
Wikipedia to Shut Down on Wednesday to Protest SOPA - minecraftman
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/16/wikipedia-will-shut-down-for-24-hours-on-wednesday-to-protest-against-sopa/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNextWeb+%28The+Next+Web+All+Stories%29
======
mduerksen
The train has been stopped, but it's still on track. Time to push it into the
other direction and maybe even let it derail spectaculously. But there is more
needed than raising awareness with this blackout.

This awareness should be exploited (in a good way) appropriately.

\- We as those that do understand the issue have the responsibility to explain
the problem to the majority. I still find it very difficult to effectively
reason against censorship, privacy and the like to "normal" people, in words
that they can relate to. A few weeks ago I personally accepted that challenge
and are training. I thought this thread was a good inspiration:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3425973>

\- Those who speak in public, especially in the mass-media, should not think
that they can win a discussion only with arguments, no matter how valid they
may be. Please ramp up the rhetoric skills. Alexis Ohanian does not look like
he is an expert in PR, so maybe he should be joined by public speakers with
experience with hostile (and outright lying) opponents, but he made a very
good start, and makes notable progress each time I see him. I know I would be
killed out there. Thanks Alexis, and keep it up!

I applaud the stand that Wikipedia makes and, being a german, propose that the
blackout should not end on English Wikipedia. The USA still is the most
influential country in the world, and this fight is international, just as the
web is international. Please do not mourn for one day without your favorite
sites. Show some solidarity among internet citizens.

I am quite happy with the progress that has been made.

~~~
sequoia
"The USA still is the most influential country in the world, and this fight is
international, just as the web is international."

As a US citizen, I didn't want to be the one to say this (in response to e.g.
[https://twitter.com/#!/foxhuntingx/statuses/1589645062094274...](https://twitter.com/#!/foxhuntingx/statuses/158964506209427456)
) because it might sound arrogant, but seriously, Herr Duerksen is correct:
People in Australia, UK, and other non-US places affected by the en.wikipedia
blackout can cover their eyes and ears and pretend SOPA doesn't affect them
but I think this is a ridiculous stance.

Yes, much of the world looks to/points at the US for various speech &c.
policies. Furthermore, much of the Anglophone world uses US internet services
and products that would likely be affected by SOPA (facebook, youtube, reddit,
en.wikipedia, 4chan, etc.). If it passes, SOPA _probably will affect you_
whether you live in Boston or Brisbane.

There are many people who seem to hard time grasping the fact that US law
applies to US sites, regardless of what country _you_ are in (see: "Google
turned off my 10 year old's Gmail even tho I live in the UK and it's a US
law!!! US law doesn't govern me!!" <\- yes but US _does_ govern Google, which
operates out of the US).

This fact is a good argument for creating competing services _not_ based in
the US (even tho it'd probably be illegal for us 'murkins to use them :/ ).

~~~
notahacker
It's not about whether it would affect us, it's about we can affect it.
Speaking as a Brit, I can't wait for Wikipedia's advice on how to contact my
local Congressional delegation.

(Footnote: Wikipedia points out that 55% of people supporting a blackout
wanted it to be global, and its true this option had the plurality of votes.
It's also true that the majority of people participating voted for something
less than a global blackout. Not sure it would have been the Concordcet
winner!)

~~~
sequoia
This is a really good point and something that the anti-SOPA movement should
address better (or at least publicize better). I imagine phoning into the
American consulate or embassy tomorrow couldn't hurt! They will say "we don't
control that" but you can just let them know you are upset about WP being out,
upset about SOPA, and liable to stop using US 'net services if becomes clear
that the US market is "unsafe" for 'net business. I'll edit if I find more
specific information for how non-US people can oppose SOPA.

------
lpolovets
I know there's a lot of cynicism about whether SOPA law is really being
abandoned, or whether it's just being temporarily shelved, but I'm really
excited about how opponents have banded together, and how organizations like
Reddit and Wikipedia have been willing to sacrifice page views and revenue to
show their support and to increase public awareness.

In the future, when someone advocates opposing an unjust law and someone else
responds that opposition is futile, the anti-SOPA efforts will serve as a
compelling and encouraging counterargument.

~~~
16s
The politicians will claim it is dead, then name it something else or not name
it anything at all and just tack it onto the end of some other legislation and
pass it when no one is watching.

In the USA, they're bought and paid for.

~~~
cwe
they may be able to keep the people from knowing about it until it happens,
but with all this outrage it seems unlikely they'll be able to keep it quiet
after the fact. Then they'll have to answer to this behavior come election
time.

~~~
16s
They don't care. They honor those who buy the lobster dinners and give them 30
dollar cigars. When you vote them out, they'll have several six or seven
figure cushy job offers to pick from.

\---

From wikipedia: In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically
insisting that he would not work as a lobbyist,"[22][23] [senator Chris] Dodd
was identified by The New York Times as the likely replacement for Dan
Glickman as chairman and chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA).[24] The hiring was officially announced on March 1, 2011.[25]

~~~
bad_user
The individuals may end up with six/seven figure cushy jobs, but the party may
still suffer long-term consequences.

When you're in politics, money is only good for one thing: buying votes.
However, if a force stronger than free t-shirts and pens makes itself noticed,
like mass-media reminding people how they got screwed, then interesting things
can happen.

I think the main issue here with these people is that the Internet is not
controlled so tightly as traditional media. And we are just starting to see
the social effects.

~~~
stonemetal
_the party may still suffer long-term consequences_

Two party system, long term is only long enough for the other side to screw
up, so 4 or 8 years tops.

~~~
bad_user
I wouldn't be so pessimistic about it and I'll tell you why.

In democracy the mass-media has traditionally played the role of a fourth
branch of government. However in recent times the traditional mass-media
companies ended-up too controlled, either by owners that are also in politics,
by legislation, or by the sheer pressure of catering to shareholders. But if
you think about it, the social changes that the Internet has brought are only
starting to emerge.

So IMHO, meet the new fourth branch of government: the Internet. And surely
Internet companies can still be controlled, but the Internet is much more
ethereal than traditional mass-media ever was and now the whole world is
watching. Hello from Romania ;)

~~~
alexqgb
I think this is exactly right, @bad_user. The extent to which this is true
blew up last Thursday, when Arthur Brisbane, the public editor of the New York
Times, went to his readers with a question:

"I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news
reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write
about."

As Clay Shirky observed, the response was "swift, voluminous, negative and
incredulous."

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/13/new-
york-times-public-editor)

Within 24 Hours, Vanity Fair turned Brisbane from an object of outrage into
one of sheer mockery.

[http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/01/Should-
emVani...](http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/01/Should-emVanity-
Fairem-Being-a-Spelling-Vigilante)

But the most damning remarks came from readers themselves. The comments on
Brisbane's post, and the one from Executive Editor Jill Abramson that
followed, were absolutely incandescent.

So yes, the total implosion of the 4th Estate is coming into the open. And
that's a very new development. That other big difference is that 10,000 calls
to a Senator's office is a lot. So what happens if they ALL get 1,000,000?
It's an absolutely off-the-charts response. You know there's opposition. You
expect a few grenades to be tossed. Instead, a thermonuclear bomb detonates.

It's entirely possible that the response to Wikipedia's move will be the
single largest driver of negative traffic in the history of Washington DC.
It's the kind of searing experience that tells previously complacent
politicians that, suddenly, they've got a major electoral issue. And not just
on this one bill, but on literally everything they do.

I agree with folks who say this cannot end with the derailment of SOPA/PIPA.
It has to continue until the flow of campaign cash from lobbyists ends, and
the revolving door is welded shut.

------
sjwright
Wikipedia's sysadmins should make sure their blackout pages return an HTTP 503
(Service Unavailable) response so that they don't accidentally poison the
search engine indexes, which risks causing SERP problems well beyond the
protest period.

~~~
frew
There's a saying that goes, "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If
you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." In this case, that
would be pretty much Google's problem.

------
badclient
So, what happens when I call my Congressman after learning about this on
wikipedia and his office says "oh SOPA, that bill has been put on hold already
since last week"? Won't many people get pissed at wikipedia?

Edit: I actually think they should call it off _at the last moment_. Save the
nuclear option for another time.

