Reddit Turning SOPA "Blackout" Into a "Learn-In" 241
bdking writes "Reddit's planned 12-hour 'blackout' on January 18 sounds like an ineffectual, if not self-defeating, strategy for opposing the Stop Online Piracy Act. But the social news site actually will use that time not to 'go dark,' but to educate visitors about the ramifications of the House legislation that many fear will lead to widespread shutdowns of Internet sites."
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
And Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Strength in numbers. 'Smaller' sites like Reddit start the ball rumbling, Slashdot joins in, a few smaller sites hosted by webmasters that are part of these communities join in, the snowball gets bigger, then maybe Yahoo/Google/Facebook/Flickr get on board.
Everyone has to start somewhere.
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed.
The more numbers the better, especially when you're trying to shine the light of truth on a bunch of MafiAA types who ran phoney-baloney "hearings" with Congressrobots hearing about how "anything not-us is doubleplusungood so there and you are all on our payroll so pass the law we wrote for you to pass."
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Less legal restriction and onerous regulated enviornments will be a breeding ground for innovation and investment. The US is a huge market, but the BRIC countries are on the rise and there's still Europe, other South American and Asian nations, Canada, Mexico...
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)
Talk about the US all you want, but it's mostly the European nations that are doing the blacklists (e.g., piratebay). In fact, the supposedly superior Nordic countries (they're socialists there!!!!!!!!!!!!1) that are really starting to ramp that up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
so thats, like, what, about three people hitting F5?
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been here well over a decade and even still I don't hold such Delusions of Grandeur of the Olden Times.
Today, Reddit is bigger than Slashdot in both volume and content. And, believe it or not, this goes further than pictures of cute cats.
Slashdot could still qualify for "better quality of content", however given the sluggish reaction time and somewhat reduced editorial prowess, this quality is nowadays only reflected in the comments.
We should accept that Slashdot is getting old, focus more on quality over quantity and do as much we can to reduce signal noise. Especially regarding submissions.
Re: (Score:2)
> Today, Reddit is bigger than Slashdot in both volume and content.
Reddit does have some gems, but the S/N makes it useless most of the time. Reddit is the Dig of Slashdot.
I'll take the quality of /.'s S/N over Reddit any day.
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
That depends much on the subreddit you're in.
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:4, Funny)
r/politics
For some reason, my brain said "Ron Paulitics". Thanks! :)
Re: (Score:2)
this quality is nowadays only reflected in the comments.
This has been true for many years now.
But it's enough that many, many people come here rather than (or in addition) to Reddit.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I agree, Slashdot should follow suit.
Just one request, tho': can it happen during the week of February 19-26th? I'll be in Cuba, without internet access, so it won't affect me, coz I'll already be affected.
tia,
mr
Re: (Score:3)
Not to split hairs, but Reddit is significantly more popular [alexa.com] than Slashdot is according to Alexa [alexa.com].
Granted, Alexa isn't the end-all-be-all, but it is a fairly useful metric, and straight popularity isn't a particularly good indicator of quality.
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should slashdot follow suit? Every visitor here probably knows what a piece of crap this is, there's no need to educate the readers here. But if they did, I'd support them.
Slashdot will no doubt get some of the Reddit refugees.
We really need to drive the point home what this bill means to the average Joe.
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Put me down in favor of this. These bills would shut down all comments everywhere, because there's no way the site could be sure that the comments didn't contain some copyrighted material or a clue where to find it. It means the end of the Internet as a dialogue.
So to do without slashdot for a day, on the chance that it might help it not go away forever, that's something that should be done.
Looks like Wikimedia might be in the fight (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Looks like Wikimedia might be in the fight (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Usually if Wikipedia (ie Jimbo) wants to do something, they appoint enough people who are for it into voting positions for it to pass. That's hard on short notice. Not that this is a bad proposal in this case, but to say Wikipedia's administration "typically govern by consensus" is delusional. They manipulate the bureaucratic system they created, until they get what they wanted rubber-stamped.
Re:Looks like Wikimedia might be in the fight (Score:4, Funny)
>>A tricky thing for Wiki to do on short notice as they typically govern by consensus.
