These are sopapillas. They're just fine, okay?
As everyone on the Internet knows by now, there’s this horrible thingy going on in the US of A, which for some reason concerns the entire world. Well, in fairness, it’s because the horrible thingy is federal legislation concerning Internet usage, which is a world wide thing, of course. The legislation is none other than the fiendish thingy SOPA, aka SOPA/PIPA (it has developed a split personality).
Now, while I cannot claim to have read all of the gory details of this explanation of why SOPA/PIPA is so horrible it should die screaming, including embedded links I might add, I have skimmed it and let me tell you, I’m not liking what I see.
Okay, so considering the source of the information is reddit, one of the big Internet companies concerned about the schizoid legislation, I’ll also include a link to this NY Times article. As if they don’t depend on the Internet to spread information as much as anyone. Whatever.
So … in answer to this awfulness, many Internet entities are choosing to shut down in protest. I know this hit home for me when I got on my computer this morning and my home page came up looking like this.
Right. So, yesterday on Twitter, I tweeted something to the effect of, “How will not using Twitter fight SOPA?” I haven’t been on Twitter today, so I don’t know if anyone answered. What if it were a rhetorical question? Ha ha ha … I meant, what if it was perceived as a rhetorical question? Now, I’m too tired to think about it. Forget I even brought up the subject.
All I know is I’m not sure I see the point of this big blackout. How is it really going to effect the outcome of the vote on the legislation? Doesn’t it in a sense defeat the very purpose of the Internet? Shouldn’t we be talking MORE about this and not less?
It seems the editors at Wikipedia have their own concerns about this. To quote the article:
Can the world live without Wikipediafor a day? The planned shutdown of one of the Internet’s most-visited sites is not sitting well with some of its volunteer editors, who say the protest of anti-piracy legislation could threaten the credibility of their work.
“My main concern is that it puts the organization in the role of advocacy, and that’s a slippery slope,” said editor Robert Lawton, a Michigan computer consultant who would prefer that the encyclopedia stick to being a neutral repository of knowledge. “Before we know it, we’re blacked out because we want to save the whales.”
Wikipedia will shut down access to its English-language site for 24 hours beginning at midnight Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday. Instead of encyclopedia articles, visitors will see information about the two congressional bills and details about how to reach lawmakers.
It is the first time the English site has been blacked out. Wikipedia’s Italian site came down once briefly in protest to an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government. The bill did not advance.
The shutdown adds to a growing body of critics who are speaking out against the legislation. But some editors are so uneasy with the move that they have blacked out their own user profile pages or resigned their administrative rights on the site to protest. Some likened the site’s decision to fighting censorship with censorship.
One of the site’s own “five pillars” of conduct says that Wikipedia “is written from a neutral point of view.” The site strives to “avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them.”
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales argues that the site can maintain neutrality in content even as it takes public positions on issues.
“The encyclopedia will always be neutral. The community need not be, not when the encyclopedia is threatened,” he tweeted.
The plans for the protest were moving forward even though the bill’s prospects appeared to be dimming. On Saturday, Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Democrat, said the bill would not move to the House floor for a vote unless consensus is reached. However, Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said work on the bill would resume next month.
The White House raised concerns over the weekend, pledging to work with Congress to battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy and innovation in the Internet. The administration signaled it might use its veto power, if necessary.
That the bill seems unlikely to pass is another reason Lawton opposes the blackout.
“I think there are far more important things for the organization to focus aside from legislation that isn’t likely to pass anyway,” he said. He’s been contributing to Wikipedia for eight years.
Danny Chia, another contributor to the site, said he had mixed feelings about the blackout. The neutrality applies to the content, but a lot of people interpret it as being about the site as a whole, said the Los Altos, Calif., software engineer.
In an online discussion, others raised the same point about the blackout: Appearances matter, and if the audience sees Wikipedia taking a stand, it might not believe the articles are objective, either.
Wikipedia has seen a small decline in participation, from a peak of 100,000 active editors a year ago to about 90,000 now. Wikimedia Foundation blames this mainly on outdated editing tools, and believes it can get the number growing again with software upgrades.
So … big Internet companies are shutting down their sites for a law that seems highly unlikely to pass, anyway? And, even if it did, the president is signalling his intention to veto the sucker, in any case. Big whoop!
Everything about this post gave me a headache. Quick! Avert your eyes …
Now … that’s much more like it. Awesome!
Hold on … whoa!!!
PS: Random stuff on the Internet can be really bad, but it can also be really amazing.
