Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Regulating the Internet
There has been a large debate going on in Washington D.C. and other places about the nature of the internet and the access that people should/should not have to it. It has culminated in a very controversial piece of legislation. On Wednesday, many internet sites are "blacking out" in protest. Read up on the SOPA legislation and post your ideas about it here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
137 comments:
I believe that the SOPA legislation creates many confusions. Many people think that websites will be banned and some will lose their jobs and freedom of speech but censorship of the internet does not necessarily violate the 1st Amendment. I believe that the government might take this legislation too far and take away some of American's rights to the internet. At the same time I think this can benefit us because according to the article, "The idea is to cut off the channels that deliver American customers, and their money, to potential pirates." This can protect buyers that shop online.
i think that this website has very long, confusing message that basically was saying that a lot of popular sites are using a weird form of protest and that they are protesting because this law that washington D.C is trying to pass is rediculous because it is saying that the internet should be used for only research. i agree that this is rediculous because millions of people use the internet for entertainment. i know this because for example, Youtube is a place were you can upload and watch other videos. some of these videos have 10,000,000 views. I'm pretty sure that not 1,000 people could do this alone. therefore the internet should not be used for only research.
I believe that this act should be stopped in its steps because if they do this they limit how much we can say and less people will end finding the info that you have said because on saying can't be found as easily as two. Also it confuses many people like about what the actual bill is taking about.In addition if we do this we punish others who don't deserve it and sure there will be pirates but that just keeps balance in a society that believes there is no perfection for anything even the internet. It is like saying you can watch a million people and see every single pirate but if you put this bill in place you punish the other 999,900 people. So therefore this bill should be stopped in its tracks.
Anonymous I agree with you that people will create lots of confusion because they won't know who's side to take because they want piracy to end but they also want there information. Also they will be more confused because they know a perfect internet can't happen but they also know that it can be better.So I think this bill should be inactive to stop the American people form being torn.
I believe that the this legislation should not be passed because it will control the internet this would get rid of many things. The government should have a different way of dealing with this like targeting pirates and not punishing us all for something that only about one thousand people do in the whole U.S. All of this comes back to copyright laws, i think that if some who copyrighted something and put out for the world to see its their responsibility to make sure no one is taking it. Therefore this SOPA legislation should not be passed or at least be changed so not all of us aren't punished.
@Anonymous
I disagree with you because maybe its good that they will get rid of some of those things on the internet because there are so many siuisides/ deaths in this country because of cyber bullying on the internet. Every week there is at least one or two people that kill themselves because someone else posted a video on the web or they said something on Facebook etc..Also like you said freedom of speech, thats not a good thing because if it leads to death i don't think that is a good idea. Therefore i just think the government wants to get rid of deaths etc and things like that make the internet a little bit safer.
you don't have to worry people, this bill will NEVER get passed the judicial branch because shutting down sites like that would be exactly the same as some bully making you give him your cash. its not going to happen!!!
If this bill is passed then the US government is going to have created more problems for them self's. For insistence, the web will be full of "illegal web sites" and people will want access to these sites and will quickly learn how to hack and remotely shut down the filters that bloke the sites.
I believe that this is only going to cause problems for themselves. The internet will be full of illegal or banned websites. Kids and adults could learn to hack and take down the blocks of the SOPA. Plus some people will lose jobs. Many of the sites that were created pay the person's house and life in total. I believe that they should be the ones shut down not Wikipedia and Google.
@ Spongebob Squarepants
I'd have to agree with you that this law should not be passed. I think this because like you I believe that it will take a lot of the internet away. this is bad because it will make a lot of people mad. it will because the internet is only abused by about 1,000 people (more or less) a year! why take it away from millions?
Honestly, I am a little confused. From what I got, they are trying to stop piracy. I think this is a good thing because it will prevent piaracy. That is why I agree with it.
i agree with spongebob squarepants. there are too many things on the internet that shouldn't be there. i think that it was good that some websites were shut down because it made people realize what it online. that is why i would agree with spongeob squarepants.
i also agree with anonymous because it is confusing about piracy, but, it should be stopped!!!!!!!
I do not think that the SOPA legislation should not be passed because there would be so many limits on the internet. People could lose their jobs. Passing this bill will cause a lot of tenion between the internet creators and the government. I feel that this will do more negative than positive.
Anonymous said....
"Many websites will be banned and people will lose their jobs." I agree with this person because, many people will not be able to access websites or even get to them. This will become a large problem and that is why the bill should not be passed.
@Spongebob Squarepants
I do not understand wby you said SOPA may be good because it could reduce cyberbullying deaths becasue SOPA has nothing to do with cyberbullying. SOPA deals with copywright enfringement. One reason why websites such as google don't like it is it could require search engines to remove links to websites with pirated information. It could also do this to companies like Charter and make them ban you from going to these websites which could slow down internet service. Also, now if I create a blog and you post something that enfringes on a copywright I will be sued. Private Corporations can now also create "hitlists" of bad sites and they will inform them and payment processors and unless they do something the site will be shut down. In conclusion, SOPA is about pirating and copywright enfringement and the U.S. government won't be removing cyberbullying
I do not think this legislation should be passed. This is because it will limit what we buy on the internet. If the internet suspects we are "pirates", we can't buy anything on it, even iif we aren't really someone who uses piracy! Someone like you or me might not be able to buy songs on iTunes or things on eBay because of a stupid law. Therefore, the law should not be passed since it can stop us from buying things on the internet.