~~~
gwern
Former WMF counsel Mike Godwin (and former DC lawyer) just commented on the
Foundation mailing list:

    
    
        Dan, you're misreading the implications of what the story you link to
        says. What's actually happening is that the House sponsors hope to
        defuse opposition by delaying and slightly modifying SOPA. My
        experience as a DC lawyer for much of my career strongly suggests that
        there's no reason to suspend expressions of opposition to SOPA or PIPA
        or the general effort by content companies to change the internet as
        we know it. In my view, it is wholly incorrect to say "that time is
        not right now."  Anything that the legislators can interpret as a lack
        of resolve from the internet communities will encourage them to
        resubmit SOPA or its equivalent in another form. The time for
        protesting this is, in fact, right now.

~~~
badclient
In that case, I will go with this guy's view :) He seems to know what he's
talking about. Bring on the blackout!

------
forsaken
I think that it's crazy that all of this effort is going into opposing SOPA.
It seems that there should be a bill/effort drafted to codify the freedom of
the internet, and making DNS blocking illegal.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
The only thing that _might_ help is a constitutional amendment. A law can
easily be overwritten. An amendment at least gets some oversight from the
Supreme Court.

~~~
jacoblyles
There has been some discussion about this already. I am 100% behind going on
the offense for internet freedom:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3463847>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464227>

~~~
abecedarius
Also <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464814>

------
fosk
This reminds me when a few months ago Wikipedia shut down in Italy to protest
against a similar case regarding censorship.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3072800>

------
simondlr
This and the cheezeburger network will put it in the eyes of people who
wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Sites like reddit already preach to the
choir! Go team internet!

------
larsbot
To me, the real lesson from SOPA and PIPA is that the tech industry needs to
spend a lot more money bribing (oh, excuse me, lobbying) senators and
representatives to counter all the money flowing from the entertainment
industry.

Also, it's an embarrassment that BOTH of California's senators not only
support PIPA, they are listed at co-sponsors.

~~~
philwelch
They're both Hollywood's senators, not Silicon Valley's.

~~~
whyenot
True, but they both started their political careers in northern California.
Barbara Boxer in Marin County, and Diane Feinstein in San Francisco.

------
ck2
For the addicted (7.3 GB)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download>

~~~
jessriedel
What blhack said. Instead, get the torrent:

[http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6430796/English_Wikipedia_(A...](http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6430796/English_Wikipedia_\(All_Articles\)_-_May_2011)

~~~
barrkel
This perfectly legal torrent link blocked in Ireland, btw.

~~~
dkersten
It is? I'm guessing Eircom blocks thepiratebay.org? I'm on UPC and its not
blocked for me.

~~~
barrkel
That's exactly what I'm getting at, and why SOPA and it's ilk are so
pernicious.

(I'm not actually in Ireland at all any more, so it's not blocked for me
either.)

------
lambada
Is this US only, or is this going to take it offline for the whole internet?
The article doesn't specify, but last I checked there was strong support for a
US only blackout.

~~~
joell
@jimmy_wales : English only, but protest action is global for English.

~~~
lambada
Thanks, so en.wiki will be gone for the whole world.

Not sure how I feel about that as there is nothing non-US citizens can do.

~~~
joell
They can complain on Twitter and Facebook which will raise awareness to their
American friends who can do something about it.

~~~
jarek
If all non-US citizens that use the English Wikipedia had US citizen friends
they could engage politically, US politics would look vastly different
already.

------
sriramk
I'm against SOPA as much as the next person here on HN but I disagree with
shutting down Wikipedia. Paul Carr wrote a piece today that argues this case
well -> see [http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-
wikip...](http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-wikipedias-
sopa-blackout-is-a-terrible-idea/)

Basically,

a) Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality. When they strive for neutrality
and balance on much more sensitive issues, taking a stance on one particular
issue affecting one particular country, you violate that.

b) Wikipedia runs on the kindness of strangers, some of whom could potentially
be supporting SOPA. It is egregious to spend a month asking for donations on
every page and then turn around and deny some of them service.

Fundamentally, it is not the job of an open and free repository of human
knowledge to take political stances, however harmful and important the topic
might be. To those making the point that this threatens the entirety of the
internet, that _is_ true. However

\- The point of being neutral is that you don't get to choose what you're
neutral about.

\- Should Wikipedia shutdown hypothetically over nuclear arms (as an example)
- something that could potentially destroy all of humanity? Where do you need
to be on the destructiveness scale for Wikipedia to take a stance?

I'm not doing as good a job of summarizing this as Paul Carr does - do read
his piece.

~~~
jayzee
You can't be neutral on a moving train \- Howard Zinn

~~~
sriramk
If you're implying that some issues encompass everyone and everything and suck
people in, it is going to be hard to justify that SOPA meets that bar but
something like, say, nuclear disarmament doesn't.

~~~
jayzee
I am responding to your point (a). Not acting is not being neutral. Not acting
is taking a stand.

~~~
sriramk
That's a question of semantics. When you have a policy on not taking a stand
on _any_ issue which you stick to, you are not taking a stand.

~~~
onemoreact
When Wikipedia blocks an IP address for abusive behavior they are taking a
stance in defense of their goals which are to provide a high quality, free,
open, and unbiased repository of knowledge.

PS: Read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act> it's fairly
neutral if a little long.

------
plainOldText
I've pledged I'll donate if they protest SOPA and I'll keep my promise. I hope
everyone else who has pledged will do the same.

------
paul9290
Was this article on HN front page not true "SOPA to be shelved.."
[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-
animal/2012_01/pu...](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-
animal/2012_01/putting_sopa_on_a_shelf034765.php) ?

If Wikipedia is still going to shut down then I'm not sure about the veracity
of that article.

~~~
bad_user
"Shelved" is not enough - they'll just find a backdoor for it.

I don't think they expected such opposition, unlike other laws like the
Patriot Act that mostly went unnoticed.

But they are just regrouping. It ain't over.

------
rmc
I wish this was USA only, not for all English Language sites. It might cause a
media conversation about how SOPA will put US people, jobs, groups and
companies at a disadvantage on the global stage, and might scare US policy
makers into thinking that laws like this might be the fall from prominance of
the USA.

 _sigh_

------
pjama
Couldn't they just redirect traffic coming from the US? Leave it accessible to
the rest of the world!

~~~
outworlder
No, because even if the law is something US-specific, its effects (should it
pass) are not.

~~~
rmc
Nonsense. There are loads of bad US laws (e.g. terrible employment rights,
terrible anti-discrimination rights) that the rest of the world, or EU don't
copy and aren't affected by.

The affects of SOPA passing would probably be a _benefit_ to many countries,
since more companies & jobs would come to their juristiction (some countries
in EU do this with more favourable corporate tax laws, or look at Switzerland
and Cayman Islands with banking laws.)

~~~
dbaupp
None of those laws are at all related to censoring the Internet, which is a
global network, so non-US citizens using US websites (like Facebook, Youtube,
etc) are still affected.

------
nattyackermann
SOPA could cripple the internet. I hope this brings awareness to that fact. I
shudder at how I and many more others could lose their job over this, as I am
working for a US-based online company. This pertains not only to the US, but
internationally as well.

eWeek stated, "The language of SOPA is so broad, the rules so unconnected to
the reality of Internet technology and the penalties so disconnected from the
alleged crimes that this bill could effectively kill e-commerce or even normal
Internet use. The bill also has grave implications for existing U.S., foreign
and international laws and is sure to spend decades in court challenges."

------
brudgers
If SOPA isn't dead, shutting down Wikipedia for a day will kill it because of
the degree to which it will raise awareness of the issue among people who
don't pay much attention to politics...Wednesday is a school day after all.

------
crazygringo
Can't they just do a "fake" blackout -- every user's first visit of the day
gets blacked out, but with a link to re-enable Wikipedia?

I mean, get awareness out, but then still let us read the articles (even with
white-on-black text, maybe?)

~~~
TheSOB88
It's just _one day_. Are you really that reliant on Wikipedia that you can't
go a _single day_ without using it? It seems to me a lot of the people against
the blackout don't have any long-term reasons why it might be bad, only
discomfort.

~~~
intended
My previous firm depended on wikipedia. We would often have to get up to speed
on very diverse industries and their core metrics overnight, and wikipedia was
the first source that was available and easily searched.

With the English site black out, this will affect the world far more than just
America.

As a matter of fact this is probably something that we should study and be
prepared for.

How do the other data/encyclopedia sites fare during the black out? Is there a
real effect, how long does it last?

What is the impact on non US visitors? Shouldn't the black ideally focus on
people from the States?

Heck actually, this will probably offend a lot of people who aren't in the
states - Indian sites can easily spin this as cultural propaganda (for
example).

The more I think about it, the more the point raised higher up in this thread
(regarding neutrality) starts bothering me.

A complete black out of the English Wikipedia is (hopefully) a once in a life
time event. Considering the diversity of people who come to the site and the
different cultural baggage everyone brings, this action will have far more
repurcussions than just SOPA/PIPA.

While time zonal differences should mitigate this effect, the blackout should
not affect visitors from countries where SOPA makes little difference.

~~~
nkassis
" the blackout should not affect visitors from countries where SOPA makes
little difference."

I'll make the claim that most english speaking countries in the world will be
affected by this. This bill is supposedly targeting foreign website. It could
mean a European site getting blocked by PayPal because of an American law.

------
rshm
It will send a strong message for PIPA as well as the similar legislations in
future. I still like to see google,facebook .. to come up with something
creative on their front page.

------
chadzawistowski
They ought to mention PIPA as well as SOPA on the shutdown page.

------
aw3c2
I really wish this was done to globally to protest against internet censorship
of any kind instead of being such a US centric thing. It feels shortsighted.

------
SODaniel
I hate that I feel this is an 11th hour response. I guess I just don't
understand how a 99% community sponsored website with little direct
advertising income or large sponsors would drag their feet on the issue.

I do understand the 'late to the party, hard to miss' factor, but the opposite
could have spurred more action from other sites.

Hoping for a quicker response 'next time', but still damn good on you!

~~~
tommorris
In a company there is a boss, and s/he can decide what to do.

In an online community, there's just people talking and chatting and
politicking and all sorts of other stuff. We've been discussing this for
weeks, and right up to the 24 hour deadline that the Foundation set, people
were saying "we need more time!" Wikipedia's consensus process is slow,
organic, bumpy and unpredictable. It's not like you can fire them or bribe
them or threaten them with guns (which is basically what businesses and
governments can do), you have to work with them as equals.

In short: community management and consensus building is hard.

------
artursapek
I'm tired of these acronyms, it got confusing today. Are politicians just
trying to smuggle it through under a different name at this point? I can't
think of a name from recent events with more negative connotations than SOPA,
which seems to be why it was abandoned. Are these anti-SOPA messages worth the
cost of downtime at this point?

~~~
Natsu
We still need to inform people about the issue and it's better if we're the
first people to inform them. Because we know they'll try again later, we need
to remain vigilant and prepare for next time. It's much too early to relax.
That's exactly what they want us to do.

~~~
artursapek
Well put

------
ed2417
There is currently no notification of this on their homepage. Only two days
away, I think it would be good form to update.

------
mikemoka
Ever since I heard about SOPA I hoped that Wikipedia would have done it
sometime soon.

It worked for Italy as far as I know.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/italia...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/italian-
wikipedia-shuts-down-in-protest-of-wiretap-act/246180/)

------
waldr
I wonder if SOPA will help unite some of the web big guns, obviously they are
teaming up to call out SOPA but maybe this will help develop further
relationships and we'll see some partnership projects grow. SOPA could end up
doing more good than it does harm, assuming this backlash see's it off.

------
jemeshsu
Curious to know if Google and Facebook has taken any stance on SOPA?
Especially Google since they always tout themselves as 'the' open web company.
From a business perspective, will coming out supporting SOPA and have a
similar protest as Wiki help or hurt Google?

------
innernette
The RfC is not closed yet, so there is still time to vote:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Actio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action)

~~~
meta-coder
1800 Wikipedians have already voted.

------
EGreg
Personally I think that the OPEN act might be a better idea than SOPA.

Why not give the infringing websites a chance to enter US courts and have due
process, or face the consequences in, say, a week? This would make it more
costly to prosecute them, but also give them a chance to explain themselves.
The courts could possibly give another resolution than just ordering the
intermediaries to doing business with them. The threat would be the threat of
SOPA (which wouldn't include DNS), but it would be only AFTER the foreign
corporation has refused to comply with the decision of the US court for a
month.

And yes, this would mean that all its subsidiaries and websites would be
affected at once. It takes time to build a big broadcasting system, so it
wouldn't be whack-a-mole, either.

