Death of the internet

Off topic discussion
User avatar
RazorMasticator
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: Denmark

Death of the internet

Postby RazorMasticator » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:00 pm

terrible shit happening right now guys... its time to fight, taken from the latest wiki announcement

Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate — that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.

This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:

It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.

Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a “blackout” of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.

On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.

In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them.

But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,

We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.

But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn’t made by me; it was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I support it.

Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia’s public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place. It’s not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.

That’s less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a desire to make the world a better place — many do! — but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.

My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we’re doing it for our readers. We support everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States — don’t advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?

The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.
How dare you come on this show with a pegan/marxist agenda! this is gods popquiz! -simon amstell

User avatar
RazorMasticator
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Death of the internet

Postby RazorMasticator » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:19 pm

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Eng ... A_blackout

thats the adress if anyone wanna check out the many hyperlinks leading to more info on this matter
How dare you come on this show with a pegan/marxist agenda! this is gods popquiz! -simon amstell

User avatar
Gruul
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:58 pm

Re: Death of the internet

Postby Gruul » Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:30 pm

I'm not really sure what to think of this. Censorship = bad. Giving unreined access and equal vote to Joe Sixpack = also bad. In case it hasn't been obvious so far, I'm not really a fan of democracy (said Joe shouldn't be allowed to vote on things he knows fuck all). Meritocracy all the way, baby.

Most of the actually useful parts of the internet already have both limited access and user fees. If people were actually using Wikipedia they wouldn't be saying stupid shit like "did you know that ghettos were formed during the WW2?", which usually puts me in a serial killer mode. But as long as we still need the bastards for manual labor I guess they are more useful alive than dead...
ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
RazorMasticator
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Death of the internet

Postby RazorMasticator » Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:36 am

if you come to denmark ill kick your imperialist ass so hard :D

nah i agree somewhat man, but this is not right, the flow of info is imperative for human progress and now it looks like its going away (soon to be) for good, and not just for some but for everyone
How dare you come on this show with a pegan/marxist agenda! this is gods popquiz! -simon amstell

User avatar
Gruul
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:58 pm

Re: Death of the internet

Postby Gruul » Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:26 pm

Why isn't anyone else piching in on this? It's not much of a discussion if it's just the same two lunatics going back and forth ad nauseam... :P

I'm not for SOPA/PIPA in any way; I think they are just big business buying laws to cover their obsolete business models instead of trying to come up with modern solutions (Spotify ftw). Besides, everyone and their cat knows that it's not really preventing online piracy and I'm very strongly against ineffective laws or lying to your citizens about the purpose of said laws...

I guess my main problem here is that people take free speech and free information for granted when it obviously isn't. I hate Wikipedia because suddenly everyone thinks they are an expert because they've read what Wikipedia has to say about something. Suddenly they think their opinion matters - which it doesn't. So I guess I have more of a problem with human laziness and stupidity than with censorship (which sometimes has its uses). But yeah, that's the elitist in me talking - as someone whose life will be dedicated to providing new information so that everyone can look it up on Wikipedia later - for free (Unless - you know, I decide to take over Europe). And feel smart because they did it. Because now they know stuff. Idiots...

Oh and all the hatred towards big business? That's the left-wing tax-increasing gay-loving godless liberal socialist in me talking... :P
ImageImageImageImageImage

Ahnull Bahrd
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:14 am

Re: Death of the internet

Postby Ahnull Bahrd » Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:18 pm

Hard to debate on larger issues and remain neutral, so I won't try.

Without piracy I wouldn't watch half as many films, play half as many games or listen to half as much music. Anything that takes us a step closer to making piracy impossible/too difficult reduces my quality of life as I see it so I'd fight it wherever possible.

I can't be anything other than honest. Theres the whole moral aspect of stealing from artists etc and blahblahblah, but if it was the artists and distributors who recieved all the money for the work I would feel guilty about it. Whilever money just disappears off into the ether on tax, wages for the fatcats who are born or inducted through friends/family into jobs that consist of them just bossing folk around and other "non-job"ers it alleviates my personal guilt enough that I don't care.

In my industry it feels like theres a class of people who regardless of if they're lazy, incompetent, amoral, unethical or unprofessional, once they've got a foot on the management ladder they're set for life. Getting that break on one job makes them a cut above everyone somehow and because of their 'experience in the field' (presumably of being an overpaid snob twat) they're seen by other bigwigs to be "one of the boys", suitable for a non-job. These twats are the middlemen who do nothing but arselick the guys above them and harrass the guys further down the chain and as far as I'm concerned contribute as much to humanity as the dolescum that they cross the street to avoid.

Signed, an often abused, underpaid worker ant from the construction industry. Jealous to death of the guys getting paid twice as much for half the work. If any of you are reading, have all your 'working lunches' and plethora of daily 'look I'm doing some real work' meetings, but stop involving the rest of us who actually have shit to do. We'd be happier if you all burst into flames anyway.

Ranty enough? Is this what the QZ is for?
Image

User avatar
helgrrr
Whip Cracker
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:06 pm

Re: Death of the internet

Postby helgrrr » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:26 am

Just for a slghtly different perspective Ahnull

I used to have a worker ant job, I rode around on a motorbike in the freezing cold delivering parcels.

When I realised after 15 years of this that eventually I would die under a truck one day, I asked to move into the office as a warm dry worker ant for very little pay. I'd never wanted an office job but as it turned out I was bloody good at it. I worked hard got promoted and within 18 months managed to get propelled into a middle to upper management role with a fair wedge of cash.

I then spent 5 years with the 400 people who had up until that point been fairly good mates looking daggers at me and muttering thats where our payrise went, loud enough for me to hear every time I walked past.

