Wikipedia Calls for Anti-SOPA Blackout Jan 18

  • News
  • Thread starter Hurkyl
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Wikipedia
In summary: The blocking of entire domains-The removal of material from a site-The blocking of specific pages on a siteWikipedia sees this as a huge problem, because they would be unable toremove any of the material that violates copyright, and would be at the mercy of the government.In summary, Wikipedia is protesting a proposed law that would allow the government to block websites accused of copyright infringement. They feel that the law would severely harm the website, and that it would be unable to remove any of the material that violates copyright. Many other websites are also participating in the blackout.
  • #141
It has been stated clearly that PIPA and SOPA can cut off websites from the web if they are found to present copyrighted material, and, as far as we know, they don't even need to host that but simple linking to copyrighted content is enough of an infringement.

I.e., they could cut of this forum at will for having links to copyrighted music.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
MarcoD said:
It has been stated clearly that PIPA and SOPA can cut off websites from the web if they are found to present copyrighted material, and, as far as we know, they don't even need to host that but simple linking to copyrighted content is enough of an infringement.

I.e., they could cut of this forum at will for having links to copyrighted music.

More importantly, all I would have to do is post said link and report it, and then PF would be taken down before having an opportunity to repeal. I'd like to have that power, but I don't want anyone else to have it.
 
  • #143
I think the last two posts say it all. If I happen to have a wall and somebody writes something on it -grafitti-, which happens to be copyrighted, I end up in jail.

Protecting copyright is fine by all means, but the perpetrators should be held responsible, not the owners of walls, where things can be written upon.
 
Last edited:
  • #144
MarcoD said:
It has been stated clearly that PIPA and SOPA can cut off websites from the web if they are found to present copyrighted material, and, as far as we know, they don't even need to host that but simple linking to copyrighted content is enough of an infringement.

I.e., they could cut of this forum at will for having links to copyrighted music.

Which section of which Act are you saying are new legal powers, in this respect?

An 'Act' cannot do any 'cutting-off'. Would it not require people (owners of copyright, or their agents) to come forward and make legal representation? Else, who is asking for such material to be 'cut-off'?

I am lead to believe by the wiki article (or maybe somewhere else I have read) that legislation to do this already exists, that already enables copyright owners to make said legal representation. Internet dialogues appear to suggest this isn't a 'key' part of these new Acts, over any above existing laws. My reading suggests that what makes these Acts different is that it is putting this power directly into the hands of the ISPs, and that if ISPs are seen to be good and effective 'guardians' of such, then they will be allowed just to get on with it. It is the 'just getting on with it' part of that last sentence I think is the issue, is it not? That there will be no direct recourse to anyone if you feel you've been unfairly 'cut-off'.

My point is that more ISPs will start up, to fill the gaps and provide services to those who feel their ISPs have acted unfairly.

If anyone who knows the existing laws, and is familiar with these new proposed Acts [rather than folks having knee-jerk reactions to hearsay and what they think the new Acts add to the law], could they comment on the above? I would be obliged for references and pointers to the relevant sections of the legislation.
 
  • #145
KingNothing said:
If you are disappointed then I am not sure what you expected! Their goal is to capture the attention of millions of average people, inform them, and persuade them in the 5-10 seconds they are likely to spend on the page.
Sounds wonderful. But what information are they giving? What are they trying to persuade people of?

You can't just look at what they do and say "they're opposing the SOPA and PIPA"; you have to look at what their words are actually promoting.

I'm disappointed because they put words in their blog post that can read as opposing the very idea of laws regarding the internet. And while it matters less, I can't rule out the notion that they actually mean it that way.

I'm making an issue of this because, quite frankly, I find far too many people are willing to agree with and defend any opinion, so long as it's framed as agreeing with them on a particular topic. Even in this thread, it almost looks as if some people can't even tell the difference between the notions of "opposing this particular piece of anti-piracy legislation because it has too many negative side-effects" and "opposing the notion of fighting piracy" (or even "opposing the notion of having laws related to the internet").
 
  • #146
cmb said:
An 'Act' cannot do any 'cutting-off'. Would it not require people (owners of copyright, or their agents) to come forward and make legal representation? Else, who is asking for such material to be 'cut-off'?

This is cutting off, as defined by Wikipedia:

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.

By cutting off I mean above restrictions, no advertisements/payments/search + blocking (removing the DNS entry). The Justice Department and copyright holders can ask for sites to be cut off.

