Google Goes Big With Its SOPA/PIPA Protests; Blacks Out Logo

from the but-no-calls? dept

Tue, Jan 17th 2012 10:00pm — Mike Masnick

As promised, Google has decided to "go big" with its home page to join Wikipedia, Reddit and others in protesting SOPA/PIPA. The logo on the home page is blacked out:

And clicking the logo takes you to a protest page asking people to "take action" by signing a petition:

I'll admit that I'm a little surprised that Google went with a petition rather than driving phone calls to Congress, though the sheer numbers may make this one petition that Congress actually acknowledges. Either way, it's a strong statement of Google's support for the protest against these bills. Google also has an information page that explains how SOPA and PIPA will censor the internet, kill jobs & innovation and won't stop piracy at all. It also includes a collection of anti-SOPA/PIPA videos...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blackouts, pipa, protect ip, protests, sopa
Companies: google

174 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

asdf, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:17pm

Meh. If Google really wanted to "go big", they would collect signatures to pass a constitutional amendment that would get rid of the patent and copyright system altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:05pm
  
  Re:
  One thing at a time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:02am
  
  Re:
  Besides pissed-off pirates with an entitlement mentality, Google's money is behind the entire astro-turfing opposition to anti-piracy legislation.
  
  They did a very effective job. Very effective. Hopefully this will awake the electorate as to how powerful they really are- these people that spy on them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Besides pissed-off pirates with an entitlement mentality, Google's money is behind the entire astro-turfing opposition to anti-piracy legislation.
    
    Your tin foil is showing again. Maybe you should wear another hat to cover it up?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, we get it, nobody except Google and pirates can possibly have any objection, and everybody who opposes SOPA have been paid off by Google so that they can steal everyone's data. it's all about them, and SOPA is not an overreaching piece of crap that will not destroy innocent sites while doing nothing to stop piracy.
    
    I, for one, am glad that America's mental healthcare is working so well that delusional paranoids are able to construct such clear sentences.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    Cargo cult comment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 6:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    (sigh) It's gets increasingly difficult to remain polite and civil to this kind of bullshit day in and day out. But I'll try to explain it yet again.
    
    This is NOT an anit-piracy bill. It will do very little to slow, much less stop piracy. What it will do is open up the internet to massive abuse, anti-competitive practices, and increased risk for hacking and spam.
    
    The opposition is NOT astroturfing, much less being bankrolled by Google. If there is any astroturfing going on, it's is by the entertainment industry and Congress. The only people I've talked to/heard from who express any sort of support for these bill are high powered corporate executives, business moguls, entrenched Congreemen and there support staffs, well paid lobbyists, and a handful of well paid content creators who like their secure incomes.
    
    I've seen, spoken to, or heard from hundred of content creators themselves who are all pretty much opposed to these bills and who have nothing to do with Google or piracy.
    
    In fact the only sense of entitlement I've seen from people, are, well, the people supporting these bills.
    
    As frustrating as you people can be most of the time, I do genuinely appreciate you people commenting. IT allows me to show your actual words to people when we are discussing these matters and sometimes makes it much easier to convert them to our point of view.
    
    So basically I say keep up the good work. You are doing more to help kill the entertainment industry with your lies, bullying tactics, and nonsense than I could do by myself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rubberpants, 18 Jan 2012 @ 8:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just remember, when you get angry - the trolls win.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    And what about Big Content's "entitlement mentality" where they think it is OK to steal from the public domain by egregious extensions of a TEMPORARY government granted monopoly? This is closer to stealing than what any file sharer could commit (under the assumption that the file sharer does not actually try to sell their 'share"). Maybe they should offer their content in an enticing manner, instead of locked down, regionalized, delayed, and spattered with assumed accusations dreck.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 6:59am
  
  Re:
  And all comercial content along with it. Imgaine a world without all your favorite movies, television shows, books, music, games, etc...
  
  You socialists don't get it, these works are created because copywrite protection allows the producers to make money by making it illegal to copy and/or redistribute the content. Without copyright protection you would be left with amatuers creating amatuer content. Some of it might be entertaining but a lot of it is only interesting to the person that created it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    Your logic and intelligence would appear to be as flawless as your spelling, I'll give you that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Logician (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Your argument, AC 140, lacks both logic and evidence. You also fail to take into account the vast amount of culture that existed before copyright was ever put in place. Also, you fail to explain how such long lengths as there are today promote the progress in any way. Unless you can provide empirical, non-industry data, your position is invalid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Imgaine a world without all your favorite movies, television shows, books, music, games, etc..."
    
