Wikipedia Blackout

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

Again, what does that accomplish? Transfer of vinyl to mp3?

Yes.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Originally Posted By: Yuna Corne

Turns out the wiki blackout had some pretty big effect

In the long term, though, I strongly suspect that the blackout's total effect will be precisely nil.

I disagree. A less heinous bill will eventually be signed into law. How much less is debatable; the non-nil effect is not.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

Again, what does that accomplish? Transfer of vinyl to mp3?

Edit: In an effort to return to topic... hacktivism vs. blackouts. Which, if either works at all, is more effective?

It means that I only need one good speaker system for my house- my computer covers music, movies, and computer sound.

I could also do the vinyl-to-MP3 trick, but the quality of the transfers are less than just buying proper CD's or MP3's, and I don't have enough records to force me to transfer rather than repurchase.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Originally Posted By: Yuna Corne

Turns out the wiki blackout had some pretty big effect

In the long term, though, I strongly suspect that the blackout's total effect will be precisely nil.

I disagree. A less heinous bill will eventually be signed into law. How much less is debatable; the non-nil effect is not.

Actually, I was talking in terms of centuries, not just a few years.

The current lawmakers may listen now, but what about in the future? The blackout worked pretty good the first time, but I seriously doubt a second one will have half the desired effect. And if there's a third one? Congratulations, you've just created a cliché; don't expect the powers that be to care, let alone notice.

[Aoslare]

1. Um, if you're talking in terms of centuries, then the "total effect" of most things that happen today will be minimal. What point are you trying to make here?

 

2. Lawmakers didn't pay any attention to the blackout itself. How many of them do you think use craigslist or wikipedia on a daily basis? (Remember, Weiner is no longer in office.) The blackout was effective because it led directly to an incredibly heavy constituent response in the form of e-mails, phone calls, and the like. That in itself wouldn't be enough but given that virtually no private citizens supported the bills, the PR equation was obvious.

 

Most elected officials will continue to pay attention to their PR no matter how many times it is threatened. Another blackout will be just as effective provided the same kind of constituent response is generated. That's the limiting factor, not the shock value of the blackout, which is virtually zero to begin with.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

1. Um, if you're talking in terms of centuries, then the "total effect" of most things that happen today will be minimal. What point are you trying to make here?

My point was to be pointless. It's the point of just about everything, really, given enough time.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

2. Lawmakers didn't pay any attention to the blackout itself. How many of them do you think use craigslist or wikipedia on a daily basis? (Remember, Weiner is no longer in office.)

I never said they did. Heck, I normally don't use those sites even on a monthly, much less daily, basis.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

The blackout was effective because it led directly to an incredibly heavy constituent response in the form of e-mails, phone calls, and the like. That in itself wouldn't be enough but given that virtually no private citizens supported the bills, the PR equation was obvious.

Most elected officials will continue to pay attention to their PR no matter how many times it is threatened.

It's been my experience that PR is about the only thing that lawmakers pay attention to. I've met a handful of elected officials in my day, and the main thing on all their minds was to get re-elected (then again, it was during election years, so their re-election plans more or less went without saying).

[Randomizer]

The first thing a politician does when he or she is elected is start raising money for the next election. While the voters don't provide a large amount of this money, if enough are vocal, then a politician has to consider them since the money won't overcome the voters.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

1. Um, if you're talking in terms of centuries, then the "total effect" of most things that happen today will be minimal. What point are you trying to make here?

My point was to be pointless. It's the point of just about everything, really, given enough time.

Silly point to make, since we are living in a limited span of time. The universe is going to die someday, but I should still do what I can to make my life enjoyable (blah blah blah, philosophy).


If these bills do pass in their current or slightly altered forms, I intend to drive down to D.C., enter the LoC, slam a pair of scissors on the desk, and ask to see the Constitution.

[Dintiradan]

Somewhat on topic.

[Aoslare]

Originally Posted By: Master1

If these bills do pass in their current or slightly altered forms, I intend to drive down to D.C., enter the LoC, slam a pair of scissors on the desk, and ask to see the Constitution.

Have fun being a victim of the new indefinite detention powers.

[Actaeon]

Whoa, man, it's like... all linked together in a big... web of laws 'n stuff.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Have fun being a victim of the new indefinite detention powers.

I don't see what the big problem with that is- it's not like the US was unable to indefinitely detain its own citizens before (Hi there, Executive Order #9066!), so why are we suddenly upset that it's "legal" now- the only circumstances where it could be used without massive outcry are situations where the popular sentiment against the detainees is so immense that you wouldn't need to get Congress to pass a law to order detentions, you could just use executive orders or get the military to do it.

And besides, who, exactly, is Obama or Romney* going to detain? The power of indefinite detention is like nuclear weapons- sure, you could use it, but no president would be stupid enough to use it to detain innocent citizens or dissenters or anybody who's not manifestly a terrorist operative in an era where governments can be toppled due to Twitter and Facebook- they'd be signing their own death sentence.

[Callie]

That's the problem: it's on the table for the government to use in the future. I see no reason for the government to reserve that kind of right. After all, the constitution does give Congress the power to suspend habeas corpus if need be.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

That's the problem: it's on the table for the government to use in the future. I see no reason for the government to reserve that kind of right. After all, the constitution does give Congress the power to suspend habeas corpus if need be.