Ooh! Some more good ones:
Congress represents the people
Lobbyists are just there to help congressmen understand their positions
The Supreme Court is impartial
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go offline too..
Good. Maybe you can spend some of that free time explaining to everybody why the Internet is 'broken'.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully other major supporters(Google, Facebook, etc) will follow suit and get the word out how bad this piece of garbage is.
The thing is, every single person vaguely familiar with the Tech world already knows this. It's everybody else that needs convincing, and I'm pretty sure neither Google nor Facebook, 2 Tech giants, are the right pick the counter this.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, every single person vaguely familiar with the Tech world already knows this. It's everybody else that needs convincing, and I'm pretty sure neither Google nor Facebook, 2 Tech giants, are the right pick the counter this.
Google, Facebook ... these are perfect places for a "learn-in". Imagine if Google or Facebook "went dark" for every user (at least in the U.S.) once a day for a week, and, instead of serving up normal content, served up content that explained what SOPA would mean to them, the non-techies, in a language they could understand. Hitting reload would get you through to the content you were originally looking for, so it's not a huge impediment, but enough to wake people up.
Reddit is not the best place for this, but it's a start.
Re: (Score:3)
Hitting reload would get you through to the content you were originally looking for, so it's not a huge impediment, but enough to wake people up.
People will hit reload, shrug it off, and think that Google is exaggerating the problem. If Google were to go offline all day, every day, then people would notice...and switch to one of Google's competitors. People do not care about the hypothetical problems with SOPA; it will take Facebook, Youtube, etc. being taken offline because of SOPA before people realize there is a problem.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
The Wild West days of internet are fading fast, but not because the internet is getting deeds - its because Intellectual Property laws are giving away deeds to concepts and ideas.
That is an awesome analogy. My hopefully-relevant car analogy would be like: You are free to purchase any car you want, but the manufacturers still own all the components inside, down to the nuts and bolts. And you have to pay those manufacturers a fee every time you want to use the car, or they'll take the parts out of the car and charge you an exorbitant amount FAR exceeding any possible monetary value the parts could have or earn.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine if Google or Facebook "went dark" for every user (at least in the U.S.) once a day for a week, and, instead of serving up normal content, served up content that explained what SOPA would mean to them, the non-techies, in a language they could understand
I think this is a good start, but an even more (I think) effective strategy for Google and FB would be if they served up normal content with random entries (search results/Feeds) darkened out or redacted with a hover box explaining this is what the internet could be if SOPA passes.
That's a lot more illustrative than just spelling out for a visitor what SOPA could do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, everyone knows that Google and Facebook are only use by the technically knowledgeable. /Sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, everyone knows that Google and Facebook are only use by the technically knowledgeable. /Sarcasm
That's exactly the point here. The technical masses know about SOPA and what a PITA it will be. However, technical people alone won't get the bill revoked. What we need is the mindless masses. In this case, the people that you appear to snubbing your nose at are the ones whose help we need.
This bill needs to be decimated, and the best way to do that is to take the circus and free bread away from the plebs.
Re: (Score:3)
This bill needs to be decimated, and the best way to do that is to take the circus and free bread away from the plebs.
You want them to take out every tenth word? 0_o
Re: (Score:2)
Decimate:
1) Kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage of.
2) Drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something): "plant viruses that can decimate yields".
Decimalized:
1) Convert (a system of coinage or weights and measures) to a decimal system.
Amusingly, taking out every tenth word of the SOPA bill might just make it unusable to the point of acceptable. Not as good as wiping it off the face of the western world, but a good start.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it's our/the tech community's responsibility to educate everybody else that needs convincing. If not us, then who? The papers? ........
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure they are. Google and Facebook probably experience close to 95% of the entire web traffic, especially those who you want to educate.
All Google has to do is simply put in an interstital page of censored results with the overlay "The Stop Online Piracy Act has will remove many sites from the Internet, including the ones you probably were looking for. Write your congressperson and then click here for the full internet." which redirects to the proper search.
Facebook is similar. "Posting this on your wall could remove your Facebook access due to the Stop Online Piracy Act. Click here to object to this law and continue posting."