The two step process is described by Wikipedia as:

The bill also establishes a two-step process for intellectual property rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. The rights holder must first notify, in writing, related payment facilitators and ad networks of the identity of the website, who, in turn, must then forward that notification and suspend services to that identified website, unless that site provides a counter notification explaining how it is not in violation. The rights holder can then sue for limited injunctive relief against the site operator, if such a counter notification is provided, or if the payment or advertising services fail to suspend service in the absence of a counter notification.

You won't see new ISPs coming up. The US cannot impose laws on ISPs outside of the US. I think that the most dramatic effect you'll see of this will be that the root DNS servers will be moved outside of the US (something you won't notice), and the US will block content from outside ISPs.

In plain English: The first effect will be that it will just drive a service (the root-DNS) and a number of websites out of the US. And these websites will subsequently become blocked by the great wall of the USA. And then some geeks will implement features in web browsers to work around that restriction.*

* I just checked some assumptions. The US has no jurisdiction over foreign DNS servers, so people will use those, the DeSopa extension to firefox (circumvent SOPA in case it might come into effect) has already been developed.

** Lastly, I wouldn't worry that much about the exact wording of SOPA, since the lawyers seem to have made a mess out of it. But that doesn't matter, since it will be enacted 'according to the spirit of the laws,' no judge will really know what it is all about, and technically it is clear what they are aiming for: the blockade of websites offering links to copyrighted material (like Pirate Bay), and the number of technical solutions are clear (either you block DNS, or IP, or both).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #147
MarcoD said:
In plain English: The first effect will be that it will just drive a service (the root-DNS) and a number of websites out of the US. And these websites will subsequently become blocked by the great wall of the USA. And then some geeks will implement features in web browsers to work around that restriction.

My goodness! That is one heck of a jump/interpretation of "a two-step process for intellectual property rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement"!

I feel confident (though I cannot attest to how difficult it might currently be) that such relief as mentioned here is already available through the Courts. I believe such cases have already gone through, and such relief has been gained.

In fact, I think one such victim was that Russian website, Allofmp3, that was running about 5 years ago? Its user interface was one of the best and set other music sites to shame. The curiosity of it all was that, as far as I understand, in Russian law they were doing nothing wrong, so I was unclear how using a legal service abroad, that legally supplied digital content to other countries, would be illegal for remote use in another country with no import tax on digital information. But still it was claimed that it was illegal. There are still legal hurdles to overcome here, I think, before such legislation [if it comes in] can bite.

I still think it is a fuss over nothing. There are already a zillion laws that can be used for good, or used for ill. It is not the laws that are so important as the use, or abuse, they are put to.

The irony of Allofmp3 was that its download interface was so good that other music stores copied its basic architecture! Intellectual property, eh!?
 
  • #148
cmb said:
In fact, I think one such victim was that Russian website, Allofmp3, that was running about 5 years ago? Its user interface was one of the best and set other music sites to shame. The curiosity of it all was that, as far as I understand, in Russian law they were doing nothing wrong, so I was unclear how using a legal service abroad, that legally supplied digital content to other countries, would be illegal for remote use in another country with no import tax on digital information. But still it was claimed that it was illegal. There are still legal hurdles to overcome here, I think, before such legislation [if it comes in] can bite.

I still think it is a fuss over nothing. There are already a zillion laws that can be used for good, or used for ill. It is not the laws that are so important as the use, or abuse, they are put to.

The irony of Allofmp3 was that its download interface was so good that other music stores copied its basic architecture! Intellectual property, eh!?

Well, the two step process is clear. They'll indite someone, plaintiff living in some foreign country won't show up, and then they'll block a website. And then the only manner for SOPA to be enacted will be for the USA to construct agreements with other countries.

allofmp3 was closed. mp3sparks now substitutes it, so they can start the whole process again.

And it won't matter one bit since you can assume that the next version of MSM, or EMule, or whatever, will be better and easier at online sharing.

Even if the USA enacts SOPA, within two months better technical solutions to file sharing will emerge, it will only speed up the process.
 
  • #149
MarcoD said:
The muslim comment was on that most monotheistic religions thwart normal sexual tension between people to heavily restricted sexual rules and subsequently frustration. As far as I can see, now a few billion people confuse sexual frustration with religion, and subsequently find that they need to smash each other's heads in over that. Maintaining sexual frustration is just one of the oldest dirtiest tricks in the book of establishing religions.