    It would be much more productive!
    
    "Taking in the sights and sounds of nature appears to be especially beneficial for our minds, researchers say."
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576538260326965724.html
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 9:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    You socialists don't get it, these works are created because copywrite protection allows the producers to make money by making it illegal to copy and/or redistribute the content.
    
    First of all, it's "copyright." A "copywriter" is one who writes copy (e.g. for newspapers). It's going to be hard for people to take you seriously if you can't even spell what you're talking about.
    
    Second of all, copyright is a state-enforced monopoly. It's more than ironic that you call its opponents "socialists."
    
    Third of all, you don't need copyright to create movies, television shows, books, music, games, etc. For example, plenty of publishing companies make money by selling editions of public domain works; orchestras make money by performing public domain music; and so forth. Valve Software made over a billion dollars last year, not by "making it illegal to copy and/or redistribute the content," but by providing a service that added value the pirates' couldn't.
    
    Fourth, "amatuers creating amatuer content" is exactly how innovative artists create. Take the music industry: you would never get signed to a label without already having a sizable following that you developed without the label's help. The major labels have not created one single genre of music; all of them were created by amateurs, then later signed and co-opted by the labels.
    
    On the other hand, I am not actually arguing against all copyright protections. But the laws we have right now go way too far, and SOPA/PROTECT IP would only make matters worse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
firefly (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:27pm

I didn't sign
Sorry Google, I'm not quite ready to hop on board the OPEN Act yet. I think at this point we can ask for more than that - like real copyright reform. The legal interpretation of the balance between the interests of rights holders and promotion of progress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution) has shifted way too far towards rights holders. Until some balance is restored, you're going to have as much trouble combating piracy as they had enforcing prohibition. And, I fear, we're going to get some really entrenched criminals as a result, just as we did with prohibition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:27pm

Because I know that Blizzard supports SOPA
Nuclear launch detected...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BearGriz72 (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:50pm
  
  Re: Because I know that Blizzard supports SOPA
  Blizzard supports SOPA?!?!
  
  Seriously! WTF? I know that Activision was on that original letter before the bills came out, but did the actually come out in support or did they bail when they saw how Fu%$^# up this legislation is? {Citation Please}
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Because I know that Blizzard supports SOPA
    No, it's more an assertion from their past actions.
    
    Given that this is the same company that sued a guy for bots, gets a default judgement of $88 million against a person, and tries to take away anonymity with a sledgehammer, it's a pretty safe bet that they will support SOPA albeit quietly right now unless they want their fans to revolt against them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Furtled, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:05am
    
    Blizzard don't support SOPA/PIPA & Google's stance
    @Bear Griz
    I'm not Blizzard's biggest fan for many reasons, but that list was taken from a letter asking for some form of copy protection legislation last year, they've never come out in open support of SOPA/PIPA and aren't members of the ESA (of course they haven't openly come out against it either but fair's fair).
    
    @Nuge
    There's a difference between a political message and something that'll actually break the fundamental foundations of the internet. Sure Google have a financial stake in this but this isn't a left/right issue, it's people who don't understand the internet (allegedly funded to protect questionable corporate interests) essentially trying to break it due to their ignorance (and greed depending how much you think politicians have been bought by companies).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:27pm

I wonder if they will include calls at times people are actually awake. Telling people to call is great, telling people to call at 1 in the morning probably isn't the world's greatest idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:18am
  
  Re:
  You are aware that not everybody works 9 - 5, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just John (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:05am
  
  Re:
  Your post makes me think of "good idea, bad idea"
  
  Good idea: talking to your officials at their office (insert picture of senator at their work office while talking to them).
  Bad idea: talking to upper officials at their office (insert picture of random guy sneaking into their home office through window to talk to them).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:27pm

I wish to take a look myself, but too bad the Google page of other countries are not changed to this one, even the "Go to Google.com" link at the bottom won't work. :O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Violated (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:57pm
  
  Re:
  Use... http://www.google.com/ncr
  
  The /ncr bit means no redirection to your own country site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Speaking as an ex-pat in Honduras, I first tried reloading my igoogle page, when that failed I went to google.hn, no joy. I went ahead and set the NCR flag, no joy. So I gave up.
    
    Ultimately, though, I don't need to see this, the very fact that I'm here commenting indicates that I'm well aware of SOPA/PIPA, and I can see why Google went ahead and set up a geoIP filter, there are a fair number of people who live around here that would probably be irked by...I don't know how to say this, let's go with proselytizing, even though that's not really accurate...about a US law in foreign countries.
    
    And yes, I'm very well aware that the law would affect me even though I don't live in or connect from the US, and a few of the locals I know would probably be aware of that too, but they can't really do anything about it, so why bother them?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Doesn't work either. I'm getting the usual page with logo and a white background and this line below the search box:
    
    Please don't censor the web!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:47am
  
  Re:
  Not changed here in Canada either. I was hoping for world wide as that is what these bills will affect.
  
  Wake up the world to these **AAs' and their anti-social policies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheNutman69321 (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:30pm

If anyone hasn't noticed you can easily get around Wikipedias blackout by stopping the pages from fully loading. Just thought I'd throw it out for those who still wanna use it today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:40pm
  
  Re:
  I didn't even notice the blackout until I told noscript not to block scripts.
  
  Then again, those who are aware of noscript and your method of circumventing the blockout are probably the somewhat more tech savvy crowd that's already aware of these bills.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael Whitetail, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    The FBI/TSA/ICW will be arriving shortly to take you into custody you filthy pirate loving criminal! Circumvention of Lawful Internet blocking is a 1st degree felony under the SOPA/PIPA acts of 2012; punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
    
    Let your incarceration and sodomization be a lesson to all those who steal from hard working mega corporations!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:43pm
  
  Re:
  Their mobile site is functional still with justabanner at the top
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:58pm
  
  Re:
  Wikipedia tells you how to get around the block if you click on the "Learn More" link.
  The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:32pm
  
  Wikipedia blacked out??
  What do you mean, "get around it?" I haven't found any page yet that is actually blacked out, just a banner on the top of the main page. Every other page on wikipedia is completely unaffected, all the links work to open other pages, even editing works just fine on pages that aren't otherwise locked against editing. As far as I can see, Wikipedia wimped out and decided not to have a blackout after all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tsavory (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:58am
    
    Re: Wikipedia blacked out??
    It's blacked out over here. and on a bunch of friends I have had a dozen calls in the past few hours.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 1:05am
    
    Re: Wikipedia blacked out??
    Then you have JavaScript disabled don't you? or you are navigating the non-english part of it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:05am
      
      Re: Re: Wikipedia blacked out??
      If the pages I was looking at were not in English, I think I would have noticed that.
      
      So you have to turn on javascript in order to see any difference? Big deal! I heard that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is closed today in support of the SOPA protest: by which they mean they're offering blindfolds to everyone who comes in.
      
      That isn't a blackout, it's a wimpout.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Wikipedia blacked out??
        "So you have to turn on javascript in order to see any difference?"
        
        Don't you have anything better to do than whine?
        
        Most people have JS turned on by default. You don't, apparently, so whoopee for you. This clearly isn't a move aimed at people like you and me who already know how to operate the internet properly, it's a move aimed at getting widespread awareness of what SOPA is and what its implications may be for the average person. That's why the site isn't shut down completely - it's meant to annoy people.
        
        In your case, it's had its effect without you even seeing it, so carry on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:50am
    
    Re: Wikipedia blacked out??
    http://en.wikipedia.org and all pages on the english Wikipedia are blacked out, idiot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:54am
      
      Re: Re: Wikipedia blacked out??
      You can get there in two ways, disable javascript, or hit esc as the page is loading.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Nuge (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:38pm

hey
Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public? Please. If any of the networks shut off the first 5 minutes of any popular show, to tout a political stance, can you imagine the uproar? But no, we let the new groupthinkers like Google and Facebook get their way. Pathetic. Rise up people. Be creative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:48pm
  
  Re: hey
  Heh...I watch some tv. They don't need to shut off anything that people really want to see to push a political message.
  
  Rather there are entire channels that exist of nothing but political messages. These are what pass for entertainment by those so serious that they demand actual consequence to their reality tv, not fake marriage Kardashian stuff.
  
  Sorry, "Mr. Romney". This is not going to be discussed in quiet rooms any longer. It might get messy. But we're done with hearing about how horrible it is when a bunch of people get together and say "enough".
  
  You follow?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheNutman69321 (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:53pm
  
  Re: hey
  Ever seen Fox News? It's a network dedicated 24 hours a day to touting a political stance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:03pm
  
  Re: hey
  People would only get in an uproar for two reasons:
  1) They don't care about the political posturing and just want their show, or
  2) They agree with whatever position is being posited and are outraged that congress would do such a thing.
  
  I suspect there will be lots of media industry shills outraged for reason number 1 above. I also suspect that the number of people outraged at Google for reason number 1 above is far below the number of people outraged at having to watch FBI warnings and save-the-gaffer anti-piracy rants at the beginning of DVDs and theater showings. Which means more people are outraged at the MPAA's posturing than will be outraged at Google's posturing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:12pm
  
  Re: hey
  Hi Nuge. Shouldn't you, in full disclosure fashion, note that you're paid by the MPAA/entertainment industry to run an astroturfing group in support of this law? Just saying.
  
  Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public?
  
  Dude. Seriously. Don't make me laugh. YOU are the folks going around pretending that this law -- which is solely designed to prop up your failing business models -- is "in the public interest." It's incredibly slimy to pretend that an actual interest in preserving the internet as we know it is not in the public interest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bjupton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:23pm
    
    Re: Re: hey
    heh...and I was just guessing when I called him a 'stooge'.
    
    I had no idea I was in the presence of royalty. A member of creative america, everyone!
    
    Lord Nuge, what portion of the culture have they promised you for your 'work'?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nuge (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      I like your humor. Um, you'll be surprised how disposable I am.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - David Evans (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Wait... do I detect honesty?
        
        No fair, man!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        They sent only one disposable member of CreativeAmerica? Either there isn't a lot of you, or they could only afford one shill to post here...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws.org (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Same as the laws you bought.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - arcan, 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        since we probably assumed that you are 100% disposable. not really. and the biggest landgrab out there, is not what google is doing. but what your employers are attempting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bjupton (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Heh, yeah, I didn't think that they'd send someone real important to harrass a tech blog.
        
        Makes me sad that you've aligned yourself with people who view you as disposable rather than with people who want to respect creative output.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nuge (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:47pm
    
    Re: Re: hey
    Mike, Happy New Year!
    
    You think Google's interest in fighting SOPA and PIPA is in the public interest, and not exclusively supportive of its business model? Dude, please. You are being coopted into supporting the biggest land grab there is by corporate interests who pretend to support the public interest. Take more soma.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      Ah yes, the "land grab" of...not passing the law you attempted to buy. So much land to grab.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nuge (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        The land grab is data mining, consumer modeling, advertising and more, and Google and Facebook and others are unfolding a business plan and no critic or pundit gets it. They believe the Internet is free and beautiful and yahoo, and, oh, by the way, forget to keep an eye on the the monopolies and oligopolies arising. Just sayin'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        You mean the mainstream media cartel monopolies? The government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies? Laws that make it too legally risky and expensive for restaurants and other venues to host independent performers? Laws that effectively censor free speech by allowing self interested govt established monopolists to abuse their monopoly power by directing discussions in their favor (ie: by not discussing SOPA, insanely long copy protection laws, retroactive copy protection extensions, etc...).
        
        I can go on. This nation is plagued with government established monopolies and oligopolies (ie: taxi cab monopolies). Google is not one of them (at least not yet).
        
