A neat idea, but this really is only effective if everyone is using generally the same social network(s). Facebook might be gaining popularity in Japan, but it is still severely underrepresented and unpopular (only about 2% of internet users) compared to other services like mixi and GREE. Of course I understand Facebook just wants to test the feature in an area prone to earthquakes and tsunamis with plans for global expansion, but that type of service would frankly be better served according to regional preferences. As far as a globally popular option goes, Twitter would be a better carrier for the "I'm safe" service in Japan and just about everywhere else.
Then again, this "I'm safe" thing is really only beneficial to personally identifiable profiles. That works fine for Facebook where you have to use your real name, but the main reason Japan is less inclined toward Facebook is because they prefer anonymity and pseudonyms. Telling the internet you are safe is of no use to your family or anyone else when they don't know who is behind the pseudonym. Again, that's not to say it couldn't work elsewhere, but it's interesting that Facebook chose Japan of all places to do this when they have probably the poorest market share there. Or, maybe it's just a clever ploy to gain popularity in Japan.
Many countries have laws that supersede EULAs. Even in the US, there have been plenty of cases where EULAs have been judged invalid. Publishers aren't allowed to put whatever they want in a EULA; you could agree to a EULA that gives the publisher the right to assassinate you, but that still wouldn't be legal.
This particular case, and indeed the entire purpose of pointing out and writing articles about cases like these, is to draw attention to the need for protection against what many widely consider unfair business practice, especially in places where that protection is limited or absent.
There are a number of clear solutions to this issue, they all just require better flexibility on Apple's part or new consumer protection laws (or better enforcement of existing ones). Cases like these involve carefully tiptoeing around the fine line between update and upgrade; you download an update, but instead receive a downgrade.
So really, how much of that $100 billion will actually be reinvested for things like improving national infrastructure and providing better service to customers, or anything that isn't cutting bigger bonus checks to top execs?
I don't find myself using Google less, but I certainly do rely on specialized social sites for specific information more so now than before. Generally when I want the answer to a specific question, Google can't always give it to me, and there are places I can go to get a straight answer faster than having to figure out the exact wording I need to use to get Google to pull up some forum post from 2005 that may or may not be related to the question I asked in the first place.
Example: If a domain you own expires and is deleted, does your personal information disappear from WHOIS records? Google doesn't know. The millions of results it generates are just about people complaining that their personal information is available under WHOIS and the only thing they can do about it is pay a recurring fee to a proxy service to hide it. I guarantee not a single one of you can find the answer to that question on Google no matter how you phrase it. Yet in less than the amount of time you've taken to read this comment, I could have gotten the answer just by asking someone (you don't need to answer it, it was just an example).
I said that in terms of what it means and why it is important, not whether it is feasible or possible. I do think a lot of awareness has been spread about these topics in recent months without needing any kind of forced blackout to do it, though. But you are certainly right, it is very difficult to spread awareness on the level needed to bring legislation to a halt without needing some higher authority to put their weight behind it. The problem is, in this case, doing that really defeats the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish as free citizens by opposing SOPA/PIPA.
Keep in mind no one actually asked Wikipedia, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, or others to go about this blackout plan. They came up with the idea on their own, and while I certainly don't think any of them mean any harm by it (no hidden agenda conspiracies here), they probably don't realize that doing so takes away the voice of the people and turns it into the voice of Wikipedia etc. Letting them tell the government what is good for the people is just as bad as letting the MPAA and other supporters of this legislation do the same. Only we get to decide what is good for us, even if Wiki et al share our position. It's great that we have their support, but the letter to Congress needs to be addressed by the American people.
Never forget that who sends the message is just as important as the content of the message itself.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. When groups like Wikipedia and Google and Facebook and Twitter all go on to do this blackout thing, all arguments in favor of the people go out the window, because it becomes an industry vs industry battle. Even though we the people and the aforementioned groups are opposed to SOPA/PIPA, we are not on the same side - they have their own interests, and while some of them may or may not coincide with ours, our own interests are not being represented when they do this.
