Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jan 2012 19:33 UTC
Internet & Networking Big news from Capitol Hill in Washington DC today: House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa has said that the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has been "shelved" in the House of Representatives, meaning it has been put on indefinite hold until a consensus about the act can be reached. Sadly, SOPA's counterpart in the Senate, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) will still be pushed forward, meaning we must remain vigilant. Despite all of this, Wikipedia has announced it will join the blackout coming Wednesday.
Thread beginning with comment 503659
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Look, I have the ability to read, comprehend, and form my own opinion. Just because the BBC says something, I sould just follow suit? I'm sorry, but you'll have to come with more convincing arguments. You may not realise it, but most mainstream media cover minor news like this (which it is, sadly) by just copy/pasting AP stuff. No critical thinking goes into these minor stories.

You have not countered any of my points regarding the statement, and until you do, I'm just going to assume you can't. So, just to reiterate: it was and is a completely empty statement designed to allow Obama to go either way regarding SOPA without losing face. The fact that you fall for it and fail to argue your case is interesting.

Reply Parent Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Look, I have the ability to read, comprehend, and form my own opinion.


But you don't ever have any ability to say you are wrong?

Just because the BBC says something, I sould just follow suit? I'm sorry, but you'll have to come with more convincing arguments. You may not realise it, but most mainstream media cover minor news like this (which it is, sadly) by just copy/pasting AP stuff. No critical thinking goes into these minor stories.


Well it seems to counter your with an actual opinion which seems to suggest someone did some critical thinking somewhere along the line.

It seems that you think that you are the only person of critical thinking yet, mock those that oppose your opinion, without any good argument much like you did to me over email.

You have not countered any of my points regarding the statement, and until you do, I'm just going to assume you can't.


I did counter the statement in the original thread, You said "I don't read" ... I said I quote those that say my opinion better than I can. You ignored it.

Obviously I do read, because I read other articles and quote those opinions that reflect my own opinions.

I also quoted the source material which I quoted from multiple times which is normal in academic discussion ... but you did not attack my sources, you just said "You trust those sources therefore you are wrong" with no actual rebuttal.

So, just to reiterate: it was and is a completely empty statement designed to allow Obama to go either way regarding SOPA without losing face. The fact that you fall for it and fail to argue your case is interesting.


And to reiterate to you because you can't understand anything other than yourself, several OSNEWS members posted the same opinions as the BBC.

Apparently on your own you are brighter than all of them and the BBC combined, based on your own opinion.

It is an extreme amount of arrogance.

It all boils down to that you do not have the intellectual honesty to actually ever admit your are wrong.

Edited 2012-01-16 21:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It all boils down to that you do not have the intellectual honesty to actually ever admit your are wrong.


Please stop with these silly personal attacks. Any cursory perusal through OSNews' story history proves that I have admitted error on my end COUNTLESS times.

I have an opinion, and that opinion is that Obama's statement was empty and pointless. Several OSNews readers, HackerNews readers, Ars Technica readers, Redditors, and people all over the web agreed with me - and, as you point out, several disagreed. That's life for you.

I suggest that you strike a more civil tone - not just against me, but in general. You've had a temporary ban for abrasive behaviour before, and that should serve as a warning.

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

...it was and is a completely empty statement designed to allow Obama to go either way regarding SOPA without losing face.

Those are actually two distinct statements. One, that it was completely empty. And two, that it would allow some wiggle room without losing face.

The second point is likely valid. A standard political precaution which doesn't tell us a whole lot. But the White House statement, itself, was far from being completely empty. It sent a definite message, in politico-speak.

I would agree that the White House statement had as much or more to do with the "shelving" of SOPA as do the pending blackout plans.

In reality, they are all bound up in a rather complicated way that I would not venture to claim to completely understand. If I did, I would also begin questioning my own sanity.

However, lucus_maximus does have a point.

-Steve

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Those are actually two distinct statements. One, that it was completely empty. And two, that it would allow some wiggle room without losing face.


While I see your point, I actually mean one and the same thing: the statement is empty because it's so utterly vague and lacks any decent definitions or 'hard' words - thus making it completely meaningless. Had the statement included a "...like SOPA" or "...like current proposals in the House and Senate", the statement would actually have teeth.

Another option would be for the statement to specifically define what is acceptable, and what isn't, according to Obama. Not doing either of these two makes it an empty statement. Posting a statement like this in The Netherlands would be pointless - it would be chalked up as a sign of weakness on the side of the administration.

In reality, they are all bound up in a rather complicated way


It's not that complicated. There's a boatload of negative publicity going on right now, and several US senators and other supporters of the bill were backpedaling - never a good sign if you want a legislation pushed through. The White House statement, in my view, had far less influence - its lack of teeth would have made it possible for Obama to sign this law without losing any political face, i.e., he wouldn't violate the statement in the slightest if he did sign the law.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Those are actually two distinct statements. One, that it was completely empty. And two, that it would allow some wiggle room without losing face.

No, he said the statement was empty and thus he could later go either way. You added the 'wiggle room' statement, why would Obama need 'wiggle room' when he hasn't in the slightest committed to anything?

The companies backing this bill will throw enough money at politicians to get it through once the media gets tired of covering this as a story.

I've seen pretty much jack-sh*t about SOPA on 'traditional' media and what little I've seen has been slanted as a bill to 'protect american jobs' (lol, yeah right), anti-SOPA has pretty much been an all internet campaign from start to finish and it's been hugely successful in building momentum.

Obviously this scares the sh*t out of alot of people with power out there, given that while traditional media is so narrow that it can easily be controlled, people on the internet get their information from a wide range of sources, not only that but they also get to discuss this information on a global scale, no longer are we confined to political discussions around the dinner table. All this together with the ease at which people can quickly rally around/against something, again on a global scale, makes all these powermongers scared and thus incredibly motivated to control the web. This goes way beyond online piracy.

Given this, obviously there will be alot of shills out there now trying to make the shelving of SOPA the result of 'the White House's statement' and downplaying the importance of the organized it-industry/internet campaign against SOPA. This is because that if people understand just how much power they have and start organising in order to make things happen then the power structure enjoyed by big organisations will start to crumble and power will be shifted.

With the internet we have a voice which can in effect rival the huge amounts of paid lobbyists the corporations and rich private interests can muster. Not only that, but we can put it into action by campaigning directly against companies who are working against our interests (see GoDaddy).

Reply Parent Score: 6