        The whole point of opposing this bill is to keep an eye on the monopolies and oligopolies arising. This bill is exactly intended to provide for the existing government established monopolists the continued govt established monopoly power that they have wrongfully enjoyed for so many years. It's despicable and I am indeed keeping an eye on it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        You're point being that if Google is evil their interests cannot possibly coincide with the public's on SOPA/PIPA? You've never heard the phrase 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' I take it? Considering the fact that, even if we were willing to stipulate that Google engages in all of those activities for nefarious purposes, SOPA/PIPA will do little to stop them from continuing to engage in them I have to conclude that the only reason you brought it up at all was to discredit Google's position by attacking their behavior. It doesn't matter if Google is evil or not, I still won't support SOPA/PIPA and I am not alone in this.(You using the terms 'monopoly' and 'oligopoly' is especially rich by the way).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      You think Google's interest in fighting SOPA and PIPA is in the public interest, and not exclusively supportive of its business model? Dude, please. You are being coopted into supporting the biggest land grab there is by corporate interests who pretend to support the public interest. Take more soma.
      
      I see. Still no admission that you're paid by the MPAA to run a bogus astroturfing group, huh?
      
      As for Google, it's worth pointing out that, for as much as your buddies in the MPAA have insisted on blaming this entire situation on Google, Google has had nothing to do with any of this, and showed up late to the game after the wider internet community chose to take these steps.
      
      Those folks have no "corporate interests."
      
      Pretending this protest is about corporate interests is pure wishful thinking on your part.
      
      As to whether or not Google's own participation is because of its business model, I don't know -- and neither do you. But from what I've seen of Google over the years, I would find it hard to believe. This is the same company that took a stand on China to stop censorship there -- despite the fact that it lost a ton of money doing so.
      
      The folks who run Google have shown repeatedly that they're principled on censorship issues.
      
      The folks who pay your salary... not so much.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Google has had nothing to do with any of this
        
        hahahahahahahahahaha
        
        I love this new approach of yours- "I'm gonna lie twice as much as usual, then people will be twice as likely to believe me... right?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Looks like one CreativeAmerica stooge wasn't enough, Nuge. They had to send this joker over to help you out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just John (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        At least Nuge doesn't post hahahahaha...
        That makes him a more acceptable shill.
        A 3/10 instead of this idiots 1/10.
        
        Even shills should live by some standard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Learning from shills like you, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        I love this new approach of yours- "I'm gonnna add italics to quotes and make ad hom comments about them twice as much as usual, then people will be twice as likely to belive me... right?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        This is the same company that took a stand on China
        
        Yes, because up until then, all those Chinese citizens that make 31 cents an hour were really padding the coffers over there at Google.
        
        LOL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        So what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just John (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        You honestly believe this?
        China just hit 500,000,000 total internet users, and since ads are paid for by companies that have money, that is more people ad clicking then there is population in the US.
        
        Now, want to come over? I live here....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 10:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        http://news.yahoo.com/googles-4q-lobbying-bill-triples-3-76-million-205546163.html
        
        You're such a silly liar, Masnick. It's endlessly amusing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 25 Jan 2012 @ 3:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        If I was fined $500 million, I'd probably lobby to get laws changed too!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 1:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      You think the RIAA/MPAA's interest in supporting SOPA and PIPA is in the public interest, and not exclusive supportive of its business model? Dude, please.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      Hey, man, don't invoke the name of soma lightly, I use it extensively for back pain and for insomnia (What can I say? I knocks me out).
      
      Try using Versed, instead (ooh, I rhymed, go me). It's a drug which, among other things, induces anterograde amnesia, thus suggesting that those that disagree with you are deliberately ignoring the lessons learned from history...
      
      Wait...Damn...your position is that there's no past history for a company using it's massive influence on the public to influence politics, that the "new media" is completely different from the "old media".
      
      Never mind, feel free to keep using Soma...although, it still helps with my back-aches, could you at least pick on Ambien, instead?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      Don't be jealous because your masters' busieness models is less smart and makes far less money. Pityful.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      Why do you need these laws?
      
      "If there�s one thing that SOPA proponents like myself and SOPA opponents can agree on, it�s that PROTECT-IP and the Stop Online Piracy Act have little to do with protecting intellectual property and stopping online piracy.
      
      After all, those who choose to steal creative works like the �I Have a Dream� speech from artists like Martin Luther King Jr. can already be sued and prosecuted under existing United States copyright laws. IP thieves living overseas can already be extradited to face justice in our federal courts. And the Department of Homeland Security can already arbitrarily seize domain names that fit its arbitrary standard of violating national something-or-other."
      http://74.50.110.120/Articles/Support-The-Daily-WTF-in-Supporting-the-Support- SOPA-Movement.aspx
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      "'You are being coopted into supporting the biggest land grab there is by corporate interests who pretend to support the public interest."
      
