Don’t “Strike the Internet” in protest of SOPA. If you go dark, they win.

As Jim noted earlier this morning, several major internet sites are protesting SOPA by “going dark.” Even my good friend Chris is participating in it.

Don’t.

This is what the majorĀ organizersĀ of SOPA want. Those radicals, like us, who are actually the internet, going dark will be the best thing for them.

It’s like this… a law is passed that threatens to take away the ability to preach. So… all the preachers do not preach for a day. They boycott preaching. You know, to make their point that if a law is passed not to preach, they aren’t going to preach!

Does this make sense to you at all?

If you want to protest SOPA, do something against SOPA, but don’t go dark like they want you too. Find those companies supporting it and stop using their services. Contact your Congressperson. Tell them to stop. You go dark, they win.

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

18 Replies to “Don’t “Strike the Internet” in protest of SOPA. If you go dark, they win.”

    1. thanks. I support the motivation behind it, but I think that a boycott against the companies supporting this, making them lose money, is the way to go

    2. Leslie, you hadn’t thought about it that way because he just fed you A FLAWED ANALOGY. Your soul is not in danger of “going to hell” because Wikipedia, Digital Public Library of America, DatelineZero, and other sites are blacking out; your livelihood isn’t even at risk, for Christ’s sake!!! More importantly, his entire argument is hinging on these two premises, “Does this make sense to you at all?” + “You go dark, they win.” For some logical critique, the first premise…well, I don’t think it even attributes to his argument. For the second premise, I suggest you all take a stroll down to http://sopastrike.com/ to find out what the strike is REALLY about, rather than rely on some idiot whining about his favorite sites going dark.
      By the way, before I forget to ask, WHY THE HELL DO YOU WANT COMPANIES TO LOSE MONEY VIA BOYCOTT, JOEL??? What vested interest do you have in making people poorer, or even worse, losing their jobs????? Think BEFORE you post, Joel!

      1. All, sorry for Peter from Whittier’s comments. He doesn’t know how to conduct himself on a blog, or, without support of pedophilia, in life. He is blocked.

  1. I have to disagree with you on this one Joel. SOPA and PIPA are terrifying because they have implications beyond what lawmakers intended. Lawmakers think that only small pirating sites will be affected when in truth larger Internet institutions are vulnerable. Wikipedia going black for a day will show how important these websites have become and what life would be like if they were targeted for SOPA violations.

    1. Don’t be offended by Joel’s silence; you hold logic in your argument. I suspect this is the reason why he has omitted commenting on your premise.

  2. Instead of a blackout, how about the sites protesting, putting a list of the congressmen, and companies that support this. Then we (collectively), can either protest them, or do some digging to find out their funding connection. I would bet the congressmen that support it, are also getting money from the same companies. Otherwise, why would they even be interested.

    1. If you go to Wikipedia’s blackout page, they have a link to a page explaining why they’re blacking out as well as a place for visitors to type in their ZIP codes and get contact information for their representatives and senators. Other sites have similar pages.

      1. My concern is this: If you want to protest something by doing the exact thing that they want you to do, how is that actually winning?

        I think that we should do everything what would be against the law in SOPA, loudly. Big time.

        I think that these two bills have the intended effect to monopolize the internet so that only a few, an oligarchy, can control what is considered allowable on line.

        I say protest, but through action, not inaction or passive action.

        1. “If you want to protest something by doing the exact thing that they want you to do, how is that actually winning? ”
          “I say protest, but through action, not inaction or passive action.”

          What defines inaction and passive action? Are peaceful protests passive or active? If the purpose is to raise awareness (and righteous anger!) and an “inaction” accomplishes this purpose is it passive or active? If you accomplish your purpose are you “winning” or “losing?”

          I’d say the idea of a black out is similar to the idea of a hunger strike (not unlike the kind Ghandi is famous for). People go on public hunger strikes to force people to confront subject matter they’d rather be blind to.

          To be fair, if sites were just going black with no explanation whatsoever, very little constructive purpose would be served. No information equals no direction equals no change.

          What many sites are instead doing is confronting people with a negative (something that you want is not directly available to you) and directly tying it to a cause (if SOPA passes these things you want may be permanently unavailable). They aren’t just blacking out, they’re providing information about the black out. People that have paid no mind to chatter about SOPA because it doesn’t directly affect them are suddenly being directly affected. This makes the black out an incredibly powerful tool for raising awareness. (For example, just twitter Wikipedia to see the rather hilarious uproar on the topic as many surprised people are suddenly confronted by a new idea.)

          1. AAB13, I’m not sure I would place a blackout of entertainment to hunger strikes.

            Look, I get and fully supporting trying to do something to stop SOPA, I think that that a black out is not the best way to go.

        2. I don’t think sites like Wikipedia are capitulating to the desires of SOPAs writers. The lawmakers are being boneheaded about this, but their idiocy lies in their lack of understanding. They truly believe that they can pass this law and only affect little foreign websites, when in truth larger US based sites are vulnerable. They don’t want sites like Wikipedia to be blacklisted, and they don’t think they will be, but the very problem is that they don’t recognize that it could be. Blacking out is an effective way of driving home the point that their legislation has unintended consequences, consequences that to this point they haven’t understood.

        1. Haha, for sure. I had been glancing at the email notifications in my inbox all day, and Peter’s comments looked particularly obnoxious, so I’ve just been avoiding the post until now.

          1. Thanks! I’m not sure if you remember the Greaves’ book on Amazon which advocates pedophilia, but Peter is a huge supporter. I thought I had him blocked, but….

    2. We can go even further and ACT on the imminent discoveries of money-inspired corruption in our Congress. We forget so easily that we can literally VOTE corruption out of office!! Frankly, it’s embarrassing when aspiring presidential candidates such as Newton Gingrich and Mitt Romney are allowed to run for the spot in the “GOP”, in spite of their blatant disingenuous characters. But, I suppose no one cares; most people are too caught up on the campaign spins to even realize, “Wait a sec…I don’t have to vote for EITHER ONE OF THESE FAT CAT CLOWNS!!” If the “GOP” was serious in reflecting the core values of it’s party in it’s roster, they would strictly prohibit non-Republican behaviour. When was the last time a Republican was banned from their party for misleading the people into thinking that they are “conservative”??

    3. On this post is a link also to an android app that tells you what companies support SOPA. Also, I believe that Google Chrome as an add-on for this as well.

      GoDaddy, which I host on, dropped their support after they were flooded with complaints.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.