When the blackout happens, the government will just see it as a battle between the industries, and it will render the lay peoples' arguments inaudible. If PIPA gets shut down as a reaction to Wikipedia et al, it will be seen as a victory for them, not a victory for us. We will celebrate, sure, but the government and supporters won't be any closer to understanding the part we played and how drastically it would have affected us on a fundamental level had it passed; they'll be just as tempted to introduce new legislation later on until they eventually get their way. Remember, corporations and industries aren't afraid of each other, they are afraid of informed voters.
As for the "educational" prospect of what Wikipedia et al are doing, convincing people who don't understand what's going on into rallying against SOPA/PIPA just by shutting down important websites is not really a fair tactic, and they won't be educated so much as enraged and desperate to reach any solution that would bring it back. You could shut down Facebook and put a message on there that people need to run through the streets naked to bring it back, and the United States would become a nudist nation overnight. While education is certainly important, we need to educate each other with fair and open discussion and debate, not with scare tactics from groups which have their own separate interests in mind. That's not to say that the information Wikipedia and others will post isn't going to be accurate or true, or that the information and commercials being fed to the public by SOPA/PIPA supporters isn't a load of bunk, but all of that can be posted on these websites without actually shutting down the services - the blackouts themselves are specifically designed to elicit an emotional response, not a rational one, and that's not the kind of tactic we want to employ or endorse.
While it's nice to have some big name support, this is our battle which we need to win on our own, and we should really encourage Wikipedia and others not to go through with this blackout plan.
While I certainly oppose SOPA and am glad to have Google & Co. rallying support against it, I don't think this "blackout" is a good option. We oppose SOPA not just because we value freedom on the internet, but also because we don't appreciate big industries like the MPAA bossing us around and telling us how the internet should be run and then muscling the government into passing laws to enforce that. Recall that Reddit is not the only one threatening this blackout, it's Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and others. By letting them pull off a stunt like this, it would be fighting fire with fire; it would be the other extreme trying to throw their weight around the same way industries supporting SOPA do now, and that would really make both sides seem just as bad. Both sides would be trying to tell us what is good for us, when the whole point of this battle is that only we get to decide that.
By resorting to this blackout option, SOPA would just turn into a battle of the big industries, and the common man is taken out of the picture almost completely. We need to make sure the government understands that the issue isn't just about corporations and industries, it's about the lay people, and we need to fight it on our own. Again, that's not to say we don't appreciate the support of Google and Facebook and Amazon and Reddit and so on, but their stake in this battle is different from ours, and we shouldn't let them represent us - we need to represent ourselves to get the point across. To that end, we should really pressure these companies not to go through with the blackout plan or to even threaten it, not because we all really love SOPA, but because we don't want our message to be brushed aside. If they ignore us or go through with it while trying to insist that it's "for the best," then they really wouldn't be any better than the MPAA or anyone else trying to tell us what's good for us.
While I certainly oppose SOPA and am glad to have Google & Co. rallying support against it, I don't think this "blackout" is a good option. We oppose SOPA not just because we value freedom on the internet, but also because we don't appreciate big industries like the MPAA bossing us around and telling us how the internet should be run and then muscling the government into passing laws to enforce that. By letting Google et al pull off a stunt like this, it would be fighting fire with fire; it would be the other extreme trying to throw their weight around the same way industries supporting SOPA do now, and that would really make both sides seem just as bad. Both sides would be trying to tell us what is good for us, when the whole point of this battle is that only we get to decide that.
By resorting to this "nuclear" option, SOPA would just turn into a battle of the big industries, and the common man is taken out of the picture almost completely. We need to make sure the government understands that the issue isn't just about corporations and industries, it's about the lay people, and we need to fight it on our own. Again, that's not to say we don't appreciate the support of Google and Facebook and Amazon and so on, but their stake in this battle is different from ours, and we shouldn't let them represent us - we need to represent ourselves to get the point across. To that end, we should really pressure these companies not to go through with the blackout plan or to even threaten it, not because we all really love SOPA, but because we don't want our message to be brushed aside. If they ignore us or go through with it while trying to insist that it's "for the best," then they really wouldn't be any better than the MPAA or anyone else trying to tell us what's good for us.
I don't really understand the point of pharmaceutical companies even having Facebook pages. I get enough of their advertising shoved down my throat on TV every day, I certainly don't want to be friends with them on Facebook. As far as government regulations go, it's sad enough that these companies have to disable wall postings to suppress people from talking about things like negative side effects, but I find it even sadder if people think the only place to have these discussions is on Facebook pages in the first place.
I mean, what's the train of thought supposed to be, here? "Oh good, now that I can openly write on a pharmaceutical company's wall, I can finally let everyone know about these horrible side effects their medication caused for me. There was definitely no outlet for this prior to now, and it comes just in time, because these unreported side effects are so bad it almost certainly warrants a governmental investigation!"
I don't really see it as any different from being forced to open a locker that is suspected to contain a murder weapon. If I argued that under the fifth amendment, I am not obligated to open that locker because it would be self-incriminating, how would that hold up in court (I don't actually know the answer, but I would assume this is precedented and has an answer)? They aren't asking me to give them the key to the locker, they're just asking me to open it.
I suppose the only difference is that it's much easier to force your way into a locker than it is to brute force an encrypted drive, but even then, the concepts of privacy and the fifth amendment should be the same, yes? And I suppose you could also argue that the password itself might contain keywords or some such which are incriminating, but by the same token I could have something incriminating etched onto a key.
The FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction because when it happened, the skies darkened, thunderous roars of a hundred thousand demons echoed across the countryside, a rain of blood flooded the land, and the most unspeakable horrors imaginable swept the United States into the most ridiculous debacle of overreaction in recorded history. What was the FCC supposed to do, just ignore the millions of Americans crying foul about their psychologically damaged children? No, we -demanded- they do something about it, because Janet Jackson's apocalyptic misdeed was more important than Clear Channel or SiriusXM.
The FCC is making smart moves with this and, recently, the net neutrality topic as well. They're asking for opinions, because they ultimately serve the American people. If they are indeed "useless", it's through no fault of their own, it's because the people they serve made them that way.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd probably be surprised how many people violently oppose having cell towers within a 50 mile radius of their house.
A neat idea, but this really is only effective if everyone is using generally the same social network(s). Facebook might be gaining popularity in Japan, but it is still severely underrepresented and unpopular (only about 2% of internet users) compared to other services like mixi and GREE. Of course I understand Facebook just wants to test the feature in an area prone to earthquakes and tsunamis with plans for global expansion, but that type of service would frankly be better served according to regional preferences. As far as a globally popular option goes, Twitter would be a better carrier for the "I'm safe" service in Japan and just about everywhere else.
Then again, this "I'm safe" thing is really only beneficial to personally identifiable profiles. That works fine for Facebook where you have to use your real name, but the main reason Japan is less inclined toward Facebook is because they prefer anonymity and pseudonyms. Telling the internet you are safe is of no use to your family or anyone else when they don't know who is behind the pseudonym. Again, that's not to say it couldn't work elsewhere, but it's interesting that Facebook chose Japan of all places to do this when they have probably the poorest market share there. Or, maybe it's just a clever ploy to gain popularity in Japan.
Many countries have laws that supersede EULAs. Even in the US, there have been plenty of cases where EULAs have been judged invalid. Publishers aren't allowed to put whatever they want in a EULA; you could agree to a EULA that gives the publisher the right to assassinate you, but that still wouldn't be legal.
This particular case, and indeed the entire purpose of pointing out and writing articles about cases like these, is to draw attention to the need for protection against what many widely consider unfair business practice, especially in places where that protection is limited or absent.
There are a number of clear solutions to this issue, they all just require better flexibility on Apple's part or new consumer protection laws (or better enforcement of existing ones). Cases like these involve carefully tiptoeing around the fine line between update and upgrade; you download an update, but instead receive a downgrade.
This point has been raised before and most certainly would enter tampering/destruction of evidence territory.
So really, how much of that $100 billion will actually be reinvested for things like improving national infrastructure and providing better service to customers, or anything that isn't cutting bigger bonus checks to top execs?
I don't find myself using Google less, but I certainly do rely on specialized social sites for specific information more so now than before. Generally when I want the answer to a specific question, Google can't always give it to me, and there are places I can go to get a straight answer faster than having to figure out the exact wording I need to use to get Google to pull up some forum post from 2005 that may or may not be related to the question I asked in the first place.