@ Emma I agree with you that this law should not be passed because people will lose there jobs. This will happen if the websites they work on are banned because of the law. Less people with jobs on the internet will make the economy even worse and make even more people unemployed. Therefore, since the law will hurt the economy, the law should not be passed.
@ Emma.....
I agree with you because the internet is broad that having websites banned will make harderfor people to look for whatthey need. That is why I agree with you.
I believe that this is just the worst Idea that this company has ever made. They will not just cause problems for people but for them self. For instance, if someone goes to the internet and searches something and Wikipedia is the first to show up and he clicked on it. It will says that it is not allowed to be used. This kid could either figure out a way to hack and shut down the companies’ blocks. Did you hear about the group of hackers that messed around with SOPA and PIPA's computers and stuff? They messed up a whole amount of things. Like I said before, they won't just cause problems for people but also for them self.
@Emma I agree with you because the internet would be really limited because those websites wouldn't be offered. This would also cause problems because many people relay on Wiki for fast and easy answer for projects. It could also cause many people confusion at first.
I agree when spongebob squarepants said that the government is just trying to make the internet safer for all ages. For example, "i just think the government wants to get rid of deaths etc and things like that make the internet a little bit safer." I believe this is true that they want to make it safer but although there is much fear of this act taking away freedom of speech I do not think they will because the article says, "But tech companies see the laws as a dangerous overreach, objecting because, they say, the laws would add burdensome costs and new rules that would destroy the freewheeling soul of the Internet." Meaning that people think it will take away our freedom of speech yet the act just wants to censor the internet of illegal actions.
I am completely confused on what is going on with the article and the SOPA legislation. When I saw the Google sign with the blacked out line on it, I thought that meant that the government wanted to block out some inappropriate content on search engines and websites. However, since I read the article, I got a different message. I thought it was trying to say that the government wanted to ban websites that had pirated material. Therefore since I have heard two completely different ideas about the law trying to be passed, I cannot fully understand the article.
@abc123comewithme
I agree that the article was long, confusing, and very hard to process/understand. There is over 10 paragraphs that kind of explain multiple topics. The article started off explaining the protests which I thought was odd because they didn't even explain what they were protesting against yet. Finally, half way through the article the piracy acts were explained. I thought that was confusing. After that, the last paragraphs were just more confusing. This article was just a recipe for disaster and apparently confusion.
I believe that SOPA was very confusing and hard to understand. Many people thought the government was going to ban some intertent websites, but thats not the case. I think that SOPA is a bad idea still, because even if you put laws and has the intertent mototiored and what else they were trying to do, people will still sell priated stuff and do illegal things. Just because you make a law saying you can't do something people are still going to do it, and still find a way to do it. If you put up all these safe guards on the intertent hackers and priators are still going to find a way in. The intertent is a swirling vortex of lies, theives, crimanls and viruses and you can't change that.
@Anonymous I agree with you that the goverenmnet is trying to make the intertent safer, but risk destroying the inertent's freedom of speech. It's like putting an animal in a cage, sure its safer, but you destroyed it's freedom, freedom of being able to do what it wants and stuff, and the animal extremlly sad now. That what it will be like if they pass the SOPA, sure the intertent will be safer, but it will lose its freedom of speech and that not what america's about.
In order for me to develop a strong opinion for whether I think SOPA is a good idea or not, I would have to do further research on in first. I think it is somewhat a good idea. It is understandable because nobody wants to see something they’ve worked so hard on to create something of good quality be disrespected by people gaining access for free. However, it could be a bad idea too. This act along with PIPA is stopping people from creating the next big thing online where people could go on it by using the internet. For example, if these acts were passed a long time ago, we wouldn’t have YouTube, Facebook, twitter or any of those fun sites. I love all of those sites and would be very disappointed if they got shut down. Just to think of never having those sites would be a pretty bad thing. Therefore, I think SOPA has a lot of negative and positive outcomes.
I disagree with you @Man on the Moon because they didn’t create this act just so people couldn’t find information that they need. You said that it is punishing a lot of people just so pirates couldn’t steal information. It is also helping the people that created these sites. It is not fair for them to create helpful sites and then some people disrespect them by gain access for it for free. Therefore, SOPA doesn’t only have a negative effect on people.
I think that it is stupid to censor the internet. Taking away all of the free knowledge that the internet gives us. Just think of all the hard work that people put into the internet would practically be deleted. It is not a good idea to do this. Even if they make the internet just for research, it would still be deleting almost everything that people care about. Just take Youtube for example. BILLIONS of funny videos down the drain. I do not think that this idea will do any good to the world.
@Nosferatu
I agree. Taking down the internet will only cause problems for the people who created this idea. Kids and adults will be able to hack through the blocks of SOPA. And many people will lose jobs. They should be the ones shut down rather than Google, Wikipedia, Firefox, etc. It would be unfair, stupid, and annoying to do this.
I used to think that SOPA and PIPA were good things because I had only heard half the story. I know this because it sounded like they were going to take illegal sites that pirate off the web. However, now that I read up on it I heard that they will do that but it will blur the line between "selling pirated things" and "selling things", which proves that I really didn't hear the whole story.
