Yes, critiquing people on what they choose to wear on Halloween is a topic of much greater importance than a proposed bill that would allow the Government to shut down websites based on loosely defined circumstances.;) GC could be shut down just based on whats in the "you laugh you lose" thread.

All snark aside, hopefully the media blitz generated by SOPA and PIPA will wake the American people up and allow them to see that these idiots in Washington are slowly trying to strip us of our rights and freedoms. Not even one month into 2012 and we have had the NDAA signed into law allowing the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial, these web censorship bills, and now the Enemy Expatriation Act which if passed would give the Government the ability to strip the citizenship of U.S. citizens... Police State anyone?

I agree, I wager the web looked the same for most people.

The most votes on the MSN poll seemed to be respondents who do not surf the web, do not go to blogs, did not notice a black Google icon, and/or do not go to wikipedia or could not care less if wikipedia is inaccessbile. Afterall, the web and other modes of technology have an impact on society and socialization but what did we do before this stuff existed? We found less lazy and more creative ways to find answers to our questions and procrastination tools.

+1

I agree 100%. You are being jokingly sarcastic but this is exactly how I feel.

I consider perceived discrimination to be a larger indication of human liberty than what the government does with the Internet. But, like I said, there are millions of people in this world and tons of human liberties to address. Not everyone fights the battles that I find worth fighting and I will not fight the battles that everyone else finds worth fighting.

This is the world's most ironic "GET OFF MY LAWN" post ... honestly, I'm surprised.

Newsflash:
I have been saying what I said for 10+ years on and off Greekchat.

Do you have other profundities to share? LOL.

A flute with no holes, is not a flute.

And 10 years may represent multiple complete lifecycles for technology, which seems like a long time to hold a static view.

Yet I still hold it. I just wanted you to spare yourself the pretend irony and surprise.

I wasn't feigning surprise, for whatever it's worth.

[separately]
While it's a convenient narrative that the "Power of the Internet" won the day, I'm much more inclined to go with MC's view, that there was a substantive shift in support behind the scenes based on potential consumer outcomes.

Actually, the version of events even in this thread - "This is the power of the people!" - seems overly congratulatory, possibly to a dangerous extent. SOPA was a dangerous bill, but I think the reasons were much less insidious than, say, Pike thinks.

I think it was poorly written, but the intention - protection of intellectual property - is actually an important step toward protecting rights long trampled over in the modern economy. Without such protections, there's no incentive to create - and the classic "Patent Bargain" approach to other IP is failing miserably. The bill took a piss-poor angle of attack - requiring third-party oversight, particularly against their own interests, is a recipe for disaster, but I don't think the bill language was vague out of a desire to eliminate the internet through the back door.

The only benefit to this awkward narrative appears to be ... those who crafted it, and those sites that "participated'? Very odd, to me.

^^^I agree with what you said about being over congratulatory. That article didn't say the bill itself was being dropped.

I was using Wiki all day yesterday. Just searched what I needed on Yahoo!, went to the result that went to Wiki, and hit "cached." The screenshot still gave me what I needed. Blackout fail.

When I ask what the bill is about, everyone says "It's going to censor the internet!!" and "This black screen is what the internet will look like." The first response is vague as hell and the second is highly exaggerated which makes me wonder exactly how many people actually know what they are opposing.

One of the most bizarre parts of all of this, from my perspective, has been that Chris Dodd has been the most outspoken lobbyist in favor of the bill. A few years before he left the Senate, he said he wouldn't become a lobbyist. Now, I know everyone has to pay the bills, but it's weird to hear him basically threaten to withhold political contributions to politicians who don't support the legislation.