Example: If a domain you own expires and is deleted, does your personal information disappear from WHOIS records? Google doesn't know. The millions of results it generates are just about people complaining that their personal information is available under WHOIS and the only thing they can do about it is pay a recurring fee to a proxy service to hide it. I guarantee not a single one of you can find the answer to that question on Google no matter how you phrase it. Yet in less than the amount of time you've taken to read this comment, I could have gotten the answer just by asking someone (you don't need to answer it, it was just an example).
See my previous comments on this topic. Just saying.
I said that in terms of what it means and why it is important, not whether it is feasible or possible. I do think a lot of awareness has been spread about these topics in recent months without needing any kind of forced blackout to do it, though. But you are certainly right, it is very difficult to spread awareness on the level needed to bring legislation to a halt without needing some higher authority to put their weight behind it. The problem is, in this case, doing that really defeats the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish as free citizens by opposing SOPA/PIPA.
Keep in mind no one actually asked Wikipedia, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, or others to go about this blackout plan. They came up with the idea on their own, and while I certainly don't think any of them mean any harm by it (no hidden agenda conspiracies here), they probably don't realize that doing so takes away the voice of the people and turns it into the voice of Wikipedia etc. Letting them tell the government what is good for the people is just as bad as letting the MPAA and other supporters of this legislation do the same. Only we get to decide what is good for us, even if Wiki et al share our position. It's great that we have their support, but the letter to Congress needs to be addressed by the American people.
Never forget that who sends the message is just as important as the content of the message itself.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. When groups like Wikipedia and Google and Facebook and Twitter all go on to do this blackout thing, all arguments in favor of the people go out the window, because it becomes an industry vs industry battle. Even though we the people and the aforementioned groups are opposed to SOPA/PIPA, we are not on the same side - they have their own interests, and while some of them may or may not coincide with ours, our own interests are not being represented when they do this.
When the blackout happens, the government will just see it as a battle between the industries, and it will render the lay peoples' arguments inaudible. If PIPA gets shut down as a reaction to Wikipedia et al, it will be seen as a victory for them, not a victory for us. We will celebrate, sure, but the government and supporters won't be any closer to understanding the part we played and how drastically it would have affected us on a fundamental level had it passed; they'll be just as tempted to introduce new legislation later on until they eventually get their way. Remember, corporations and industries aren't afraid of each other, they are afraid of informed voters.
As for the "educational" prospect of what Wikipedia et al are doing, convincing people who don't understand what's going on into rallying against SOPA/PIPA just by shutting down important websites is not really a fair tactic, and they won't be educated so much as enraged and desperate to reach any solution that would bring it back. You could shut down Facebook and put a message on there that people need to run through the streets naked to bring it back, and the United States would become a nudist nation overnight. While education is certainly important, we need to educate each other with fair and open discussion and debate, not with scare tactics from groups which have their own separate interests in mind. That's not to say that the information Wikipedia and others will post isn't going to be accurate or true, or that the information and commercials being fed to the public by SOPA/PIPA supporters isn't a load of bunk, but all of that can be posted on these websites without actually shutting down the services - the blackouts themselves are specifically designed to elicit an emotional response, not a rational one, and that's not the kind of tactic we want to employ or endorse.
While it's nice to have some big name support, this is our battle which we need to win on our own, and we should really encourage Wikipedia and others not to go through with this blackout plan.
While I certainly oppose SOPA and am glad to have Google & Co. rallying support against it, I don't think this "blackout" is a good option. We oppose SOPA not just because we value freedom on the internet, but also because we don't appreciate big industries like the MPAA bossing us around and telling us how the internet should be run and then muscling the government into passing laws to enforce that. Recall that Reddit is not the only one threatening this blackout, it's Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and others. By letting them pull off a stunt like this, it would be fighting fire with fire; it would be the other extreme trying to throw their weight around the same way industries supporting SOPA do now, and that would really make both sides seem just as bad. Both sides would be trying to tell us what is good for us, when the whole point of this battle is that only we get to decide that.