I am a little confused about the SOPA and PIPA thing because I can see how it's bad, but I don't see why everyone is making such a big fuss over it. It's the same thing as sensoring the radio songs and TV shows pretty much. It just says "Oh, this was pirated so you can't sell it or we'll shut down your website". This is a GOOD thing, right? I can see the problems that it can cause, but they are mostly minor and can be solved by basically saying "Look, you've been pirating, plain and simple. As a punishment we are shutting down your website. Is this right, or am I not getting this?
@Man on the Moon
I agree with you because the bill DOES confuse people (like me!). I know this because it sounds like a mostly good thing, but if everyone is protesting it it can't be good. Or can it? Obviously I'm missing something here, which proves that the bill is very confusing (or at least to me!)
I think that this bill is unfair and unconstitutional. First of i think that this bill is unfair because the bill will effect people that have not done anything wrong. If the bill closes websites that have pirated content then i understand that they should be closed but that will effect other companies that have spent money on advertising on that website. Also this bill is unconstitutional because it down plays the constitutional right like the freedom of speech. This bill will make lots of people unhappy with little awards.
I agree with Pandanut12 because i also thought that this new bill was good at first. I thought it was good because it would stop piracy so creative artist can be rewarded for there work. But then when i learned that it will effect other innocent companies in a negetive way i realized that this bill was unfair.
Although this debate over the interne, etc. is confussing, useless, and time consumming, I am torn between sides. But I feel as though SOPA, and PIPA, would be a good action towards piracy. I don't think I fully understand why everyone feels as though this is a very unfair legistlastion. I personally believe this action would be good because the government can limit piracy. Why Wikipedia needed to go dark for the day, I don't understand. What exactly did that accomplish? I do see that it was an action of protest, but what did it prove? This only showed me that citizens are far to involved with the internet, to have Wikipedia feel as though it had an impact (when going dark) on so many people.After all Ithought that Piracy was bad, why would these sites care so much about the legislation that makes it questionable? These are my thoughts on the SOPA, and PIPA legislation.
@ Spongebob Squarepants,
I disagree, and question your thoughts about SOPA, and PIPA. You said that it would punish all of us, by having this legislation passed. and you also said that it will control the internet. But how can a bill control the internet. There are an extremely large amount of websites on the internet, how can ONE, or TWO bills completely take over the internet, therefore controlling it would be close, if not impossible. And I am confused on your thoughts about how it would punish all of us. Exactly how would this bill effect each and everyone of this. I personally don't have any connections with piracy, and I'm sure other people don't either.
I think SOPA is a very interesting and conterversial act. There is a lot of controversy surrounding this act because it would have a big impact on the Internet. The act is aimed at piracy sites located out of the country. But to cut sites like pirate bay the legislation must make strict laws. Websites like wikipedia are fearful that this law will be abused. Because of the laws shoot then ask policy websites are fearful they will by unjustly blacklisted. This is why SOPA is so controversial because of the huge impact it has on the Internet
I agree with SOPA. This is because I think that it is unfair for things to be pirated and searching for pirated things through google and Wikipedia should be outlawed. For example, say you went to go see the midnight premiere of a popular movie. The whole time, you video tape it on your phone and the minute you get home, you upload all the footage on a well known website. The next day, that website is swarming with people eager to watch the movie that you uploaded. Instead of paying $15 that goes to the cast and movie theater, they are getting it for free. Is that fair? How would you feel if you worked countless week putting together an excellent movie and you made no profit for it? This is how many people feel and many more will feel if google and other search engines allow people to access sites that offer pirated work. This is why I agree with SOPA.
I think that the SOPA is leaving many people confused as what the plan is because they think that people will lose their jobs and that's not what the intent was. They are mostly doing this because thy want to stop the commercials that help people buys things off the internet illegaly. This act will not punish us or harm us.
@Anonymous
I completely agree with you! This is very confusing to some people and all they want to do is stop the pirating from continuing. They don't want to harm any websites or take controll of them.
@Cav98
I agree with your point of SOPA being unfair. But you have to consider the the money people are losing over the piracy. If you watch the credits to one movie there are hundreds of people involved in the production of a movie. If a movie is 10.00 then each person only gets a couple of cents per DVD they sell. If people are stealing that it is unlawful and unjust of them. This is why despite the popular belief that SOPA is only a way of the government killing freedom of speech it actually has a positive effect.
@Cav98
I disagree with you. This is because I do think it is fair for websites to be shut down because of pirated work on it and along with that, I think companies loosing advertisements on these websites is fair. This is because when companies chose to buy ads on websites with pirated work, they knew the risk that they were about to take. It is not like they walked into the situation blindly and played eenie meenie to pick a website to put their ads on. The companies made a mistake and have to face the result. This is why I think you are wrong.
I believe that these bills are just making the attack on foreign websites more confusing for everyone, including Congress. Also, the Internet is freedom of speech, the government should have no control over that. Like it said on Wikipedia on the day that these websites protested, 'Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge'. I don't think many people can stand not having Wikipedia, Google, Reddit, etc. being blocked, even just for one day. We should always be allowed to do what we want/need on the Internet, because it is freedom of speech. So, you can then see that I feel that these two bills that are trying to monitor certain illegal sights on the Internet could backfire if put into action.
@Ryan, I agree with you because if and when these bills might be passed, they will just create more problems. Like you said, the web is already full with illegal sites and they can be hard to shut down. People can figure out ways to get into these sights even with certain bills that might be passed (SOPA and PIPA). So, then we can see that even if these bills are passed, they will still create problems with many sites and the people who work for them.
I think that blacking out these sites was just a waste of time because it kept people from getting their information. For example, when someone tried to find research on a topic on wikipedia, it would not let them because of SOPA. It is also a waste of a lot of money and we are already in debt. So, why do this, I don't know, but we shouldn't have had it.
@ chocoholicdancer13
I agree with you, this is confusing because websites do have freedom of speech. The government can't just censor them, that is why there is a report abuse button at the bottom of videos and articles. This is what helps censor these websites, not blocking them from further use.
@chocoholicdancer13 I agree with you too. I agree with you because the internet is freedom, we can do whatever we want or search whatever we want. Government shouldn't have control over it. Everybody uses those websites. Like Google, it has useful information that everyone uses. Also, the people agreeing with SOPA, I am sure use Google too.
I am anti sopa. One of the reasons why was because it will limit online creativity. This is because, with these laws, everything on the web will need to be government approved. On the washington post.com, it states that most of wikipedia will be shut down, and the site gets 2.7 billion american visitors each month. That is nearly a third of the earth's population.
I do not agree with SOPA because I think it is a very silly protest. I think this is silly because yes, people may post stuff they shouldn't, and they can get in big trouble for it, but everyone has a choice. You could also post good things. What people do on the internet, does not affect SOPA at all. It will only affect the person posting. That is why I think it's silly. It doesn't concern SOPA at all.
I think that the SOPA, if taken into affect, will have a negative impact on the Internet. To echo many websites, such as Wikipedia and Wired, the SOPA would "add burdensome costs", and "rules that would destroy the freewheeling soul of the Internet". Therefore, if the SOPA is put into action, the Internet will be heavily in contrast against the once free Internet.
@spongebob
I agree with you when you say that people have a choice on what to do while on the Internet. Like you said in your response, some people do things that they shouldn't do , but they do it anyway. Therefore, I agree with your idea that the SOPA will affect how people do things on the Internet, whether it be right or wrong.
I disagree with SOPA. SOPA will change affect how poeple use the internet, for right or wrong.I think it is a very childish protest. I think this is childish because yeah, people post stuff they shouldn't and they can get in trouble for it, but everyone has a choice. People could also post good things. What people do on the internet, does not affect SOPA at all. It will only affect the person posting. That is why I think it's silly. It doesn't concern SOPA at all. THis is why I think this a childish protest.
I do not agree with the act, but at the same time, I am not sure exactly what the ban is on. The act says that certain sites will be blocked and shut down if they could be possibly pirating or using copyright, but that is not right. If the site could possibly be pirating, it should be watched, not shut down. If it is not pirating,but just looks like it, how would you feel being shut down on false accusations? In addition, almost all games and a majority of sites have copyrighted other sites or things in the real world, but they don't mean any harm. For example if a site spoofs a famous person without getting their permission, they shouldn't be shut down. If they are shut down for one little thing, many people who enjoy the site will be upset, and that is just messed up. Therefore, even though I am fuzzy on the act, the info that I do understand is not agreeable because it will inconvienence many people over tiny issues.
@spongebob.... I agree with you the Internet is freedom. Everybody uses the Internet at some point. The goverment has no right to watch what we do and act like a babysitter.The government shouldn't have to control what we go on.
I think that the laws restricting piracy (such as SOPA) are a fairly good idea. This is because they prevent people from making money illegally and keeping others from making a movie when they made it. When people pirate movies, they take money from everyone who appears in the credits of that movie. Also, these acts protect against the pirating of music. If SOPA passed, we would cut down on a lot of the illegal activity going on online. That is why these kinds of laws should be passed.
i dont agree with shuting down the internet. this will create loss of jobs, entertainment and more. they will regret doing this act and it might be too late .
@Spongebob Squarepants
I do not know why you think SOPA would be good because your reason does not make sense. Saying that SOPA would end cyberbullying deaths makes no sense because this law has nothing to do with cyberbullying. It is about preventing piracy and shutting down websites that are linked to piracy sites. That is why I do not understand your reason that we should have SOPA.
i agree with kayleigh because she said that the goverment should mind what we do on the internet unless it is illigal like piracy or something. This is why i agree with kayleigh
@ Anna F,
I agree with you that the SOPA act is leaving many people confused on what is being done. Some articles are saying that they are banning certain websites that are possible suspects of online pirating, but then say that they are banning information sites. Information sites like wikipedia are not suspects of piracy, it is a non-profit orgainization, so why ban it? In addition, they are trying to ban certain browsers such as google, but why ban google? Google is a search engine company,not a bunch of shady guys stealing personal info. So why ban google? That is just rediculas. Therefore, since the act talks about one thing, then states the other, I agree that this act is very confusing.
I believe that the initial intent of the SOPA and PIPA acts are good, because they are trying to protect copyrighted work and trying to shut down piracy websites. However, there should be a more effective way to raise this issue than to let sites like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube patrol user statuses, content, etc. to make sure it doesn't contain links to pirated content.This means that these sites will be able to pick through your account and see everything it contains, to see if you have anything to do with pirated content. Basically the government is reaching further into our lives to control the internet which concludes that if they can do something as big as censoring the world wide web, what can't they do?
I think that SOPA and PIPA should not be passed because they are censoring and blocking free access to information and articles. I think this is bad because if we are looking for inportant things, especially for school, they would be blocked by SOPA and PIPA.
@LittleMonster1028
I disagree with you. Yes, pirated content and copyrighted items are bad, and it is not good to see them. But Wikipedia and other sites are NOT giving out pirated information. The website should not be fully trusted, but it should not be completely outlawed!
I definitly do not think that they shoould pass this law because people should be able to listen and whatch what they want when they want to without haveing to pay for it.
Anonymous said...
I agree with you. this should have never happened. all of this nonsensical was nothing. more than half of the world that uses the internet are inocent children. why make them suffer so that rich stuck up spoiled people can get more money huu?
I think SOPA will really change the way people use the Internet. Personally, the main sites I go to are Wikipedia and Youtube and Google. I feel like if they try to reduce pirating on the Internet, things will be a lot harder to fins on the web. Some people can't stand the idea of that, but others won't care as much. I think it all is based on perspective, but that is why it is so controversial and many people are on the fence about SOPA.
@Isabelle G.,
I agree with you. Many people are controversial about the SOPA act. I agree when you say it will have a big impact o the Internet, and I also believe it will impact the way people use the internet as well. I also agree with you when you say Wikipedia and other sites like this might be in trouble. Many people might abuse this law if it is passed, and Wikipedia might get a rude awakening. All in all, I agree with you with the effects of the SOPA act.
I think SOPA is a very interesting and conterversial act. There is a lot of controversy surrounding this act because it would have a big impact on the Internet. The act is aimed at piracy sites located out of the country. But to cut sites like pirate bay the legislation must make strict laws. Websites like wikipedia are fearful that this law will be abused. Because of the laws shoot then ask policy websites are fearful they will by unjustly blacklisted. This is why SOPA is so controversial because of the huge impact it has on the Internet
I don't think that they should block things that people look at every day. The reason I think that they shouldent do this because it will block sites that people use with jobs or go to school that they look up information or rely on to make something like spreadsheets. Also this could block things like games,information, and videos that people use everyday and people aren't gonna be happy. This is important because this has a impact on people and on the internet.
I agree with usawildcat11 because he's right people should be able to do and watch what they want. This is important because this is a free country so we should be able to do what we want.
I think regulating the internet is a bad thing. Some of the site people rely on will be partially blocked. For example, google. If google has added a site that is using pirated information, they will block that site that some people could get info out of.
@ abc123comewithme
I agree with you. This page was very long and confusing. However, it was not that confusing. Yes it is saying that there is a "weird" law that is going block some well used sites, but its not all bad. Pirated sites could help people with information but they also are illegal.
Like Nosferatu had said, they are just making problems for them self. Let’s say that a college student has to do a project that has to do with that website. They won't be able to get on and finish their project. Them that student will fail his class and will be both mad and sad. Another thing that could happen is that kids and teenagers could hack and open back up the sites to the public. They are just making a problem for them self to not just for people all around.
@AVgleek17, I agree with you because many people use the websites SOPA wants to close. It can change the way people use the internet. If they shut down websites people use for information, like Wikipedia, things can be a lot harder to find.
@AVgleek17, I agree with you because many people use the websites SOPA wants to close. It can change the way people use the internet. If they shut down websites people use for information, like Wikipedia, things can be a lot harder to find.
I think that stopping the bill to pass the two piracy laws was a good idea. This is because it will impair the use of internet for people and increase costs. The article says, "But tech companies see the laws as a dangerous overreach, objecting because, they say, the laws would add burdensome costs and new rules that would destroy the freewheeling rules that would destroy the freewheeling should the Internet."This quote proves that the laws would add cost and make the Internet harding to use attracting less people. If the laws were not stopped I think that the internet would become less user friendly and there would be much more expensive.
I do not think that the web should be censored. Lots of people use the web, and one of the reasons so many people use it is because it is very easy to use, and is very open. People can basically do anything on it. Lots of great ideas start out from things people see online, or people might be inspired from things online. These great ideas might not be put online if the internet is censored. Also, there will always be people who do the wrong thing, no matter how many laws attempt to prevent them from it. So censoring the internet is only really making it harder on people who don't do anything wrong on the internet. Overall, I think censoring the internet is a very bad idea.
I agree with Anonymous, people should not block stuff that people look at every day. Almost everyone in the U.S. uses the web, and a lot of uses for the web are for schoolwork or work, for example, our blog comments are done online. Censoring the web might make it harder to do these, where in reality, very few people do anything wrong on the internet.
I agree with avocado because i do not exactly understand what the bills will actually do. The article kept talking about how they would shut down websites, but that would just create less websites and less for people to search for. They said, " If the site could possibly be pirating, it should be watched, not shut down." This is true because it would not be good to create false accusations because it would enrage the people that use the website and enrage the people that own the website. Although passing the law would stop people from pirating it would create more trouble and work then before. This is because you would have to be continually on the lookout for piracy and you would have to shut down many websites. Not to mention all of the complaints you would get from people. This is why I am confused at why the government is trying to pass these bills.