If I was the sort to get upset by stupid remarks or naive enough to think I didn't need to find knew friends it would have been a bloody lonely and crappy few years.

Towards the end one of the main mutterers got promoted into a similar role to me, he lasted four months before he asked to be demoted again because it was too hard. He did at least have the good grace to apologise for all the shit he had dished out.

Everyone thought I got promoted because I had a friend in management and did no work at all. I was paid for 8 hours a day 5 days a week. I did 13 hours a day, at weekend if there was a problem I got called, In the middle of the night if there was a problem I got called, Usually at Christmas and new year there were no staff so the phones were transferred to my home and I ran the company from there. We operated 24/7.

I increased the companies gross margin from 35% to 42% thus ensuring that everyone got a decent payrise every year.

There are a lot of really crap people in middle management who do absolutely nothing, but before you make their lives hell make sure you pick the right one.
Wookie Killah Image

User avatar
Gruul
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:58 pm

Re: Death of the internet

Postby Gruul » Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:16 am

How big of a difference is there in a salary between workers and middle management (or upper management for that matter)? I know people keep complaining that work (or education, depending who's complaining) doesn't pay off here but does it anywhere in Europe?

Rough estimate of Finnish monthly salaries:
800e unemployed
1200e - 1800e shittiest jobs you can imagine: cleaners, janitors, waitresses...
1800e - 2200e "worker ants": your average factory worker
2200e - 2500e most jobs: teachers (5+ years of university required), nurses etc
2500e - 3000e heavy manual labor: construction workers, dock workers (no education whatsoever required)
3000e - 4000e most professionals: engineers, professors, middle management
4000e - 6000e the high paying "honest" jobs: doctors, senior management
6000e - 10000e the "dishonest" jobs: politicians, lawyers, prostitutes
13300e the president

Progressive taxation (peaking at 55%) makes sure that in reality the difference is much smaller than that (construction workers get 2000e, doctors 3000e). Doesn't really stop people from being envious but still, it doesn't make THAT much of a difference...
ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Naggly Nagger
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:37 am

Re: Death of the internet

Postby Naggly Nagger » Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:30 am

Gruul wrote:

I'm not for SOPA/PIPA in any way; I think they are just big business buying laws to cover their obsolete business models instead of trying to come up with modern solutions (Spotify ftw). Besides, everyone and their cat knows that it's not really preventing online piracy and I'm very strongly against ineffective laws or lying to your citizens about the purpose of said laws...



Gruul is pretty much spot on. And i'll add that the government has no business trying to govern the internet. Let me refresh everyones memory with a little youtube clip..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

User avatar
wasif
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:40 am

Re: Death of the internet

Postby wasif » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:16 am

Gruul wrote:How big of a difference is there in a salary between workers and middle management (or upper management for that matter)? I know people keep complaining that work (or education, depending who's complaining) doesn't pay off here but does it anywhere in Europe?

Rough estimate of Finnish monthly salaries:
800e unemployed
1200e - 1800e shittiest jobs you can imagine: cleaners, janitors, waitresses...
1800e - 2200e "worker ants": your average factory worker
2200e - 2500e most jobs: teachers (5+ years of university required), nurses etc
2500e - 3000e heavy manual labor: construction workers, dock workers (no education whatsoever required)
3000e - 4000e most professionals: engineers, professors, middle management
4000e - 6000e the high paying "honest" jobs: doctors, senior management
6000e - 10000e the "dishonest" jobs: politicians, lawyers, prostitutes
13300e the president

Progressive taxation (peaking at 55%) makes sure that in reality the difference is much smaller than that (construction workers get 2000e, doctors 3000e). Doesn't really stop people from being envious but still, it doesn't make THAT much of a difference...


*Put's on Purple Cat suit and top hat*
*Pulls out the pimp cane*

Where are those hoe's at? There's some money to be made.


All jokes aside it's startling to see that despite folks spending additionel years in education the pay rise in some cases is minimal o.O.

User avatar
RazorMasticator
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Death of the internet

Postby RazorMasticator » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:23 pm

thanks to all the scum whos been stealing shit online over the years, your crimes and subsequent punishment has now become our punishment as well... good job, and can we please have a fuckin proper riot so we can destroy these people? pun intended

gruul... it has nothing do with wikipedia as such, i copied it from there cause their announcement was striking and it was the first id seen regarding this. wikipedia can go to hell really, but internet freedom... cant live without it man... just cant
How dare you come on this show with a pegan/marxist agenda! this is gods popquiz! -simon amstell

User avatar
RazorMasticator
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Death of the internet

Postby RazorMasticator » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:49 pm

How dare you come on this show with a pegan/marxist agenda! this is gods popquiz! -simon amstell

User avatar
Gruul
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:58 pm

Re: Death of the internet

Postby Gruul » Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:04 pm

Naggly Nagger wrote:And i'll add that the government has no business trying to govern the internet.


What's your logic here? What's illegal in real life is still illegal in the internet - frauds, scams, slander, spreading bomb-making instructions - and police (as an extension of government) are very much required to uphold the law even online. Internet isn't some magic wonderland where everything goes, it's just the newest version of public media, it's predecessors being newspapers, radio and tv...
ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Dawkinson
The Meaning of Vitae
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:00 pm

Re: Death of the internet

Postby Dawkinson » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:11 pm

Gruul, are you saying you hate Wikipedia because it lets people have knowledge which they don't deserve?

User avatar
Gruul
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:58 pm

Re: Death of the internet

Postby Gruul » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:52 pm

Dawkinson wrote:Gruul, are you saying you hate Wikipedia because it lets people have knowledge which they don't deserve?


I hate it because it makes people even more annoying than they normally are...
ImageImageImageImageImage


Return to “Qyan's Zen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests