Google Goes Big With Its SOPA/PIPA Protests; Blacks Out Logo

from the but-no-calls? dept

As promised, Google has decided to “go big” with its home page to join Wikipedia, Reddit and others in protesting SOPA/PIPA. The logo on the home page is blacked out:




And clicking the logo takes you to a protest page asking people to “take action” by signing a petition:



I’ll admit that I’m a little surprised that Google went with a petition rather than driving phone calls to Congress, though the sheer numbers may make this one petition that Congress actually acknowledges. Either way, it’s a strong statement of Google’s support for the protest against these bills. Google also has an information page that explains how SOPA and PIPA will censor the internet, kill jobs & innovation and won’t stop piracy at all. It also includes a collection of anti-SOPA/PIPA videos…

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Google Goes Big With Its SOPA/PIPA Protests; Blacks Out Logo”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
173 Comments
Anonymoussays:

Re:

Besides pissed-off pirates with an entitlement mentality, Google’s money is behind the entire astro-turfing opposition to anti-piracy legislation.

They did a very effective job. Very effective. Hopefully this will awake the electorate as to how powerful they really are- these people that spy on them.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re:

Yeah, we get it, nobody except Google and pirates can possibly have any objection, and everybody who opposes SOPA have been paid off by Google so that they can steal everyone’s data. it’s all about them, and SOPA is not an overreaching piece of crap that will not destroy innocent sites while doing nothing to stop piracy.

I, for one, am glad that America’s mental healthcare is working so well that delusional paranoids are able to construct such clear sentences.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

(sigh) It’s gets increasingly difficult to remain polite and civil to this kind of bullshit day in and day out. But I’ll try to explain it yet again.

This is NOT an anit-piracy bill. It will do very little to slow, much less stop piracy. What it will do is open up the internet to massive abuse, anti-competitive practices, and increased risk for hacking and spam.

The opposition is NOT astroturfing, much less being bankrolled by Google. If there is any astroturfing going on, it’s is by the entertainment industry and Congress. The only people I’ve talked to/heard from who express any sort of support for these bill are high powered corporate executives, business moguls, entrenched Congreemen and there support staffs, well paid lobbyists, and a handful of well paid content creators who like their secure incomes.

I’ve seen, spoken to, or heard from hundred of content creators themselves who are all pretty much opposed to these bills and who have nothing to do with Google or piracy.

In fact the only sense of entitlement I’ve seen from people, are, well, the people supporting these bills.

As frustrating as you people can be most of the time, I do genuinely appreciate you people commenting. IT allows me to show your actual words to people when we are discussing these matters and sometimes makes it much easier to convert them to our point of view.

So basically I say keep up the good work. You are doing more to help kill the entertainment industry with your lies, bullying tactics, and nonsense than I could do by myself.

Anonymous Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re:

And what about Big Content’s “entitlement mentality” where they think it is OK to steal from the public domain by egregious extensions of a TEMPORARY government granted monopoly? This is closer to stealing than what any file sharer could commit (under the assumption that the file sharer does not actually try to sell their ‘share”). Maybe they should offer their content in an enticing manner, instead of locked down, regionalized, delayed, and spattered with assumed accusations dreck.

Anonymoussays:

Re:

And all comercial content along with it. Imgaine a world without all your favorite movies, television shows, books, music, games, etc…

You socialists don’t get it, these works are created because copywrite protection allows the producers to make money by making it illegal to copy and/or redistribute the content. Without copyright protection you would be left with amatuers creating amatuer content. Some of it might be entertaining but a lot of it is only interesting to the person that created it.

The Logiciansays:

Re: Re:

Your argument, AC 140, lacks both logic and evidence. You also fail to take into account the vast amount of culture that existed before copyright was ever put in place. Also, you fail to explain how such long lengths as there are today promote the progress in any way. Unless you can provide empirical, non-industry data, your position is invalid.

Re: Re:

You socialists don’t get it, these works are created because copywrite protection allows the producers to make money by making it illegal to copy and/or redistribute the content.

First of all, it’s “copyright.” A “copywriter” is one who writes copy (e.g. for newspapers). It’s going to be hard for people to take you seriously if you can’t even spell what you’re talking about.

Second of all, copyright is a state-enforced monopoly. It’s more than ironic that you call its opponents “socialists.”