I think this act should be stopped because it will lead kids to not getting their daily dose of music on Youtube or their full information from an easy Wikipedia site. It will cause more trouble to teens for reports, essays, and projects. Also, they will not have many other sources in mind if this happens. Copyright is already pretty strict at our age group, who spends the most time on the computer. Passing this law wont let students who are trying to get an education the full detail because of "piracy"
@spongebob
I agree with you because I think they are just trying to be strict with the things that are already illegal so they are inforcing the law by making another silly one. Kids need google for information. They cant just make up a url and hope for the best. No, they need google to write in key words and then find a website.
Well I think that they are making a good idea of shutting down the English language. But i don't understand about the part of how they talk about how google and wikipedia and twitter has become apart of us in our life. But i think that they should just have some laws about it.
@anonymous, I agree with you on anti sopa-pipa because it will affect also people's personal lives, not just big companies like google or wikipedia. People use information on the internet for a varying array of tasks, such as finding the answers to everyday questions, playing games, and making a living.
@Anirbas
I agree with you because we need these websites for educational purposes. Music stimulates the mind and we can look up new words and increase our vocabulary. We can use google/translate to communicate with others. We can also use an online school purpose like www.luminosity.com to increase your brain senses.
I agree with you they are just trying to be stick I mean if they want them to fallow the rules they made it so strick that they won't want to follow the rules.
I dont think that the SOPA legislation should be passed because there would be a lot of blocks on the internet. This will do more bad than good. People will lose their jobs because their job is the internet. Passing this will cause a lot of tenion between the internet creators and the government workers.
@Anonymous
I agree with you because they have spent years building up on these websites to increase ont ehir popularity uses. Like www.tumblr.com has millions of users.. and if that has to get censored, the staff owner will be very disapointed. Therefore, they should not shut down these websites that spent years to become a daily use..
@JMM126
i agree with you because blocking the internet will stop kids from doing what they do afterschool. If they block this then kids and parents will get mad and then they might think they made a mistake passing the law/bill or whatever it is.
@BH
I agree with you because we need these free information-filled sites to support a pursuasive speech, to have hard facts that are accurate on a poster. It is needed to fulfil our education.
@edemace
I agree with you because parents also need these websites so they can get to talk to their high school friend, send emails to bosses and to gather information and a job they may want. This law will be restricting children and adults from their education, future, and friendships.
I agree with JMM126 because kids won't enjoy the music they like listening to, or the information they need for an essay if they use Wikipedia. It can cause trouble because what websites will people use, if they are use to Wikipedia? There aren't many sources that people know off the top of their mind. Copyright is already stick for us, so there is no need to shut down websites.
@edemace, I disagree with you. SOPA is not trying to shutdown twitter or facebook. those websites are good communication with old friends. people don't really communicate with old friend or boss through youtube or wikipedia or any website like that.
I believe that Washington D.C. is being stupid because people should be able to use the internet how ever they want. They would be breaking the first amendment by censoring the internet. A lot of people get good information from Wikipedia and everyone love YouTube because it has anything that you want. That is why these websites are so popular. They have lots of variety. Taking this away would be a crime and should not happen. There should be no confusion on doing the right thing.
I think the SOPA act has a good meaning however it should be enforced in a different way. I think instead of shutting these websites down they should be monitored more carefully and the content in them should be checked before added to the website where anyone can use it. I also think things like plagerism should be taken more seriously and should have a larger penalty. Then people wouldn't do these things as much and we wouldn't have to worry about the blackouts and websites being shutdown because they can be very useful.
I think that this whole SOBA legislation is a waste of time. I think this because the whole debate is that we should use the internet for research only. The problem with that everyone uses the internet and it's important part of all of our lives. If someone needed to tell multiple people something important, they would usually email them the information. If email and other social networking services are shut down you wouldn't be able to do that.
I think that this whole SOBA legislation is a waste of time. I think this because the whole debate is that we should use the internet for research only. The problem with that everyone uses the internet and it's important part of all of our lives. If someone needed to tell multiple people something important, they would usually email them the information. If email and other social networking services are shut down you wouldn't be able to do that.
I agree with Anirbas because the internet shouldn't be censored. Like you said many people use the internet because of how many things you are able to do on it but there are always the people who don't follow the "rules". So if a law is made people are still going to be able to find imformation somewhere and most likely use it, so the law only makes it harder for people who have no intention of misusing information.
I do not think that giving people limited access to the internet will prevent piracy. What does Wikepedia have anything to do with Piracy? I think that they should take a different approach to this problem. For piracy, they can change the access of small things, like for example, even though this is a bit out of topic, on iTunes, to prevent people from sharing music, they can allow the account to only be open for one iPod, not multiple. This is why I do not think that the SOPA is a good idea whatsoever.
I don't completely understand the difference between SOPA and and the other protest. After reading the article i'm not sure if the protest is to stop people from putting false or stolen information online or to stop people from taking information offline to use it as their own work.
@JessM I agree with you that monitoring the website would be better than shutting it down. But don't you think that someone will find a way around those restrictions? Also monitoring the websites will be more work than just shutting it down. Another thing is how will they monitor the websites for piracy?
@Emma
Emma, I agree with you. That is almost exactly what I was thinking! Sure, this will definitely prevent piracy, but it will cause more of a negative result to the people that use the internet for their jobs. How will we get access to Wikipedia for school projects, or access to Google when we need it? That is why I think that this is more positive than negative.