The other comment was on that I simply don't care on the what, or the why, or the who, on how people fornicate.

I agree with the last statement. The previous paragraph...no comment.
 
  • #150
Jack21222 said:
I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree that DCMA was a bad piece of legislation. It wasn't perfect, but I feel it gave IP holders some defense of their intellectual property while at the same time protecting websites that offer user-generated content.

I take issue with the way in which the DMCA has been used to stifle academic research into the cryptographic methods that are used in copy protection and digital rights management. The far-reaching consequences of legislation are very difficult to predict ahead of time, which is why we need to be careful about what gets passed today.
 
  • #151
Yay!

Thank you.

The Wikipedia blackout is over — and you have spoken.

More than 162 million people saw our message asking if you could imagine a world without free knowledge. You said no. You shut down Congress’s switchboards. You melted their servers. Your voice was loud and strong. Millions of people have spoken in defense of a free and open Internet.

For us, this is not about money. It’s about knowledge. As a community of authors, editors, photographers, and programmers, we invite everyone to share and build upon our work.

Our mission is to empower and engage people to document the sum of all human knowledge, and to make it available to all humanity, in perpetuity. We care passionately about the rights of authors, because we are authors.

SOPA and PIPA are not dead: they are waiting in the shadows. What’s happened in the last 24 hours, though, is extraordinary. The internet has enabled creativity, knowledge, and innovation to shine, and as Wikipedia went dark, you've directed your energy to protecting it.

We’re turning the lights back on. Help us keep them shining brightly.
 
  • #152
Here are three paragraphs taken from the Scientific American site which help explain the opposition to SOPA.

“In short, SOPA—and its Senate cousin, the Protect-IP Act (PIPA)—would effectively give some companies the power to block other websites with only an accusation.”

“The law targets web sites registered outside the U.S., though its provisions affect many U.S. companies as well. It gives the courts power to force Internet service providers (ISPs) to block their customer’s access to any website that has been accused of engaging in infringing activities. Courts can also force advertising networks, financial transaction providers (such as PayPal) and search engines to stop doing business with the infringing web site—in effect, to block it from the Internet. (The Congressional Research Service has put together a very readable legal analysis [PDF] of an earlier version of the Senate bill.)”

“But the real power in the bill is not in the powers it gives the courts. Rather, the bill creates a system of incentives whereby the mere accusation of copyright infringement is enough to block a site entirely. The law gives immunity to ISPs, financial transaction providers and search engines who voluntarily block web sites accused of infringement. And if they don’t block those sites? Then they, too, may be held legally culpable for the infringing activity. The laws also contain no penalties or disincentives for copyright holders to avoid falsely accusing others of infringement.”

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/01/18/whats-next-in-the-sopa-fight/

IMHO, the law is well-intentioned and necessary, but must be rewritten to address the above consequences.
 
  • #153
Curious3141 said:
I agree with the last statement. The previous paragraph...no comment.

Nah, (I was) a bit frustrated about some International and local Dutch news. Take it with a grain of salt.
 
  • #155
I think the best part of this is that it's shown people on the internet just how much power they have. Too bad it took several major sites promoting it.
 
  • #157
  • #158
Hurkyl said:
Sounds wonderful. But what information are they giving? What are they trying to persuade people of?

You can't just look at what they do and say "they're opposing the SOPA and PIPA"; you have to look at what their words are actually promoting.

I'm disappointed because they put words in their blog post that can read as opposing the very idea of laws regarding the internet. And while it matters less, I can't rule out the notion that they actually mean it that way.

I'm making an issue of this because, quite frankly, I find far too many people are willing to agree with and defend any opinion, so long as it's framed as agreeing with them on a particular topic. Even in this thread, it almost looks as if some people can't even tell the difference between the notions of "opposing this particular piece of anti-piracy legislation because it has too many negative side-effects" and "opposing the notion of fighting piracy" (or even "opposing the notion of having laws related to the internet").

I'm surprised you're disapointed. They're called pawns or "swaying masses". They have lots of inertia and once you get them moving, theyre hard to stop.

In a democratic system, reason isn't useful to get the masses swaying (you're fighting sometimes, against people with lots of lobbying/marketing power).

So you have to get the masses swaying in the right direction by appealing to their desires.

Really basic strategy in a system of "majority wins". Goes back to Rome.