Third of all, you don’t need copyright to create movies, television shows, books, music, games, etc. For example, plenty of publishing companies make money by selling editions of public domain works; orchestras make money by performing public domain music; and so forth. Valve Software made over a billion dollars last year, not by “making it illegal to copy and/or redistribute the content,” but by providing a service that added value the pirates’ couldn’t.

Fourth, “amatuers creating amatuer content” is exactly how innovative artists create. Take the music industry: you would never get signed to a label without already having a sizable following that you developed without the label’s help. The major labels have not created one single genre of music; all of them were created by amateurs, then later signed and co-opted by the labels.

On the other hand, I am not actually arguing against all copyright protections. But the laws we have right now go way too far, and SOPA/PROTECT IP would only make matters worse.

fireflysays:

I didn't sign

Sorry Google, I’m not quite ready to hop on board the OPEN Act yet. I think at this point we can ask for more than that – like real copyright reform. The legal interpretation of the balance between the interests of rights holders and promotion of progress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution) has shifted way too far towards rights holders. Until some balance is restored, you’re going to have as much trouble combating piracy as they had enforcing prohibition. And, I fear, we’re going to get some really entrenched criminals as a result, just as we did with prohibition.

Jaysays:

Re: Re: Because I know that Blizzard supports SOPA

No, it’s more an assertion from their past actions.

Given that this is the same company that sued a guy for bots, gets a default judgement of $88 million against a person, and tries to take away anonymity with a sledgehammer, it’s a pretty safe bet that they will support SOPA albeit quietly right now unless they want their fans to revolt against them.

Furtledsays:

Blizzard don't support SOPA/PIPA & Google's stance

@Bear Griz
I’m not Blizzard’s biggest fan for many reasons, but that list was taken from a letter asking for some form of copy protection legislation last year, they’ve never come out in open support of SOPA/PIPA and aren’t members of the ESA (of course they haven’t openly come out against it either but fair’s fair).

@Nuge
There’s a difference between a political message and something that’ll actually break the fundamental foundations of the internet. Sure Google have a financial stake in this but this isn’t a left/right issue, it’s people who don’t understand the internet (allegedly funded to protect questionable corporate interests) essentially trying to break it due to their ignorance (and greed depending how much you think politicians have been bought by companies).

Just Johnsays:

Re:

Your post makes me think of “good idea, bad idea”

Good idea: talking to your officials at their office (insert picture of senator at their work office while talking to them).
Bad idea: talking to upper officials at their office (insert picture of random guy sneaking into their home office through window to talk to them).

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

Speaking as an ex-pat in Honduras, I first tried reloading my igoogle page, when that failed I went to google.hn, no joy. I went ahead and set the NCR flag, no joy. So I gave up.

Ultimately, though, I don’t need to see this, the very fact that I’m here commenting indicates that I’m well aware of SOPA/PIPA, and I can see why Google went ahead and set up a geoIP filter, there are a fair number of people who live around here that would probably be irked by…I don’t know how to say this, let’s go with proselytizing, even though that’s not really accurate…about a US law in foreign countries.

And yes, I’m very well aware that the law would affect me even though I don’t live in or connect from the US, and a few of the locals I know would probably be aware of that too, but they can’t really do anything about it, so why bother them?

Michael Whitetailsays:

Re: Re:

The FBI/TSA/ICW will be arriving shortly to take you into custody you filthy pirate loving criminal! Circumvention of Lawful Internet blocking is a 1st degree felony under the SOPA/PIPA acts of 2012; punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.

Let your incarceration and sodomization be a lesson to all those who steal from hard working mega corporations!

Anonymoussays:

Wikipedia blacked out??

What do you mean, “get around it?” I haven’t found any page yet that is actually blacked out, just a banner on the top of the main page. Every other page on wikipedia is completely unaffected, all the links work to open other pages, even editing works just fine on pages that aren’t otherwise locked against editing. As far as I can see, Wikipedia wimped out and decided not to have a blackout after all.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Wikipedia blacked out??

If the pages I was looking at were not in English, I think I would have noticed that.

So you have to turn on javascript in order to see any difference? Big deal! I heard that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is closed today in support of the SOPA protest: by which they mean they’re offering blindfolds to everyone who comes in.

That isn’t a blackout, it’s a wimpout.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Wikipedia blacked out??

“So you have to turn on javascript in order to see any difference?”

Don’t you have anything better to do than whine?

Most people have JS turned on by default. You don’t, apparently, so whoopee for you. This clearly isn’t a move aimed at people like you and me who already know how to operate the internet properly, it’s a move aimed at getting widespread awareness of what SOPA is and what its implications may be for the average person. That’s why the site isn’t shut down completely – it’s meant to annoy people.

In your case, it’s had its effect without you even seeing it, so carry on.

Nugesays:

hey

Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public? Please. If any of the networks shut off the first 5 minutes of any popular show, to tout a political stance, can you imagine the uproar? But no, we let the new groupthinkers like Google and Facebook get their way. Pathetic. Rise up people. Be creative.

bjuptonsays:

Re: hey

Heh…I watch some tv. They don’t need to shut off anything that people really want to see to push a political message.

Rather there are entire channels that exist of nothing but political messages. These are what pass for entertainment by those so serious that they demand actual consequence to their reality tv, not fake marriage Kardashian stuff.

Sorry, “Mr. Romney”. This is not going to be discussed in quiet rooms any longer. It might get messy. But we’re done with hearing about how horrible it is when a bunch of people get together and say “enough”.

You follow?

Chosen Rejectsays:

Re: hey

People would only get in an uproar for two reasons:
1) They don’t care about the political posturing and just want their show, or
2) They agree with whatever position is being posited and are outraged that congress would do such a thing.

I suspect there will be lots of media industry shills outraged for reason number 1 above. I also suspect that the number of people outraged at Google for reason number 1 above is far below the number of people outraged at having to watch FBI warnings and save-the-gaffer anti-piracy rants at the beginning of DVDs and theater showings. Which means more people are outraged at the MPAA’s posturing than will be outraged at Google’s posturing.

Re: hey

Hi Nuge. Shouldn’t you, in full disclosure fashion, note that you’re paid by the MPAA/entertainment industry to run an astroturfing group in support of this law? Just saying.

Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public?

Dude. Seriously. Don’t make me laugh. YOU are the folks going around pretending that this law — which is solely designed to prop up your failing business models — is “in the public interest.” It’s incredibly slimy to pretend that an actual interest in preserving the internet as we know it is not in the public interest.

Nugesays:

Re: Re: hey

Mike, Happy New Year!

You think Google’s interest in fighting SOPA and PIPA is in the public interest, and not exclusively supportive of its business model? Dude, please. You are being coopted into supporting the biggest land grab there is by corporate interests who pretend to support the public interest. Take more soma.

Nugesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: hey

The land grab is data mining, consumer modeling, advertising and more, and Google and Facebook and others are unfolding a business plan and no critic or pundit gets it. They believe the Internet is free and beautiful and yahoo, and, oh, by the way, forget to keep an eye on the the monopolies and oligopolies arising. Just sayin’.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey

You mean the mainstream media cartel monopolies? The government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies? Laws that make it too legally risky and expensive for restaurants and other venues to host independent performers? Laws that effectively censor free speech by allowing self interested govt established monopolists to abuse their monopoly power by directing discussions in their favor (ie: by not discussing SOPA, insanely long copy protection laws, retroactive copy protection extensions, etc…).

I can go on. This nation is plagued with government established monopolies and oligopolies (ie: taxi cab monopolies). Google is not one of them (at least not yet).

The whole point of opposing this bill is to keep an eye on the monopolies and oligopolies arising. This bill is exactly intended to provide for the existing government established monopolists the continued govt established monopoly power that they have wrongfully enjoyed for so many years. It’s despicable and I am indeed keeping an eye on it.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey

You’re point being that if Google is evil their interests cannot possibly coincide with the public’s on SOPA/PIPA? You’ve never heard the phrase ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ I take it? Considering the fact that, even if we were willing to stipulate that Google engages in all of those activities for nefarious purposes, SOPA/PIPA will do little to stop them from continuing to engage in them I have to conclude that the only reason you brought it up at all was to discredit Google’s position by attacking their behavior. It doesn’t matter if Google is evil or not, I still won’t support SOPA/PIPA and I am not alone in this.(You using the terms ‘monopoly’ and ‘oligopoly’ is especially rich by the way).

Re: Re: Re: hey

You think Google’s interest in fighting SOPA and PIPA is in the public interest, and not exclusively supportive of its business model? Dude, please. You are being coopted into supporting the biggest land grab there is by corporate interests who pretend to support the public interest. Take more soma.

I see. Still no admission that you’re paid by the MPAA to run a bogus astroturfing group, huh?

As for Google, it’s worth pointing out that, for as much as your buddies in the MPAA have insisted on blaming this entire situation on Google, Google has had nothing to do with any of this, and showed up late to the game after the wider internet community chose to take these steps.

Those folks have no “corporate interests.”

Pretending this protest is about corporate interests is pure wishful thinking on your part.

As to whether or not Google’s own participation is because of its business model, I don’t know — and neither do you. But from what I’ve seen of Google over the years, I would find it hard to believe. This is the same company that took a stand on China to stop censorship there — despite the fact that it lost a ton of money doing so.

The folks who run Google have shown repeatedly that they’re principled on censorship issues.

The folks who pay your salary… not so much.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: hey

Hey, man, don’t invoke the name of soma lightly, I use it extensively for back pain and for insomnia (What can I say? I knocks me out).

Try using Versed, instead (ooh, I rhymed, go me). It’s a drug which, among other things, induces anterograde amnesia, thus suggesting that those that disagree with you are deliberately ignoring the lessons learned from history…

Wait…Damn…your position is that there’s no past history for a company using it’s massive influence on the public to influence politics, that the “new media” is completely different from the “old media”.

Never mind, feel free to keep using Soma…although, it still helps with my back-aches, could you at least pick on Ambien, instead?

btrussellsays:

Re: Re: Re: hey

Why do you need these laws?

“If there?s one thing that SOPA proponents like myself and SOPA opponents can agree on, it?s that PROTECT-IP and the Stop Online Piracy Act have little to do with protecting intellectual property and stopping online piracy.

After all, those who choose to steal creative works like the ?I Have a Dream? speech from artists like Martin Luther King Jr. can already be sued and prosecuted under existing United States copyright laws. IP thieves living overseas can already be extradited to face justice in our federal courts. And the Department of Homeland Security can already arbitrarily seize domain names that fit its arbitrary standard of violating national something-or-other.”
http://74.50.110.120/Articles/Support-The-Daily-WTF-in-Supporting-the-Support-SOPA-Movement.aspx

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: hey

As a member of the public I support taking back what should be mine. I support taking back the public domain either through copy protection abolition or seriously shortening copy protection term limits (to nothing above ten years, and I still think that’s too long. I’ll say seven years is good). My right to copy rightfully belongs to me and the biggest land grab occurred through laws that took away my rights in the first place. I want them back!!!!!!!!!

Anonymoussays:

Re: hey

Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public?

So if you’re not essential, you can tout your political stance on laws, then? That what you’re sayiing? Like the RIAA/MPAA?

So if you’re not essential, what do we need you for?

Nugesays:

Re: Re: hey

When i use the term “essential facility,” I use it in an antitrust sense. Certain essential facilities, because they are facilities and essential, take on certain obligations, e.g., they can’t be biased, they can’t be political, they can’t exclude. Well, Google has risen to the status of essential facility in the search world, yet we allow it to foist its views on its users through its portal. Where is good old antitrust law when you need it.

Nugesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: hey

Very good comment saulgoode. Very insightful. My answer is thus: Essential facilities can’t exclude etc. by their own rules. This would be an abuse of power and position. But, because they are essential facilities, society – the state -can and should demand certain obligations and impose rules.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey

Oh wow!

Are you actually serious?

You promote SOPA, call google an “essential” facility that shouldn’t filter or comment on anything, and you call it bias that they encourage people to oppose incredibly idiotic legislation, when your biggest issue with google is that they won’t bias results to please you.

It must really suck to be you.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey

Google isn’t excluding anyone. They’re advertising their political stance.

It’s kind of like the electric company – a regulated monopoly – continuing to supply electricity to an anti-nuclear group while mailing pro-nuclear informational materials to every customer with every electric bill. Abuse of monopoly would be cutting off the anti-nuclear group’s electricity in reprisal for their speech.

Google has a right to freedom of speech. It can speak a little more loudly than the Chamber of Commerce/RIAA/MPAA, but if monetary contributions are speech – as per Citizens United – that decision the Chamber of Commerce so vigorously fought for – surely non-monetary advocacy for or against a law is speech, too.

As such, Google isn’t excluding anyone.

bordysays:

Re: Re: Re: hey

I don’t think I’m ready to accept what you believe should be the obligations of an “essential facility,” but for the sake of argument: what about the “essential facilities” on the pro-rights holder side of this debate . . . some of us are curious about how you characterize the ‘AAs who support SOPA/PIPA: are these “essential facilities” in your view?

Assuming the affirmative, haven’t they also ignored that obligation to remain unbiased, apolitical, and inclusive?

Assuming yes again, it’s plainly hypocritical to chastise Google for voicing its stance on these proposed bills, wouldn’t you say? It amounts to “do as we say, not as we do.” Inconsistencies like this do little to advance your goal, and I’d argue it reveals Big Content’s not-so-subtle strategy of winning passage via creating strawmen, spreading misleading information, etc.

Aside from all that, I’ll now assume you don’t characterize the Big Content SOPA/PIPA supporters as “essential facilities.” Now you’d be saying that because these groups are less ubiquitous than Google, this somehow makes their political support of the measures more worthy of public approval?

Help us out here.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: hey

Well, Google has risen to the status of essential facility in the search world, yet we allow it to foist its views on its users through its portal.

Well, the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/BREIN/ETC has risen to the status of essential facility in the anti-piracy world, yet we allow it to foist their views on their users through their website, with no comment option. Rage against Google all you want, somehow the MPAA is allowed to go, “Hey, lads, remember those figures we had? They were inflated by 300%, but all’s still good eh?”

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: hey

You mean like how the government established mainstream media cartel abuses its govt established powers to direct various discussions in its own self interests (and then abuses copy protection laws to take down these videos because they look ridiculous in retrospect) while censoring the opposition (because they know that their position is indefensible in the face of scrutiny and so they would never allow Mike Masnick and others the opportunity to discuss these issues on [what shouldn’t be] ‘their’ networks)? But that’s perfectly OK, it’s free speech when they do it and big corporations can spend whatever the heck they want on political ads because of free speech. When anyone else does it against your interests it’s not OK, right?

Google receives none of its market power from the government, unlike those who get their information distributed through broadcasting and cableco. Google competes in a free market and there are alternative search engines. You can even create your own. Just because others aren’t as successful doesn’t mean that Google doesn’t deserve free speech rights. Why should we punish the successful (ie: Google) and reward the failures (IE: govt established cableco and broadcasting monopolists who’s only success is due to their govt established monopoly positions, the RIAA/MPAA, etc…).

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: hey

The fact that competitor’s to Google are able to practically or reasonably duplicate the ‘essential facility’ and do so every blows your ‘essential facility’ argument completely out of the water. Even if it was legally demonstrated that Google has a monopoly position and abuses it they still would never legally be declared an ‘essential service.’

Lawrence D'Oliveirosays:

Re: ?political stance?

You make it sound like politics is some kind of trivial game, unworthy of the attention of serious adults. You make it sound like it has nothing to do with real life, has no impact on real businesses and real individuals, like it?s just some abstract exercise that takes place in some rarefied space on some plane beyond this reality.

If politics is not the business of Google, of Facebook, of the TV networks and every other journalistic organization, of Techdirt, of Wikipedia, of Mom & Pop?s Corner Store Inc (est 1923), of you, of me, of your little old grandmother, of every single person whose lives are going to be affected by these crazy rules, then who the hell?s business is it exactly?

btrussellsays:

Re: hey

“Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public?”

No. I am more outraged that corporations get to write laws claiming it is to save jobs.

Are jobs going to India and China because there is no infringement there?

Anonymoussays:

Re: hey

“Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public?”

That’s different than the government established mainstream media (those that benefit from govt established broadcasting and cableco monopolies) how exactly?

It’s OK for big corporations to spend what they want on political ads, it’s considered free speech. but the moment someone says something protesting govt established monopolists, it’s somehow an abuse.

Hanssays:

Re: hey

“Pathetic. Rise up people. Be creative.”

Hey Nuge, look in the mirror!

How about the pathetic MPAA/RIAA rise up and create a business model that doesn’t require the entire f-ing internet be their police force?

Rise up and get a job, attract fans, make money. No other jobs on the planet get to sit back and enjoy income in perpetuity for a job done long ago.

Chosen Rejectsays:

Re: Re:

It’s true. Also, white people were not allowed to protest with black people during the civil rights movement, only soldiers and Iraqis were allowed to protest the US war in Iraq, only the Vietnamese in Vietnam were allowed to protest the Vietnam Conflict (soldiers also, but not until they were drafted) and Warren Buffett was not really allowed to support the Occupy Wall St movement.