I agree with spongebob squarepants because the law should not be passed because it is giving the government a lot of control on what is put on the internet. If this law is passed the things that we will have access to will be very limited. This could cause people to become frustrated which would affect the visitors that sites receive. A law should be created that doesn't restrict the use of what is on the internet but what is put on it before it is put on.
I don't think that the law should be passed because this law only limits the access that people have to information everyday. This would especially have an impact on the students at the STEM Academy's all around the world. When they are doing research in class they will no longer be able to use the key websites that tell you the most about your topics. I know that if i did not have wikipedia i would not know half of the things that i know today. People don't realize that the internet does teach you allot of things that you don't always learn in school. This is why i think that this law should not be passed.
@anonymous i agree with you when you say that you don't think that this law should be passed because it would make many people loose their jobs. The President always says that his main goal is to create more jobs in america, this would be doing the exact opposite. This would be taking any jobs away from many americans. This goes against what Obama has been saying. He always said that he wanted to create more jobs for us Americans. This is why i think that this law should not be passed.
I believe that SOPA has a good idea, but I think it will be extremely difficult to shut down every single pirating website! I think that the black out was a good idea because it shows what people can't have or do without the internet! If SOPA goes along with their idea these people who own websites will have to pay more money and it doesn't seem fair so most of them will have to stop so we will have to live without them.
@Sarah G
I agree with you because we won't be able to do as much research during class without the help of certain website that could be shut down! It is also true that we use the Internet in school more than people think and we wouldn't be able to get at good information if some of the websites that we usually use suddenly become unavailable!
@Spongebob Squarepants
I agree with your reasoning because it is true that everyone who uses the internet shouldn't have to be limited to what they do because of a few websites that aren't acting legally. I agree that if someone puts something onto the internet they shouldn't be surprised if somebody copywrites it because if they didn't want them to they shouldn't have put it on the internet! Why should the world suffer because of what a few people are choosing to do?
i think that this is unfair. it isnt fair that if only some websites are acting illegaly, all websites will be censored. only those few wedsites need to be censored.
I don't think that they should censor the internet because everyone should have freedom of speech and should be able to do what they want. If someone wants to do something illegal on the internet that should be there business.
i think that they should censor the intenet because cyberbullying can occur and other things and that can make people feel uncomfortable. and no one should feel that way!
I believe that this is the worst idea that anyone could come up with. A child could get locked out of a site so that he or she could not use it for their work. This could even happen to an adult, they could be searching a question and the first one is let’s say Wikipedia, he or she clicks on it than it will pop up saying this sit is in violation of internet rules. Then the child or adult can't do what they are told to do. I think that this is just making too much problems in the world. Kids could hack the companies. There have been about 50 so far reports of hacks in high rank companies. They will hack them also.
i think the law should be should not be passed becoause if it is it will affect jobs, entertainment and more also it will affect kids in stem because then we wouldnt be able to do reasearch or do use the internet so their would be no point of haveing a new school program
i agree with 123abc comewithme because he/she said that lots of peaple use the internet for entertainment as do i every day, and he/she was right because thousnads of peaple do look at youtube videos. this is why i agree with 123abccomewithme
I think that the laws that the government are trying to enforce are good ideas. However, a lot of work will have to be done to fully complete this act because the government wants to enforce three restrictions. First, the act would force US companies to stop/not sell online ads to suspected pirates. Also, US companies would not be able to process payments for illegal online sales. Lastly, US companies would have to stop refusing to list web sites suspected of piracy in search engine results. Therefore, the government has a good idea, but are a little in over there heads with putting it into action because the laws could cause "burdensome costs and new rules that would destroy the freewheeling soul of the internet".
@Jess M I completely agree with what you said, but I think like most people you got a little confused. You said, "I think instead of shutting these websites down they should be monitored more carefully and the content in them should be checked before added to the website where anyone can use it." This would be a good idea if the government was censoring the web. However, the SOPA is actually trying to enforce pirating acts. Therefore, I think some of your idea could still be used because the government could check out and inspect the content of suspected pirating websites and then try to shut them down or stop them in some way.
@Jess M I completely agree with what you said, but I think like most people you got a little confused. You said, "I think instead of shutting these websites down they should be monitored more carefully and the content in them should be checked before added to the website where anyone can use it." This would be a good idea if the government was censoring the web. However, the SOPA is actually trying to enforce pirating acts. Therefore, I think some of your idea could still be used because the government could check out and inspect the content of suspected pirating websites and then try to shut them down or stop them in some way.
A lot of people are very anti-SOPA becuase a lot of people just read biased articles and base there opinions on that. But a lot of people don't see the whole purpose of SOPA. Imagine you made a movie and you are making a lot of money of your movie becuase people are buying it on itunes but all of a sudden those sales drop. Becuase of the drop you can't pay the people who had small parts in the movie lik the makeup artist. Then you find out the drop in sales is becuase eveery one is watching the movie on Pirate Bay but you can't do anything about it becuase Prate Bay is based out of the country. This would probably upset you. This is why SOPA is being considered.
@singdancelive
I agree with you. SOPA is a very extreme act and while it can misused it also is necessary to keep illegal pirating sited at bay. In my opinion SOPA could be a helpful tool in the war on piracy but it needs some tweaking first. SOPA should be used to regulate only certain sites and not all sites.