      You mean how the government-industrial complex keeps on stealing from the public domain through retroactive copy protection extensions?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      As a member of the public I support taking back what should be mine. I support taking back the public domain either through copy protection abolition or seriously shortening copy protection term limits (to nothing above ten years, and I still think that's too long. I'll say seven years is good). My right to copy rightfully belongs to me and the biggest land grab occurred through laws that took away my rights in the first place. I want them back!!!!!!!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:06am
    
    Re: Re: hey
    And Mike Masnick makes his money from ads and sources other than the "tech industry".
    
    LOL
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      So what?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 11:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      From here on out, it appears the LOLing will be on you and yours.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:18am
    
    Re: Re: hey
    What is funny is Nuge is from a private corporation that is trying to buy legislation and he has the nerve to complain about another private company trying to block it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:18pm
  
  Re: hey
  >Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public?
  
  So if you're not essential, you can tout your political stance on laws, then? That what you're sayiing? Like the RIAA/MPAA?
  
  So if you're not essential, what do we need you for?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nuge (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:51pm
    
    Re: Re: hey
    When i use the term "essential facility," I use it in an antitrust sense. Certain essential facilities, because they are facilities and essential, take on certain obligations, e.g., they can't be biased, they can't be political, they can't exclude. Well, Google has risen to the status of essential facility in the search world, yet we allow it to foist its views on its users through its portal. Where is good old antitrust law when you need it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - saulgoode, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      "Certain essential facilities, because they are facilities and essential, take on certain obligations, e.g., they can't be biased, they can't be political, they can't exclude."
      
      You mean like, the Internet?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nuge (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Very good comment saulgoode. Very insightful. My answer is thus: Essential facilities can't exclude etc. by their own rules. This would be an abuse of power and position. But, because they are essential facilities, society - the state -can and should demand certain obligations and impose rules.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Essential?
        
        Google can do it because if people don't like it they have other options like Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, YaCy just to name a few.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Oh wow!
        
        Are you actually serious?
        
        You promote SOPA, call google an "essential" facility that shouldn't filter or comment on anything, and you call it bias that they encourage people to oppose incredibly idiotic legislation, when your biggest issue with google is that they won't bias results to please you.
        
        It must really suck to be you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        If Google is an essential facility, then the internet is broken for real.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        So since it isn't broken, Google isn't an essential facility, which means that Google can make its stand known on the issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Simon, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        I like Nuge, he's able to string two coherent words together. I don't necessarily agree with what's he saying, but I hope he stays. Please debate his points and try and stay away from personal attacks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 1:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        What points? The only points he's brought up are how he disagrees with Mike's figures on how many people support CreativeAmerica.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Google isn't excluding anyone. They're advertising their political stance.
        
        It's kind of like the electric company - a regulated monopoly - continuing to supply electricity to an anti-nuclear group while mailing pro-nuclear informational materials to every customer with every electric bill. Abuse of monopoly would be cutting off the anti-nuclear group's electricity in reprisal for their speech.
        
        Google has a right to freedom of speech. It can speak a little more loudly than the Chamber of Commerce/RIAA/MPAA, but if monetary contributions are speech - as per Citizens United - that decision the Chamber of Commerce so vigorously fought for - surely non-monetary advocacy for or against a law is speech, too.
        
        As such, Google isn't excluding anyone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bordy (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      I don't think I'm ready to accept what you believe should be the obligations of an "essential facility," but for the sake of argument: what about the "essential facilities" on the pro-rights holder side of this debate . . . some of us are curious about how you characterize the 'AAs who support SOPA/PIPA: are these "essential facilities" in your view?
      
      Assuming the affirmative, haven't they also ignored that obligation to remain unbiased, apolitical, and inclusive?
      
      Assuming yes again, it's plainly hypocritical to chastise Google for voicing its stance on these proposed bills, wouldn't you say? It amounts to "do as we say, not as we do." Inconsistencies like this do little to advance your goal, and I'd argue it reveals Big Content's not-so-subtle strategy of winning passage via creating strawmen, spreading misleading information, etc.
      