~~~
Karunamon
Because "entering US courts" is a prohibitively expensive operation on its
own; something that is frequently exploited by corporations to screw with
individuals. The concept is called SLAPP
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP>). Don't like what someone is doing? Sue
them and hope (more often than not correctly) that they don't have the
wherewithal to defend themselves.

~~~
EGreg
ITC can do it, as per the OPEN bill.

Although to be fair I think SOPA is pretty benign now. I am actually sort of
in favor of it as log as it doesn't harm american websites and as long as it
doesn't require anyone to make special exceptions in the DNS.

Preventing American based advertisers and banks from paying foreign-based
sites which would be prosecuted for being egregiously devoted to piracy or
trademark infringement, in the united states seems like something we should be
able to do, so that Americans' unlimited ability to download hollywood movies
from foreign based sites and songs from kontakte is limited.

America isn't overstepping its juridiction if it is only legislating what
American companies can do.

That said, I disagree with the lack of due process in SOPA. I much prefer
Issa's bill called OPEN. Issa rightly pointed out that there are better
agencies for this than the attorney general's office, such as the ITC.

What I want to know is, where are the provisions in SOPA that say you can be
thrown in jail for uploading a song? I thought SOPA was just about curtailing
distribution of infringing material by foreign websites.

------
joejohnson
Does this apply to all wikipedias, or just the english-language wikipedia?

~~~
rmc
Just English language and globally for english language,

------
zerop
Wikipedia shutting down is not good news..Its very useful and needed
everyday...May be they can make the each page load delayed by 1 minute or so
to mark the protest....

~~~
LoneWolf
I agree with you, I needed to read some articles for quick information
reminder but I CANT. While I agree that SOPA/PIPA should not be passed, and
that the protest may be a good way to show everyone disagrees, closing the
websites like this is pretty bad for the users I think they should allow
people to read the articles.

------
slig
Any known and reliable online mirror of the English Wikipedia?

~~~
jvoorhis
<http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/> seems fairly transparent, but is
out of date (no entry for SOPA).

------
logn
Looks like it's a day of reading Simple English Wikipedia...

------
mkr-hn
Reminder: <http://code.google.com/p/offline-wiki/>

For people who lack the inclination to download Wikipedia.

------
mdonahoe
Is this still happening now that SOPA has been benched?

~~~
Avenger42
PIPA is still moving forward:

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/02442717414/harry-...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/02442717414/harry-
reid-says-hes-concerned-pipa-will-break-internet-we-must-move-forward-with-it-
because-jobs.shtml)

------
maxklein
I don't think this is a good idea. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that many
people depend on all over the world. Encyclopedias should not just switch off
for political reasons. Books don't turn off. Digital information should not
turn on and off either for any reason. A big red banner covering half the page
can get the message across without actually making us unable to access the
information stored in wikipedia.

~~~
jey
I agree. Taking a stand and putting up a banner, or a click-through page, etc
is fine. But information services like Google and Wikipedia shouldn't actually
be shut off in a way that makes the information inaccessible.

~~~
cryptoz
> But information services like Google and Wikipedia shouldn't actually be
> shut off in a way that makes the information inaccessible.

And that's exactly what SOPA would do. _Permanently_. Nobody is preventing you
from accessing today's Wikipedia content on your own this Wednesday - go
download a copy of their db right now if you're that scared and fearful of a
day without it. The point is a strong demonstration of what the world would be
like with SOPA/PIPA. It's necessary.

~~~
jey
So shutting off information services is evil, and we're going to show it by
committing the same evil? By that token we should teach everyone how bad
genocide is by executing a random member of their family.

We should certainly get people's attention by doing something very overt like
replacing every article with a big dark SOPA message, but there really should
still be a way to click through to the information.

> We should certainly get people's attention by doing something very overt
> like replacing every article with a big dark SOPA message, but there really
> should still be a way to click through to the information.