Yes, that's my point. They wouldn't use it if they didn't have enough widespread support for detaining people, and if they had that, they wouldn't need the law to justify doing so- and since it's either totally useless or completely unnecessary, why would we care if it's on the books or not?

[Jerakeen]

Because it's unconstitutional?

[Callie]

How does the government determine widespread support though? Even then, that's running into the kind of problem in which minorities become oppressed, kind of like Guantanamo Bay...which is still open. I don't think the public can be relied upon to object to government abuse of power, and besides, this bill gives the executive branch that kind of power. Bush had used the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force as an excuse for his administration's military detention. The new bill pretty much affirms that power, so now the President no longer needs to loosely interpret the AUMF as an excuse. In other words, it transfers the power to suspend habeas corpus from Congress over to the executive branch, thereby violating the constitution and avoiding debate by giving the President even more power.

[Dantius]

The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago, was exceptionally limited in scope, gave broad liscence to allow its expansion, and has been amended many times since then. Vast parts of it are no longer applicable to the modern world- I would imagine that the Founders would have written thins very differently if they knew that a few dozen men were capable of destroying a city with nukes, or shutting down the entire economy with cyber warfare , or killing hundreds of thousands with bio weapons, or even just conventional killings on the scale of 9/11.

 

Things change, and sometimes the changes is the Constitution lag behind- unless you're claiming that the original document as penned by the Founders was divinely inspired as the best and purest form of government known to man, in which case I'd merely like to inquire how many slaves you intend to purchase when the all the Amendments get rolled back.

[Aoslare]

The bill has generated mild negative publicity -- no doubt easily foreseen. Given that, it must have had SOME actual impact on something or Obama surely would not have signed it. Why sign a bill into law that has no meaningful impact AND generates negative publicity?

[Callie]

Being hundreds of years old does not mean it's not the law, and what's the point of having laws if you can conveniently ignore them? If there's so much support for giving the executive branch the power of indefinite detention then the Constitution provides for it to be amended to reflect such sentiment.

 

The constitution does give Congress the power to suspend habeas corpus when "the public Safety may require it," which is sufficiently vague to accommodate modern conflicts. The reason that Congress is given such power and not the executive branch is that the framers did not want the President to be like a king, and it's looking like the President has very slowly been approaching that level over the centuries.

[Jerakeen]

It's a rare occasion when I find myself in complete agreement with Excalibur (I'm in the far lower left quadrant), but here we are.

 

The only thing I would add is that the U.S. constitution, while miles from perfect, is still an extraordinary document. It's too bad that so many Americans, especially politicians, give lip service to it while seeming content to let their rights be abrogated.

[Randomizer]

But the Patriot Act allows for detention without trial or even public notification with the Executive branch deciding if a person qualifies under the Act, This allows for abuse outside of Congressional intent since you have to prove without government help that a person is being held.

 

While the President can't make a prominent opponent disappear without an outcry, it's easy to do for less noticeable people.

[Nioca]

Re-railing for a second here: Holy. Freaking. Crap.

 

Why the hell don't they bring this guy up on charges? (It's rhetorical, but feel free to answer anyway)

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Yes, that's my point. They wouldn't use it if they didn't have enough widespread support for detaining people, and if they had that, they wouldn't need the law to justify doing so- and since it's either totally useless or completely unnecessary, why would we care if it's on the books or not?

The same logic can be applied to pretty much any legal check to the power of the government. Each time I call you a fascist, I'm a little less sure I'm joking.

[The Ratt]

Originally Posted By: Nioca

Re-railing for a second here: Holy. Freaking. Crap.

Why the hell don't they bring this guy up on charges? (It's rhetorical, but feel free to answer anyway)

So I did some quick googling, and I can't seem to find any video of Chris Dodd actually saying that, in that context, on the news. The closest I came was a Fox news video of Dodd saying they won't be giving as much money to... someone. Fox news implied it was Obama, but, with some further examination, that fits perfectly in the quotes on various websites, so it is quite probably that Dodd really did threaten politicians, especially since Fox news supports the SOPA legislation and has a history bias.

[Callie]

This is the same MPAA which brought you film ratings: something that doesn't seem so sinister in purpose but ultimately acts as a form of censorship. The film ratings are voluntary, but it's extremely difficult to make a profitable film without the MPAA's little seal of approval--and they can do that because all the big film distribution companies are in cahoots with them. The NC-17 rating is their preferred murder weapon, and they flip out when a film depicts any kind of sensuality which offends their prudish, homophobic, and hyper-masculine social mores.

 

So yeah, when I read the linked article I really wasn't surprised. It's an industry that thrives off of monopolistic practices and corruption. If Strom Thurmond and Joseph McCarthy had a love child, well, you'd probably have the MPAA.

 

/diatribe

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Yes, that's my point. They wouldn't use it if they didn't have enough widespread support for detaining people, and if they had that, they wouldn't need the law to justify doing so- and since it's either totally useless or completely unnecessary, why would we care if it's on the books or not?

The same logic can be applied to pretty much any legal check to the power of the government. Each time I call you a fascist, I'm a little less sure I'm joking.

I'm pretty sure I've implicitly called myself a cryptofascist, so I'm not sure why you think that invoking that label will suddenly cause my to turn a political about-face and recant all my prior opinions.

Also, since this is the Internet, where long-held ruls of rhetoric and argumentation no longer hold, I can also comment that I win via Godwin's Law, since injecting accusations of fascism into a discussion about constitutional functionalism v. originalism doesn't really do anything but poison the well.