I do not think that the law should be passed because it's putting the human race at a disadvantage. Everyday people use the Internet for multiple things; information, entertainment, social life, etc. We can't go a day without being on the Internet and shutting down some of the most popular websites is almost like shutting down some of our daily routine. They are trying to stop the pirating that is going on but they will still try to do things illegally. I think that they just need to be checked once in a while but they shouldn't be shut down or have to be censored.
@ Sarah G
I agree with you because schools in general use the Internet for their work and for research projects. We get a lot of information from Wikipedia and if they were to be shut down, that's already a source limited from us. If the law were to be passed people all around would be little lost puppies trying to find answers or things from very popualr websites.
I think that they shouldn’t pass this law because everyone around the world uses the internet every single day. The average American spends 13 hours a week on the computer. Try to imagine what people would do without it. We use the internet for so many things, school, work, researching, communication, etc. Although they think that this will stop pirating, some people will still find a way to pirate anything they want. As you can see this act should not be passed at this current time.
I agree with you because even if they do pass this law, some people will still pirate things, no matter what they say. The law will make a big difference in many people’s lives. We use the internet 24/7 so why take it away from everyone? Like you had said, it shouldn’t be taken it away but it should just be monitored, this way people will still be able to use it.
I think that this is a very confusing situation. I knew the Wikipedea was down and the google sign was down, but i did not know it was becasue of this. From what I understand, I think that this is not a good idea because some perople need different injformation from diiferent websites. If they do not get the info, then they could get fired from their job or would not even have a job at all before. That is why I think that this is not a good idea and is a confusing situation/ topic.
@ MRAjGE
I agree with you when you said that you just thought that people were covering up inappropriate things when the google sign was covered and wikipedea was down for that day. I agree with you because I thought that same thing. I am also confused on what is going on about the internet and the banning and not banning. To me and i guess you too it is just a big confusment and is difficult to understand completly.
I think that following through with this law would be a very stupid decision. I think this because having an internet with some sites that had certain rules that didn't let you do certain things would be very inconvenient for all internet users. This is because the internet is supposed to be a free place and blocking certain sites could stop some school reports and important information from reaching the public.
@ !DANCE!
I agree because information to the public is very important for peoples jobs and school reports.
I believe that if this law is passed, then confusion and chaos would spawn everywhere. I mean, just think of a life without Google! Trust me, Bing is't an option, I've tried it. And Wikipedia, although unreliable, is the #1 looked at website for information of all kinds; whether it be recipes or law and justice.
@Man on the Moon I agree with you because since STEM is technology-based we would have a problem if this law is passed because I use google every day in Independant Research, Pre-Algebra even, and other classes (pretty much ALL of them)
if this is passed then I'm going to devote all my free time to getting axses to the sites thet get blocked! I will look for holes in firewalls, find ways to shutdown the firewall servers even if I need to get passed a 250 wep network security enciption code!
but I think I'm the only one who knows what a 250 wep encription code is so I will tell you this: it is the most secure way to make a connection with another computer and is EXTREMLY hard to hack.
I think that it might have been necessary to block off some of the websites because it shows that people rely on the internet to much. People use the internet like it is their second brain. We as humans have the ability to use our brains and most people use the internet so they do not have to think. My opinion is the the internet should be used as much because we must start to do things for our selfs.
@Ryan
I think that it is stupid to spend all of your time doing what you say you are going to do. I can tell just in STEM that we rely on the internet. TO start we could use a dictionary to look up words instead of the dictionary.com. Just small things like that can change a persons life.
I think that blocking popular websites is not a good idea because many people wil stop using the internet. It says in the article that websites like Wikipedia, google, and twitter are trying to be shut down by people. But since sites like these are going, many people will stop even going online because those are very popular websites and if people's favorite websites are gone, most likely, people will discontinue going on to the internet.
@edemace
I agree with you that if too many websites are blocked, then people will lose jobs. With all the technology nowadays, many people have jobs where they update websites, create websites, etc...But if too many websites are blocked, then too many people will be laid off and that will make America have an even worse economy. Therefore, websites shouldn't be blocked because if they are, then a lot more people won't have jobs to support families.
I do not think this legislation should be passed because it is punishing a lot more people then just the ones that caused this to happen like youtube users that get there money off there videos that they made that they own everything in it because if this goes though youtube would be shut down. To those of you that think this should go though think about it you wouldn't be able to go on youtube and wikipedia and a lot more popular sites if this goes though because a lot of sites where you share things have things that the person sharing it doesn't own and have permission to use. One other reason why this going though is bad because teachers wouldn't be able to show educational videos and articles for class because the sites would be shut down and also students wouldn't be able to get information they need for projects because the sites would be shut down.
I think that this was a bad idea to block off these websites because it was not necessary. For example, 2.7 billion people use Wikipedia each week. Also, "I Can Has Cheezburger" supposedly has funny cat pictures. Funny pictures can make your mood better which can make you a nicer person. That's why passing this legislation would be a bad idea.
@marktex5025
I agree with you because you said how more people would stop using the Internet. Many people's favorite websites will be blacked out because of this legislation. That's why passing the legislation would be a bad idea.
I think this is wrong because its making many websites lose money. Also,it's going to take many of the great informative websites we use.
I think this is wrong because its making many websites lose money. Also,it's going to take many of the great informative websites we use.
Post a Comment