That's fine for us mega-nerds, but what about everyone else?

~~~
vincentmac
Looks like we've reached Godwin's Law. That's didn't take too long.

~~~
Karunamon
<pedant intensity="100%">Godwin's law only covers the invocation of Hitler or
the third reich, not random genocide.</pedant>

------
maeon3
Last week I said I would donate money to wikipedia if they did this. I just
donated $50 just now via credit card through the main page.

~~~
eminkel
I also stated I would donate money as well, looks like I must now. :)

------
bootz15
And to save a few bucks.

------
zerostar07
Can't they just do it for the US? The english wikipedia is not just for the
english-speaking, and it's hell of annoying to have to use google cache for
everything...

Also why don't they lobby twitter instead? That's the one service congressmen
rely on

------
leeoniya
well, it appears that i'm out a $1.00 :D

EDIT: downvoted for pledging $1 to wiki for blackout? interesting.

~~~
CraigRood
You have probably been downvoted for not adding anything to the conversation,
this is not Reddit.

------
EGreg
What's to protest? SOPA is pretty benign now.

This just in: The DNS will not be affected. Lamar Smith took it out.

And even before, two weeks ago, I posted that only foreign websites which
would be prosecuted under US law would possibly be affected by this. So maybe
bit.ly and the other URL shorteners would be affected, but that's not a big
deal.

Before you throw a knee-jerk downvote on this, ask yourself ... are you aware
of what the SOPA legislation says NOW? Or is this just inertia from the
beginning from SOPA, and you are just against any form of going after foreign
sites which host illegal downloads?

On a related note, I want to ask ... in the Russian community it's well known
that VKontakte has all the songs and you can just listen to them. Does this
mean that VK is on the hist list of SOPA? I don't think they care about US
advertisers though. What do you guys think?

~~~
burgerbrain
_"only foreign websites which would be prosecuted under US law would possibly
be affected by this"_

 _"not a big deal."_

Says you. That is a pretty big fucking deal.

EDIT: I've read your submission. Your argument seems to be _"ICE already does
this, so we might as well let SOPA legitimize it"_. I hope you can see why
most sensible people would find this logic dissatisfying.

~~~
EGreg
Wait, so if a website is located in another country and would be criminally
prosecuted had they been running in the USA, then case closed, they should be
able to do as they please with the hollywood blockbusters produced in the US?
For example they can set up a website which is dedicated to allowing everyone,
including US citizens to download movies and songs for free as much as they
want?

If you say yes, then you are really just against intellectual property
protection of any kind, and believe that copyright should be abolished.
Because by definition whatever protection the government afford copyright
holders, someone can set up an offshore website with an offshore registrar and
simply invite US citizens to get everything for free. And they can make money
off ads, too :)

Or better yet, what about trademark infringement? What about counterfeit goods
being sold from offshore websites? Should they stay up and do whatever they
want, putting "Rolex" on their fake watches?

~~~
burgerbrain
I guess "jurisdiction" is a new concept to you. The answer to all of your
questions should be obvious otherwise.

The US is not World Police. Get over it.

~~~
EGreg
Yo, jurisdiction is the reason for SOPA

~~~
burgerbrain
Or more accurately, lack of it.

~~~
EGreg
Although to be fair I think SOPA is pretty benign now. I am actually sort of
in favor of it as log as it doesn't harm american websites and as long as it
doesn't require anyone to make special exceptions in the DNS.

Preventing American based advertisers and banks from paying foreign-based
sites which would be prosecuted for being egregiously devoted to piracy or
trademark infringement, in the united states seems like something we should be
able to do, so that Americans' unlimited ability to download hollywood movies
from foreign based sites and songs from kontakte is limited.

America isn't overstepping its juridiction if it is only legislating what
American companies can do.

That said, I disagree with the lack of due process in SOPA. I much prefer
Issa's bill called OPEN. Issa rightly pointed out that there are better
agencies for this than the attorney general's office, such as the ITC.

What I want to know is, where are the provisions in SOPA that say you can be
thrown in jail for uploading a song? I thought SOPA was just about curtailing
distribution of infringing material by foreign websites.