It’s one of the reasons why Alzheimer’s research is so slow; the only people allowed to donate funds or do the research are Alzheimer’s patients, and they keep forgetting what it is they’re doing anyway.

Just Johnsays:

Re: Re:

Could be worse. He is much less annoying then Darryl, and actually tries different modes of attack, instead of beating the same dead horse.

Shoot, his arguments even make a little sense if you are completely ignorant of what is going on in the world today.

Although he is a shill, I would go so far as to say he is the grade A shill.

Just Johnsays:

Re: Re:

Could be worse. He is much less annoying then Darryl, and actually tries different modes of attack, instead of beating the same dead horse.

Shoot, his arguments even make a little sense if you are completely ignorant of what is going on in the world today.

Although he is a shill, I would go so far as to say he is the grade A shill.

Raymondsays:

Re: Nuge, Google IS the target of SOPA

Google will be required to censor search results and Adwords references to any of the millions of sites that will be shut-down by SOPA and PIPA. There is no clear or easy recourse for anyone who believes they’ve been shutdown wrongly.

SOPA and PIPA are draconian measures for a government and industry dictatorship over free expression and informal commerce.

Freddysays:

It is great that Wikipedia is going dark to protest the recent murder of political activists in Iran! Oh wait. Maybe it was the killings of citizens in Syria. No. Or the recent legislation that would allow indefinite detention of US citizens. Hmmm…..oh that’s right, they are going dark over the evil SOPA rogue sites bill. The one that prevents US tech companies from profiting from sites selling Oxy online to 14 year olds in Kentucky. That one.

Chosen Rejectsays:

Re:

It is great that Congress and the entertainment industry are writing bills and lobbying to protest the recent murder of political activists in Iran! Oh wait. Maybe it was the killings of citizens in Syria. No. Or the recent legislation that would allow indefinite detention of US citizens. Hmmm…..oh that’s right, they are writing legislation to try to stop the sharing of 1s and 0s. A bill that doesn’t address any real problem and that attempts to stop what the majority don’t think should even be a crime. That one.

cyberjawnsays:

Re:

mmmmm ur priorites are a bit out of wack. Who cares what there doing over in Iran or Syria! IT’S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!!! As for the SOPA, did you read it?? IT can keep you from finding the truth about stuff cause the government can block any sites dns if they don’t like it. the bill is to loosely written. OUr government will take advantage of it just like the patriot act.

bjuptonsays:

Re: Re: Re:

It provided at least a ‘guffah’ from me.

My iPhone irritated me today by not recognising ‘dicl’ as ‘dick’. For one, I know several people who use that as a diminutive of Richard. I could have been addressing them, and please capitalise the first letter of their name. For two, I swear quite often. I expect that my dear friend iPhone, with me at all hours, would know that.

Beechsays:

You Guys Don't Get It

Obviously the only time a big corporation is allowed to say anything is when it’s something approved by the RIAA/MPAA (the one’s who tout themselves as staunch supporters of our 1st amendment rights, don’t forget) and the only way they’re ALLOWED to say it is in the form of hundred dollar bills going to politicians.

Anonymoussays:

Re: You Guys Don't Get It

It’s not the only way they are allowed to say anything, it’s just they find it the most effective way.
After all, given that the facts are not on their side, they lose all their arguments, but money doesn’t care if you have a bad argument, it’s neutral and not at all biased like google and reality.

Beechsays:

Re: Re: You Guys Don't Get It

A good point. Still pisses me off how this guy comes here whining about how google should be apolitical and not talk about its opinions on stuff, but I can GUARANTEE he’d be singing a different tune if google put up a “hey guys, this sopa thing is pretty great, support it with out really looking at any of the details” banner

Cowardly Anonsays:

Re: Not for Canada

Actually, there is a link in the bottom right of the screen that says ‘Go To Google.com’.

What is actually disappointing is that apparently this bold move by Google is only visible in the US. If you hit it from a non US IP, you don’t see it.

I feel that is a cop-out on Google’s part.

The Luke Witnessersays:

Here lies the truth about SOPA/PIPA that even TechDirt has yet to report: what MPAA, RIAA, and Hollywood execs do not want you to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzS5rSvZXe8

The truth behind why these big companies responsible for SOPA and PIPA are also responsible for piracy itself is far more insidious than even their outmoded business model.

Hint: can you say, do as I say so I can crush you under heel?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ┬╗

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it