For Google, it presents a borked listing of sites - perhaps culled from the pages near the end, and completely useless results.
For Facebook, it threatens people to loss of access. Given how people are addicted to it, that could be quite scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if everyone knew what i am talking about, such a stupidity like Patriot Act, would never ever happened. And SOPA? Let me tell you, even the kings were afraid of the people...
target the teachable, maybe? (Score:2)
Maybe you've got it backwards... if the people who read tech sites are forced to read about SOPA all day instead of reading about the latest golly gee whiz iCrap, maybe those sites would be educating the most teachable people.
Put it on a mainstream news site, and maybe their typical viewers will just knock over their drool buckets searching for a keyboard they haven't used since the mouse was invented.
I dunno. I don't interact with the normals very much, they see my leet tatts and pet laser shark and it a
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree. Doing a pure blackout I think will just make average users mad at the companies not SOPA. Doing some kind of educational page or system of "Hey if SOPA passes this service may have to go offline and here is why and what you can do about it" seems to be a much better idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly Google and Facebook can reach audiences that have absolutely no clue about it.
Re: (Score:3)
HOWEVER... I'd need a nice, simple, easy to understand block of text to put up explaining SOPA and why it's bad. No technical words, no fancy terminology. Hell, if I can keep it to 2-syllable words only, all the better.
Collateral damage.
Why those two words? Major carriers and websites are held liable for the content of their users even when one decides to go rogue and abuse their services. This includes sites such as Academic Earth, CosmoLearning, Google, Facebook, Reddit, Slashdot, Sourceforce, Steam, Wikipedia, and Youtube; and removing one of these can make a significant impact on progress.
The only good thing about the law is that they add provisions to prevent abuse. However, that should have been in the DMCA inste
Re: (Score:3)
Think about it this way: if Google and Facebook don't act and SOPA/PIPA passes, they'll be in a situation where the government requires them to do something that's basically impossible. They'll have no choice but to break the law (and risk fines) or shut down parts of their operation entirely. The desire to survive generally outweighs any consideration of contracts or money in most sane and rational people.
Follow their lead (Score:5, Funny)
They're going to ruin the internet. The INTERNET.
Re: (Score:3)
I hate lolcats. You have now convinced me to support SOPA.
Re:Follow their lead (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet isn't going to be ruined. The internet will change for the worse. There's a big difference.
Mostly-legitimate sites like YouTube and MegaUpload will arguably be hit the hardest. Their primary draw is the rampant copyright infringement. Users who upload original content will have to jump through hoops in order to validate that their content does not infringe anyone's copyright. There will probably be an initial month-long validation queue, which will eventually be streamlined down to a week-long wait. Some people will leave in protest, but most will just decry any dissent as "whining". In most likelihood, parody and other fair use exceptions will be suppressed, in the name of simplifying administrative duties. I predict the argument will go, "If we allow legitimate parodies through, then everyone will simply claim to be a subtle parody. Thus, our rule on no parodies, even if they are technically allowed, by law." In the end, YouTube will survive, but it will be nothing but insipid pet videos and hot, up-and-coming pop stars from major labels. Alternatives will pop up frequently on darknets, but none of the YouTube users will ever figure out how to access them. MegaUpload goes commercial, with no free accounts, in a move to pay for all the censorship that is required to clean up the site.
Quasi-legitimate sites, like 4chan, will either disappear or radically transform. My guess is that they'll all go underground. Anyone who can't figure out how to access them will be ridiculed as a lamer or noob. The government will swat at them, off and on, but nothing will ever really stick. A couple of them will simply move to European or Asian servers and abandon U.S. users. I have trouble imagining these sites going fully legit, but I guess stranger things have happened. In that case, full-time moderators would roam the boards, searching out any kind of copyright infringement and handing out frequent bans. After a while, the workload gets to be too much and the site closes down.