By resorting to this blackout option, SOPA would just turn into a battle of the big industries, and the common man is taken out of the picture almost completely. We need to make sure the government understands that the issue isn't just about corporations and industries, it's about the lay people, and we need to fight it on our own. Again, that's not to say we don't appreciate the support of Google and Facebook and Amazon and Reddit and so on, but their stake in this battle is different from ours, and we shouldn't let them represent us - we need to represent ourselves to get the point across. To that end, we should really pressure these companies not to go through with the blackout plan or to even threaten it, not because we all really love SOPA, but because we don't want our message to be brushed aside. If they ignore us or go through with it while trying to insist that it's "for the best," then they really wouldn't be any better than the MPAA or anyone else trying to tell us what's good for us.
While I certainly oppose SOPA and am glad to have Google & Co. rallying support against it, I don't think this "blackout" is a good option. We oppose SOPA not just because we value freedom on the internet, but also because we don't appreciate big industries like the MPAA bossing us around and telling us how the internet should be run and then muscling the government into passing laws to enforce that. By letting Google et al pull off a stunt like this, it would be fighting fire with fire; it would be the other extreme trying to throw their weight around the same way industries supporting SOPA do now, and that would really make both sides seem just as bad. Both sides would be trying to tell us what is good for us, when the whole point of this battle is that only we get to decide that.
By resorting to this "nuclear" option, SOPA would just turn into a battle of the big industries, and the common man is taken out of the picture almost completely. We need to make sure the government understands that the issue isn't just about corporations and industries, it's about the lay people, and we need to fight it on our own. Again, that's not to say we don't appreciate the support of Google and Facebook and Amazon and so on, but their stake in this battle is different from ours, and we shouldn't let them represent us - we need to represent ourselves to get the point across. To that end, we should really pressure these companies not to go through with the blackout plan or to even threaten it, not because we all really love SOPA, but because we don't want our message to be brushed aside. If they ignore us or go through with it while trying to insist that it's "for the best," then they really wouldn't be any better than the MPAA or anyone else trying to tell us what's good for us.
Really, this article is years behind. Anshe Chung hasn't been relevant in the pantheon of virtual land barons for ages.
I don't really understand the point of pharmaceutical companies even having Facebook pages. I get enough of their advertising shoved down my throat on TV every day, I certainly don't want to be friends with them on Facebook. As far as government regulations go, it's sad enough that these companies have to disable wall postings to suppress people from talking about things like negative side effects, but I find it even sadder if people think the only place to have these discussions is on Facebook pages in the first place.
I mean, what's the train of thought supposed to be, here? "Oh good, now that I can openly write on a pharmaceutical company's wall, I can finally let everyone know about these horrible side effects their medication caused for me. There was definitely no outlet for this prior to now, and it comes just in time, because these unreported side effects are so bad it almost certainly warrants a governmental investigation!"
I don't really see it as any different from being forced to open a locker that is suspected to contain a murder weapon. If I argued that under the fifth amendment, I am not obligated to open that locker because it would be self-incriminating, how would that hold up in court (I don't actually know the answer, but I would assume this is precedented and has an answer)? They aren't asking me to give them the key to the locker, they're just asking me to open it. I suppose the only difference is that it's much easier to force your way into a locker than it is to brute force an encrypted drive, but even then, the concepts of privacy and the fifth amendment should be the same, yes? And I suppose you could also argue that the password itself might contain keywords or some such which are incriminating, but by the same token I could have something incriminating etched onto a key.
The FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction because when it happened, the skies darkened, thunderous roars of a hundred thousand demons echoed across the countryside, a rain of blood flooded the land, and the most unspeakable horrors imaginable swept the United States into the most ridiculous debacle of overreaction in recorded history. What was the FCC supposed to do, just ignore the millions of Americans crying foul about their psychologically damaged children? No, we -demanded- they do something about it, because Janet Jackson's apocalyptic misdeed was more important than Clear Channel or SiriusXM.
The FCC is making smart moves with this and, recently, the net neutrality topic as well. They're asking for opinions, because they ultimately serve the American people. If they are indeed "useless", it's through no fault of their own, it's because the people they serve made them that way.