But the masses were swayed towards the right decision this time, regardless of their motives. Your kind of discussion only confuses them with facts and accountability. Most people don't care for those.
 
  • #159
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-feds-shut-down-file-sharing-website-193903205.html

This is the way it should be done, IMO. If piracy exists, shut down and prosecute those responsible. There is no reason to grant the power to block sites simply on an allegation. If the Feds are serious about stopping piracy, they should catch the pirates with the goods and prosecute them. It shouldn't be too tough to do. Who here doubts the ability of the NSA to identify IP addresses of sites offering downloads of pirated materials?
 
  • #160
I wonder how people would react if told that on most of those websites (not MegaUpload, but similar "cyberlocker" sites), you can report a file to be illegal and they'll take it down. Usually without even checking whether it actually is illegal or not.
 
  • #161
Pythagorean said:
Your kind of discussion only confuses them with facts and accountability. Most people don't care for those.

What a genuinely disgusting point of view. Not necessarily WRONG, I'm sad to agree, but disgusting non-the-less.
 
  • #162
phinds said:
What a genuinely disgusting point of view. Not necessarily WRONG, I'm sad to agree, but disgusting non-the-less.

If you agree, but you're disgusted, you must be a cynic? I have graduated to positive cynic :)
 
  • #163
Pythagorean said:
If you agree, but you're disgusted, you must be a cynic? I have graduated to positive cynic :)

Sounds to me more like you have graduated to demagogue. You don't want to educate anyone, you just want them to do what YOU know is right for them.
 
  • #164
phinds said:
Sounds to me more like you have graduated to demagogue. You don't want to educate anyone, you just want them to do what YOU know is right for them.

They are not mutually exclusive (just take a look at our example, Wikipedia). You can, in concert, teach people who are actually interested in learning, you can work in outreach programs, promoting STEM type activities, you can brandish your broader impacts. Essentially, you've raised a strawman, since the people that are receptive to these attempts are not classified as "the masses".

In fact, anyone who's actually interested could have easily bypassed wikipedia's blackout by turning Javascript off. That information is relatively easy to find if you actually care about the information and don't get distracted by the politics or your own self-righteousness.

Back to the actual discussion, people need government to lead them, that is why government's emerge from society, that is why there are laws, because people can't behave congruently without them. A good government does know what is right for people: they have the resources and means to gather the data, and they listen to scientific and political advisers before making political decisions. We try to teach the masses, but the majority of them do not listen. The majority of them are more interested in money... which lobbying corporations happily provide. Nudging the masses (for their own good! SOPA would have been BAD for more than just pirates!) is all that's effective so far. It's still not as powerful as money.

And don't make this personal, I took no part in nudging masses. I am just reporting what I see. If I wanted to nudge masses, I wouldn't be sitting here talking about it openly.
 
  • #165
Pythagorean said:
They are not mutually exclusive (just take a look at our example, Wikipedia). You can, in concert, teach people who are actually interested in learning, you can work in outreach programs, promoting STEM type activities, you can brandish your broader impacts. Essentially, you've raised a strawman, since the people that are receptive to these attempts are not classified as "the masses".

In fact, anyone who's actually interested could have easily bypassed wikipedia's blackout by turning Javascript off. That information is relatively easy to find if you actually care about the information and don't get distracted by the politics or your own self-righteousness.

Back to the actual discussion, people need government to lead them, that is why government's emerge from society, that is why there are laws, because people can't behave congruently without them. A good government does know what is right for people: they have the resources and means to gather the data, and they listen to scientific and political advisers before making political decisions. We try to teach the masses, but the majority of them do not listen. The majority of them are more interested in money... which lobbying corporations happily provide. Nudging the masses (for their own good! SOPA would have been BAD for more than just pirates!) is all that's effective so far. It's still not as powerful as money.

And don't make this personal, I took no part in nudging masses. I am just reporting what I see. If I wanted to nudge masses, I wouldn't be sitting here talking about it openly.

I actually don't have TOO much argument with your point of view and I too am not trying to be personally offensive, I just find it very unfortunate that you are as right as you are.
 
  • #166
Here is an interesting graphic
 

Attachments

  • 407119_10150538513569445_13320939444_8607462_1650971380_n.jpg
    407119_10150538513569445_13320939444_8607462_1650971380_n.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 457
  • #167
Greg Bernhardt said:
Here is an interesting graphic

Very cool. Thanks for posting.
 
  • #168
turbo said:
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-feds-shut-down-file-sharing-website-193903205.html

This is the way it should be done, IMO. If piracy exists, shut down and prosecute those responsible. There is no reason to grant the power to block sites simply on an allegation. If the Feds are serious about stopping piracy, they should catch the pirates with the goods and prosecute them. It shouldn't be too tough to do. Who here doubts the ability of the NSA to identify IP addresses of sites offering downloads of pirated materials?
I'm just wondering why the Feds are spending resources on this sort of thing. My guess is that the big money of the American movie and recording industries bought some government action.

Is there now a war on websites that facilitate the downloading of movies and music?

I don't know. It seems kind of silly to me. I mean, what's going to get downloaded mostly except the popular stuff that's already made a ton of money? I guess it wasn't enough money.

It's a good thing we have the FBI, NSA, etc. to ensure that the entertainment industry is able to squeeze every penny out of consumers that they possibly can.

However, imo, they can't stop or even make a discernible dent in online piracy this way. I'm guessing that that's the way the entertainment industry sees it also, and is why they're spending whatever they're spending in support of SOPA and PIPA.

Back on topic, it seems that the Wiki blackout has increased public awareness wrt SOPA and PIPA.
 
  • #169
ThomasT said:
My guess is that the big money of the American movie and recording industries bought some government action.

Wasted a lot of their own and the public's money. Should have spent it hiring me and a team of programmers.
 
  • #170
Evo said:
Greg has said that the threads like favorite youtube videos, etc are ok, because it is youtube's obligation to remove the uploads, which they do, which is why there are so many broken links.

I am not sure all links in the best songs are to youtube. I have a feeling sometimes people post just links to some other sources. So there is a risk we do have links that could make us blocked.
 
  • #171
Pythagorean said:
Wasted a lot of their own and the public's money. Should have spent it hiring me and a team of programmers.

By now, I would like to see some real numbers. Like, what profit now comes from the Internet -even online sales of content,- vs what does dwindling CD sales cost the industry.

I really have the feeling that they are crippling an entire massive industry because of the closure of some CD/DVD shops.
 
  • #172
I imagine that would be hard to quantify: how many people that pirate stuff would have actually bought the stuff had they not been able to pirate it? How many people would have bought the stuff at full price had they not known a distributing pirate?

Hard to guess, methinks
 
  • #173
MarcoD said:
I really have the feeling that they are crippling an entire massive industry because of the closure of some CD/DVD shops.
The culprit is Progress and how old powers simply can't adapt to it.

The other day I saw a discussion on a public news show. The pro-SOPA guy looked like the typical 6-figure, grey-haired, suit-and-tie executive using the smokescreen excuse of losing jobs (as if he wouldn't cut or ship them overseas for more profit). Give him a top hat and cane, and he'd look like he jumped right out of the Monopoly board game.

The anti-SOPA guy was younger, enthusiastic about the future, and seemed full of passion for new ideas and technology's potential, basically the poster boy for companies like Apple and Google that adapt and succeed in this new economy. They focus on making the consumer happy through innovation. It's like in that Social Network movie, the visionary kids are now the CEOs.

Meanwhile Rich Uncle Pennybags can only rely on old formulas of success, giving consumers an endless supply of remakes, sequels, recycled content and reality TV. And then they're surprised when the disgruntled consumer would rather spend their money elsewhere. And worse yet is that when they get desperate they go crying to the government to bail them out at the consumers' expense (again).

Congress would welcome it too as they have more in common with that older, entrenched power. I feel if you give them an inch they'd gladly take a yard to use in fighting all of their wasteful abstract wars (Piracy, Drugs, Terror). Likely, they'd keep growing the role and power of government while demanding even more power/money to fight those same wars when the results don't pan out as expected. Too much mutual backscratching going on there between the two Pennybags of Big Gov and Big Biz, IMO.

Sadly, I think all of these issues would be better served by a more pro-active, market-based approach in order to stay ahead of the problem. Instead of fighting Progress, the music execs should have been the ones to have created Napster way before it came along to undermine them. Focus on a progressive relationship with the consumer and they'll reward you with loyalty and a fan culture much like Apple's.

Instead, the entertainment powers take a reactionary approach to everything by over-milking old models and either fearing new ones or hollowly duplicating them. So I won't shed a tear over their inevitable failure, just like IMO, they never felt sorry for the weaker competition that they crushed in their own march to success. My personal preference is always for the creative innovators that embrace the future.
 