"Rogue" websites, such as piratebay, would be the first victims. They'll put up a token fight for a few months or years, but it won't go anywhere, and they'll all be forced to relocate to darknets or other various underground locales. Some will simply shrug and ignore the U.S. Again, the government will swat at them, and some of them will eventually be taken down, but new ones will simply pop up to replace them. Eventually, someone will be made an example of, with a 10-15 year prison sentence (if they're lucky). A show trial will briefly made the news, then be forgotten by all but the civil libertarians. A huge uproar on civil libertarian blogs will follow, along with further threads of "it's time for the ammo box!", but absolutely nothing will come of it, and they'll all stew in impotent anger. Slashdot follows every single fucking story with dogged perseverance, long after the mainstream media move on to other topics. In every single story, at least one person states, "If only you sheeple had voted for Ron Paul, none of this would have happened!", which becomes the newest Slashdot meme.
Controversial web sites, such as those espousing hate speech, expressing sympathy for terrorists (pro-Hamas or pro-Hezbollah), and right-wing militia groups will quickly be added to the lists. Most people won't miss them, but the civil libertarians will go berserk. A freedom of speech case will make it to the US Supreme Court, but nothing will come of it. In a 5-4 decision, the censorship will be upheld as constitutional. All the web sites move to European servers or darknets. The government halfheartedly swats at them off and on for the next ten years, until an example is made of someone, who probably ends up successfully fighting off the charges. It's hailed as a major win for civil libertarians, but nothing really changes, because nothing ever does. The government goes back to swatting halfheartedly at websites on darknets.
Sites like Flickr and Facebook, which generally depend on original conten
Re: (Score:2)
A freedom of speech case will make it to the US Supreme Court, but nothing will come of it. In a 5-4 decision, the censorship will be upheld as constitutional.
Man, I feel like you're the voiceover for a future history channel show, chronicling the end times. I can hear it...
Sorry, I was being a little hyperbolic to express my strong feelings. You're right, it wouldn't be the internet. But it would be largely the end of "the internet as we know and love it". All the undergrounding and moving to Europe you've described would likely result in splinter internets, similar to the chinese internet behind the great wall of fire, and multiple "Internets" = "THE intern
Re: (Score:2)
I feel lucky. We'll see if I'm right or not. Like anyone who likes gloating when he's been proven right, I'm usually cagey and wily enough to avoid making specific predictions, but it's just too tempting.
And, yeah, I guess I'm responding more to the general Slashdot attitude of "SOPA will kill the internet!!!!!" than I am responding to you, specifically. Sorry that you had to take the brunt of my long-winded rant. Plus, you make a very good point, in that the Internet could very well die. It's somethin
Re: (Score:2)
To put it short (Score:5, Insightful)
SOPA, if precisely enforced) will eliminate user-generated content from the Internet, reverting it to a dumb tube where you can watch what you are fed.
Sadly... (Score:5, Insightful)
The blackout idea might help to convey the problems with SOPA. More likely, people will think that the problems are being exaggerated by the participants in the blackout.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right... fortunately for SOPA's supporters, SOPA has a few consequences that, I believe, most people will be able to relate to.
Under SOPA, any new online service or technology that ever gets invented after SOPA passes, but which happens to depend on user-submitted content in some way, will be suppressed if it should happen to be the case that the service or technology starts to get used a lot for piracy before it has had a chance to really gather a lot of steam.
That might sound like a far-fetche
D'oh! Hit submit too soon! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Due Process! (Score:3)
Sorry, but a SOPA does away with due process. This is our constitutional right, and not something that any bill should take away unless there is an amendment to the constitution.
By Law, we're supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Again, SOPA assumes guilty until proven innocent. Again this is not constitutional.
Want to fix this bill, write the bill where it follows due process and constitutional law. Not something that gives a thug at the RIA or BSA or anyone else the ability to bypass la
If (google/FB) really wanted to do something.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lost cause (Score:3)
While i applaud the attempts to get the word out to the general public the ONLY thing that will help the cause is money. The legislature must be offered more to can this than support support. Its really that simple. Sad, but simple.
Boo Hoo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Id rather pick battles i have a chance to win. I have a finite amount of energy so why waste it ?