      Aside from all that, I'll now assume you don't characterize the Big Content SOPA/PIPA supporters as "essential facilities." Now you'd be saying that because these groups are less ubiquitous than Google, this somehow makes their political support of the measures more worthy of public approval?
      
      Help us out here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Gosh, how would he react, if a DVD required him to forever be obliged to watch adverts and antipiracy warnings before being allowed to watch the film he paid money for, if he reacts to google on one day encouraging people to opposes terrible legislation in this way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Doe, 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Even worse, the DVD won't let you skip the previews for other movies. My DVD player says the action is forbidden by the disc. SAY WHA? Why should MY DVD player take commands from the disk and not from me?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Because the disk is better than you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        That is one reason I ripped every DVD I have so I could exclude those other files.
        
        Is 14 minutes long!
        
        Plus 1 minute of warnings in 3 languages.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        Plus 1 minute of warnings in 3 languages.
        
        "If you are ripping this DVD in an English-speaking country, press 1.
        
        Si va a copiar el DVD en un pa�s de habla espa�ola, pulse dos..."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 1:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      > Well, Google has risen to the status of essential facility in the search world, yet we allow it to foist its views on its users through its portal.
      
      Well, the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/BREIN/ETC has risen to the status of essential facility in the anti-piracy world, yet we allow it to foist their views on their users through their website, with no comment option. Rage against Google all you want, somehow the MPAA is allowed to go, "Hey, lads, remember those figures we had? They were inflated by 300%, but all's still good eh?"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      You mean like how the government established mainstream media cartel abuses its govt established powers to direct various discussions in its own self interests (and then abuses copy protection laws to take down these videos because they look ridiculous in retrospect) while censoring the opposition (because they know that their position is indefensible in the face of scrutiny and so they would never allow Mike Masnick and others the opportunity to discuss these issues on [what shouldn't be] 'their' networks)? But that's perfectly OK, it's free speech when they do it and big corporations can spend whatever the heck they want on political ads because of free speech. When anyone else does it against your interests it's not OK, right?
      
      Google receives none of its market power from the government, unlike those who get their information distributed through broadcasting and cableco. Google competes in a free market and there are alternative search engines. You can even create your own. Just because others aren't as successful doesn't mean that Google doesn't deserve free speech rights. Why should we punish the successful (ie: Google) and reward the failures (IE: govt established cableco and broadcasting monopolists who's only success is due to their govt established monopoly positions, the RIAA/MPAA, etc...).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
        and Google is not obligated to provide you service, if it does a good enough job to attract an audience then it has every right to use its platform to advocate its political positions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 6:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hey
      The fact that competitor's to Google are able to practically or reasonably duplicate the 'essential facility' and do so every blows your 'essential facility' argument completely out of the water. Even if it was legally demonstrated that Google has a monopoly position and abuses it they still would never legally be declared an 'essential service.'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:21pm
  
  Re: �political stance�
  You make it sound like politics is some kind of trivial game, unworthy of the attention of serious adults. You make it sound like it has nothing to do with real life, has no impact on real businesses and real individuals, like it�s just some abstract exercise that takes place in some rarefied space on some plane beyond this reality.
  
  If politics is not the business of Google, of Facebook, of the TV networks and every other journalistic organization, of Techdirt, of Wikipedia, of Mom & Pop�s Corner Store Inc (est 1923), of you, of me, of your little old grandmother, of every single person whose lives are going to be affected by these crazy rules, then who the hell�s business is it exactly?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - I-Blz, 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:07am
    
    Re: Re: �political stance�
    If I could post gifs, yould be getting a looping ovation right now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul`, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:15am
  
  Re: hey
  Google is a private entity and they can do what they like, use another service if you don't like it. Plus it is America, Corporations are people and money is speech.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:53am
  
  Re: hey
  "Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public?"
  
  No. I am more outraged that corporations get to write laws claiming it is to save jobs.
  
  Are jobs going to India and China because there is no infringement there?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:25am
  
  Re: hey
  "Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public?"
  
  That's different than the government established mainstream media (those that benefit from govt established broadcasting and cableco monopolies) how exactly?
  
  It's OK for big corporations to spend what they want on political ads, it's considered free speech. but the moment someone says something protesting govt established monopolists, it's somehow an abuse.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hans, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:15pm
  
  Re: hey
  "Pathetic. Rise up people. Be creative."
  