  • #174
Greg Bernhardt said:
Here is an interesting graphic

Wow! How did so many opinions change in one day?

I'm hoping it was public opposition against SOPA that made them change their minds, and not some kind of pay off!
 
  • #175
ginru said:
The anti-SOPA guy was younger, enthusiastic about the future, and seemed full of passion for new ideas and technology's potential, basically the poster boy for companies like Apple and Google that adapt and succeed in this new economy. They focus on making the consumer happy through innovation. It's like in that Social Network movie, the visionary kids are now the CEOs.

When I think of it, then my money goes to the media industry (a lot from the US) through DVD sales and indirectly through the subscription costs of cable (lots of television content is also from the US.)

I am kind-of waiting until YouTube finishes a deal with content providers since I want to get rid of cable and just watch the latest series and movies on the Internet directly when released (there's a lag of half a year, some series are never released.) It could even mean that more money ends up in the US than through the established lines since all local 'overhead' is removed.

(IMO, most of the online content providers still have the business model wrong. People are used to, and want, a flat rate subscription. Something like World of Warcraft. If one could pay ten bucks a month, like ordinary cable, to get the latest content, I am pretty sure half the world would subscribe.)

(You can also probably derive a business model from looking at an average household spending on media, say $15 on subscription and $30 on CD/DVD a month. Then the public will never go for a pay-per-item model, since even at $0.99 one can't get enough content in comparison to the competition, TV. But a $5 subscription to, say, latest HBO releases, a $1 for news, and $5 for other stuff (like kids, comedy, or even adult channels) would probably be reasonable.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. What is the purpose of the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia?</h2><p>The anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia is a protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a proposed legislation that would allow the government to censor and shut down websites suspected of hosting copyrighted material. The blackout is meant to raise awareness about the potential negative impact of this legislation on free speech and the internet as a whole.</p><h2>2. When will the Wikipedia blackout take place?</h2><p>The Wikipedia blackout will take place on January 18th, 2022. This date was chosen because it marks the 10th anniversary of the first SOPA blackout in 2012, which was also led by Wikipedia.</p><h2>3. Will the entire Wikipedia site be unavailable during the blackout?</h2><p>Yes, the entire English version of Wikipedia will be unavailable during the blackout. This means that users will not be able to access any articles or information on the site. However, other language versions of Wikipedia will still be accessible.</p><h2>4. How can I still access information on Wikipedia during the blackout?</h2><p>While the English version of Wikipedia will be unavailable, users can still access information through other language versions of the site, or by using a virtual private network (VPN) to bypass the blackout. Additionally, some articles on Wikipedia may still be accessible through search engine caches.</p><h2>5. What can I do to support the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia?</h2><p>There are several ways to support the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia. You can spread awareness by sharing information about the blackout on social media and encouraging others to join the protest. You can also contact your local representatives and voice your opposition to SOPA. Finally, you can donate to organizations that are actively fighting against SOPA and other forms of internet censorship.</p>

1. What is the purpose of the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia?

The anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia is a protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a proposed legislation that would allow the government to censor and shut down websites suspected of hosting copyrighted material. The blackout is meant to raise awareness about the potential negative impact of this legislation on free speech and the internet as a whole.

2. When will the Wikipedia blackout take place?

The Wikipedia blackout will take place on January 18th, 2022. This date was chosen because it marks the 10th anniversary of the first SOPA blackout in 2012, which was also led by Wikipedia.

3. Will the entire Wikipedia site be unavailable during the blackout?

Yes, the entire English version of Wikipedia will be unavailable during the blackout. This means that users will not be able to access any articles or information on the site. However, other language versions of Wikipedia will still be accessible.

4. How can I still access information on Wikipedia during the blackout?

While the English version of Wikipedia will be unavailable, users can still access information through other language versions of the site, or by using a virtual private network (VPN) to bypass the blackout. Additionally, some articles on Wikipedia may still be accessible through search engine caches.

5. What can I do to support the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia?

There are several ways to support the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia. You can spread awareness by sharing information about the blackout on social media and encouraging others to join the protest. You can also contact your local representatives and voice your opposition to SOPA. Finally, you can donate to organizations that are actively fighting against SOPA and other forms of internet censorship.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top