized title
- tgrass 15y agoFrom the guidelines: "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it."
- mikehuffman 15y agoIf MPAA wanted a workable sinister solution to the SOPA/PIPA problem, it would offer immunity to youtube, twitter, myspace, facebook, reddit, digg, etc. Which would allow for the abuse to continue unabated without all of the "common folk" getting excited about it.
- ajaimk 15y agoI'd say it I pretty neutral on the representation front. They do mention: "SOPA's supporters -- including CNN parent company Time Warner"
- drhowarddrfine 15y agoI find the article is one of the best and most informed I've read. And by CNN of all people.
- meow 15y agoA lot better than the asses at Fox. Just look at the malice dripping from this fox article: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/18/wikipedia-goes-dark-for-24-hours-to-protest-us-web-piracy-bills/ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/18/wikipedia-goes-dar...
- toddmorey 15y agoThe worst part of the article is actually a quote form a Wikipedia editor. It's dismissive and inaccurate, but you always know that when you see the phrase "before we know it..": "My main concern is that it puts the organization in the role of advocacy, and that's a slippery slope," said editor Robert Lawton, a Michigan computer consultant who would prefer that the encyclopedia stick to being a neutral repository of knowledge. "Before we know it, we're blacked out because we want to save the whales."
- bad_user 15y agoI don't get people with this line of thought. This is about survival, not about fighting worthy causes, even though saving whales is a noble cause and I wouldn't mind if Wikipedia fought for it.
- roguecoder 15y agoThis is typical of modern "opinions differ on the shape of the earth" reporting. Newspapers don't care what the truth is and won't ever pass judgment, no matter how fantastical someone's claims. All they can do is report what Democrats say, what Republicans say and what the Tea Party says. Reporting anything else, including reality, would be considered biased.
- thejteam 15y agoAm I the only one who has had no problem viewing wikipedia today? Main page fine looks normal except for the SOPA statement near the top. I've read several articles that I've gotten from google searches. Yes English language, yes I'm in the USA.
- thejteam 15y agoNever mind. I read the FAQs and you can read it just fine if javascript is disabled, which I do by default.