Torrentspy Disables Searching For US IPs

dr_strang writes "Torrent indexing site Torrentspy.com appears to have disabled torrent searches for IPs that originate in the United States. Instead of a results page, users are directed to this page, which states: 'Torrentspy Acts to Protect Privacy. Sorry, but because you are located in the USA you cannot use the search features of the Torrentspy.com website. Torrentspy's decision to stop accepting US visitors was NOT compelled by any Court but rather an uncertain legal climate in the US regarding user privacy and an apparent tension between US and European Union privacy laws."

Comments

Re:The Obvious Reason

[aevan]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:tor

[jollyreaper]

It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God No. It takes less mental effort to believe in God than it does to understand evolution and natural selection.

Re:Tor:Popularity Games.

[jollyreaper]

I'm not saying I don't masturbate. I am saying that it's none of anyone else's business if/when I do. I only care if I have to use your computer next.

Offtopic.

[StikyPad]

Pray tell, then, what does one have to do to qualify as a documentarian? Tell the truth?

I'd say "Make a genuine attempt at creating an accurate portrait of reality." "Absolute truth" is probably unknowable through our limited faculties, but it's still a worthy goal.

Can you point out the parts in his movie where he doesn't tell the truth?

It's not what he says, it's what he doesn't say. "Dihydrogen monoxide can be deadly if inhaled!" That's a true statement, but is the listener any better informed than he was before hearing it? I would argue that he is not. The best case scenario is that he will investigate my statement and discover its relevance and context, but the most likely scenario is that he will simply parrot it to others.

My co-workers, for example, were outraged that Cuba has better healthcare than the US. Is that really true? Well, if "universal no-fee coverage" is your metric, then yes. But if you include average quality of care -- bankruptcy or not -- most people are better off in the US. (Personally I'd much rather be alive and bankrupt than dead and financially secure, but I agree that ideally, citizens of a civilized society should not be faced with such a dichotomy.)

Can you point me to a single documentary that does not contain any editorial bias? Can you point me to anything published ever that does not contain any bias?

That's a red herring. If everybody takes a test, and you get most of the questions wrong, pointing out that nobody got a perfect score (or even that everyone else failed), would not be justification to give you a passing grade. More importantly, eliminating bias isn't a prerequisite for accuracy. I'm biased to believe that 1+1=2.

At any rate, I believe the GP's point was not that Michael Moore produces films that are inconsistent with the content and format of a typical documentary, but rather that his films fall so short of the mark of a good documentary that they are hardly worthy of the title. And he explained that quite clearly with the pr0nography comparison. (Sorry, work filters.. not trying to be 1337).

I do agree that the US has gone downhill in many areas in recent years, and lack of universal healthcare is a glaring shortcoming. And some of us are doing what we can to fix things.. I just hate having someone like Moore on my side. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be dissatisfied with the state of affairs; there's no need to invent falsehoods, and in fact, it only makes things worse because it makes everyone on one side of an issue look like an idiot. Like some dolt who says "antivirus is important to protect you from hackers!" Bush did the same thing with Iraq, and now look where we are. I'm not saying we should be there, but it's an excellent example of how public support turns against you and credibility suffers when you tell half-truths and/or outright lies, no matter how well intentioned. Shortcomings and risks of a plan should be met head on, along with legitimate complaints, not gingerly avoided with cherry picked "facts" and stories about rainbows and lollipops.

Re:tor

[adona1]

Personally, I would view him more as a modern day pamphleteer, who makes visual essays, rather than a documentary maker. He has his argument and seeks to make a film to support it. Whether you view it as gospel or not would depend entirely upon your own personal viewpoint, but he's not remotely a documentary maker the way David Attenborough is.