Slashdot should participate as well (Score:5, Insightful)
It matters because it shows we'll make sacrifices to make a point. It's easy to post something whining about how bad these bills are, but much, much tougher to actually give up something to back that up. The supporters of these bills know that. They're counting on the millions and millions of us out here to grump about it...and move on. To ignore it, as if it doesn't matter to us, doesn't apply to us. We need to demonstrate that it DOES matter, that we're not going to let it go.
A blackout isn't the end of that, of course. It's only the beginning. But it would be a good way to start.
For best results... (Score:2)
add Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Wikipedia. Can you imagine the exposure? That would be the nuclear option.
Why not just change the background to black? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back when they were trying to pass the Communications Decency Act back in 1996, a bunch of the major web sites changed their pages to black backgrounds and included a link explaining why they were doing it. I remember that really getting my attention the day I went to Yahoo (remember when Yahoo was important?) and seeing that for the first time.
If someone like Google or Facebook did that to protest SOPA today, I guarantee that it would get major news attention.
Re: (Score:2)
What we are trying to do here (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I am a reddit admin
Here is what I'm hoping to see as the result of the blackout:
* Awareness raised among the users who don't login to the site(a majority of our traffic).
* A day of action which encourages people to contact their representatives.
* Other web properties participating in some form of highly-visible protest. A lot of the big players are considering how far they can go in protest. Hopefully the step we are taking here will give them some encouragement.
Jimmy Wales recently indicated [wikipedia.org] that he is interested in joining us. If Wikipedia joins in a blackout, the message would reach a huge number of people, and will hopefully make a splash in mainstream media and news coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like a blackout of many sites would be more effective if all the sites were blacked out at the same time. If multiple sites people regularly visit are down simultaneously, then you are more likely to get an "OMG, the internet is broken" reaction than if sites were down at different times (which will give more of a "Dang, wikipedia is doing that same thing reddit did last week, weird" reaction).
It would probably be like herding cats to try and get a large number of sites to all shutdown at the exact
SOPA (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
didn't find any information how to calculate that. can you explain how this is done?
Re:SOPA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SOPA (Score:5, Informative)
SOPA is also planned to block ip addresses so good luck with that.
"What the bill can't do is block numeric IP addresses" http://lifehacker.com/5860205/all-about-sopa-the-bill-thats-going-to-cripple-your-internet [lifehacker.com]
Way to troll Slashdot story submissions (Score:4)
"Reddit's planned 12-hour 'blackout' on January 18 sounds like an ineffectual, if not self-defeating, strategy for opposing the Stop Online Piracy Act."
Yep, no trolling there.
As soon as (Score:5, Informative)
As soon as you submit a patch to Slashcode [slashcode.com] for slashdotters .
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're the one who feels the current system is inadequate. Many of us disagree. Besides, Slashcode is open source and used by many sites, not just Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When can we get Reddit's moderation system on / (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When can we get Reddit's moderation system on / (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, as they say, 90% of everything is crap. On slashdot, something like 30-40% of comments get modded up, usually to 5, 33% or more of what you see still falls into the 90% category even if moderation is perfect. On Reddit, and with unlimited positive scores in general, you're going to see a much smaller number of comments moderated up to the point of visibility, so you're more likely to be limited to the 10% of comments that are actually good. The problem is, that assumes perfect moderation, which isn't the case. Slashdot is much more likely to catch a good comment that not everyone agrees with because it only takes 4 moderators to agree with it to move it to the top of the pile (baring of course, the "I disagree" downmods). A busy thread on Reddit might require several hundred people to upvote it before it's really visible to the average user which isn't likely to happen for an unpopular post, no matter how informative or insightful it is.
Re:When can we get Reddit's moderation system on / (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a cap is still necessary, as it forces mods to move on to other comments. After a certain point on reddit, the top comments just keep snowballing until you see comments with 3000 points. Not just parent comment either, the children comments are also overrated.. Meanwhile equally insightful or funny comments in lower threads are +40. That's worse sorting in my experience.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with Slashdot is the huge amount of groupthink and related moderation. Slashdot has a HUGE problem with downmodding any non-popular opinion (within slashdot crowd). Reddit addresses that, while Slashdot does not. For example, look at any comment that even points out that piracy might not be right, open source programs might not be that good or that Microsoft could sometimes be right. They are instantly downmodded, based on groupthink and not even wanting to hear dissenting opinions.
