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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