Re:When can we get Reddit's moderation system on / (Score:5, Insightful)
To say this in more mathematical terms:
If you have a coin that's biased towards landing on heads 60% of the time, and you flip that coin 100 times, you're going to end up with around 60 heads (-60), 40 tails (+40). Added up, that equals -20. Even with randomness, it's very unlikely that you'll end up with a positive value (i.e. more tails than heads).
But, if you flip that coin only three times, you might get three tails (for a total of +3 upvotes) some fraction of the time (40%*40%*40% = 6.4%). And one head and two tails (for a total of +1 upvotes) some of the time - about 29% of the time in this example.
The Slashdot moderation system is like the one with fewer coin flips, which creates more noise in the whole upvote/downvote system. I'm not saying that Slashdot's moderation is great or that there aren't problems with it; I sometimes get annoyed by it, too. I'm just doubtful that Reddit's system is actually better.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When can we get Reddit's moderation system on / (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, look at any comment that even points out that piracy might not be right, open source programs might not be that good or that Microsoft could sometimes be right. They are instantly downmodded, based on groupthink and not even wanting to hear dissenting opinions.
They are not, if you do it right [slashdot.org].
Yes, that means that you have to use better and more extensive arguments, provide references etc, while your opponent in the debate might not. But Slashdot is not advertised as a platform where every viewpoint gets equal treatment. If you want to participate, learn to deal with it.
Re: (Score:3)
I've routinely found that the people who complain about group think think their comments are insightful and informative, when they actually tend to look like overrated trolling to me. I'm still mildly amused by the guy who thought that his claims that all environmentalists want to commit genocide should be +5 insightful, and not -1 troll. Clearly, Slashdot wasn't ready to accept his truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Couldn't we technically have it all, though? We could have slashdot as it is, but also with the option of looking at is as reddit with just the +/- . We'd have the default blessed moderators wth their points, but everyone else could also moderate everything in any way they wanted to their hearts content.
We could allow people to tag every comment an every moderation and every tag with +1 leftistfuturist or whatever they desire. Ans every user could tag every other user as anything they like and we could have
Re: (Score:3)
Re:When can we get Reddit's moderation system on / (Score:5, Interesting)
I've actually found the opposite - I've come back to Slashdot from Reddit because Slashdot's moderation system, as simplistic as it is, seems to be less susceptible to groupthink/hivemind tendencies. I'd bet this is because here you must have your moderation moderated, and only citizens in good standing are given mod points.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't we have both? Up/down votes (with no cap) given only to citizens in good standing, with meta-moderation?
Re:When can we get Reddit's moderation system on / (Score:5, Interesting)
Metamoderation makes Slashdot worse, because moderators who go against the groupthink receive a lifetime ban from moderating, so you end up with a system where only people with the "correct" beliefs have mod points.
Metamoderation is good for eliminating trolls, but it suppresses minority opinions even more than a straight upvote/downvote system.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting, since your UID indicates you're rather new here.
Correlation is not causation. In this case, "when a particular individual signed up for an account" is not the same as "when a particular individual started reading."
Re:GOOD!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
While I too am glad to see such action, at least get your terms right. This legislation hands over control of the 'net to corporations, not the people, nor the government - though the government, by this legislation becomes the instrument of the corporations.
I know that some folks like to use the newspeak-esque conflation of the terms socialism = communism = fascism = evil, but each of those forms of government are quite different.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
Communism and fascism tend to both be totalitarian, but both are not socialist per se.
Fascism is at it's core power concentrated in the corporations, using the government as a tool of the corporations.
Communism is socialism gone awry, where things are done in the name of the people, and corporations are not really allowed, but the system is still geared towards an elite that is a parasite on the rest of the population.
Socialism can have degrees, but in general a government that takes responsibility fo
occupy reddit?!!! (Score:2)
It's a needed evil. To stop turning the internet into a communist domain.
In Soviet Russia, you fool KREMVAX!
Re: (Score:2)
They could do a Doodle that says that, Google Doodles are actually NEWS and reported in many places.
Re:What Google can do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)