  Hey Nuge, look in the mirror!
  
  How about the pathetic MPAA/RIAA rise up and create a business model that doesn't require the entire f-ing internet be their police force?
  
  Rise up and get a job, attract fans, make money. No other jobs on the planet get to sit back and enjoy income in perpetuity for a job done long ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuge (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:43pm

And besides, what is the purpose of the black patch? Google aint' gonna be a target of PIPA or SOPA. Answer? Google can't tolerate any perturbation in its business algorithm. Alrorithms need constancy and predictability, hence Google worries about the democratic process when it comes to its governance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:48pm
  
  Re:
  www.google.de,www.google.fr,www.google.co.in, etc.
  So, as an American company with foreign websites/subsidiaries......
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh yes, I'm pretty sure SOPA would mess with Google's overseas servers, yet be completely fine with them here in their home country, despite this being where sovereign laws are most effective...
    
    LOL
    
    You dolts are really out of ammo, aren't you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You troll a lot, spout a lot of ad hominems, but offer very little substance.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jeff (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        he's the Twinkie Troll!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 6:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seems about right. Hostess is also going downhill fast.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zac, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:48pm
  
  Re:
  Assuming Google wouldn't actually be a target of the vague definitions of what is and is not a foreign site, they'd still need to comply with rules that affect their AdSense platform and their search pages (as all links to a blocked site must be permanently scrubbed).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:49pm
  
  Re:
  Hey, what do stooges get paid these days?
  
  Just curious. Looking for a career change. Hedging my bets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Togashi (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:50pm
  
  Re:
  Or maybe they're worried about the implications of censorship. You don't have to be targeted by the law to take issue with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:50pm
  
  Re:
  Ah right - the same way that you can't support breast cancer awareness with a pink ribbon unless you suffer from it or are otherwise affected by it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's true. Also, white people were not allowed to protest with black people during the civil rights movement, only soldiers and Iraqis were allowed to protest the US war in Iraq, only the Vietnamese in Vietnam were allowed to protest the Vietnam Conflict (soldiers also, but not until they were drafted) and Warren Buffett was not really allowed to support the Occupy Wall St movement.
    
    It's one of the reasons why Alzheimer's research is so slow; the only people allowed to donate funds or do the research are Alzheimer's patients, and they keep forgetting what it is they're doing anyway.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bjupton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Also, only children are allowed to be interested in furthering children's education.
      
      What are you, a socialist?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    I take it you haven't seen the pink ribbons saying "Save second base" ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Almost Anonymous (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 8:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I haven't, but I'm sure I would guffaw if I did. I have seen "Save the ta-tas", though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:29pm
  
  Re:
  >Google aint' gonna be a target of PIPA or SOPA.
  
  At least not in version 1.0.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:51pm
  
  Re:
  Wow, really? This is the best shill money can buy? Or did they spend all the money on congresspeople instead?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Just John (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Could be worse. He is much less annoying then Darryl, and actually tries different modes of attack, instead of beating the same dead horse.
    
    Shoot, his arguments even make a little sense if you are completely ignorant of what is going on in the world today.
    
    Although he is a shill, I would go so far as to say he is the grade A shill.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Just John (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Could be worse. He is much less annoying then Darryl, and actually tries different modes of attack, instead of beating the same dead horse.
    
    Shoot, his arguments even make a little sense if you are completely ignorant of what is going on in the world today.
    
    Although he is a shill, I would go so far as to say he is the grade A shill.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:54am
  
  Re:
  You are kidding right, the whole law screams "Google we want your ass", it will harm everybody but it was planed with Google in mind :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:13am
  
  Re:
  So, then, you are arguing that Google is worried about these laws because it can very well be targeted by them?
  
  Your whole paragraph seems self-contradictory.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:20am
  
  Re:
  Talk to the site operators of the illegally taken down site Dajaz1.com before spouting your nonsense of "well google won't be a target."
  Actually see how badly written laws get abused left and right, before making a blanket statement like that.
  
  Either that, or shut up and go back to your basement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Raymond, 18 Jan 2012 @ 6:18am
  
  Re: Nuge, Google IS the target of SOPA
  Google will be required to censor search results and Adwords references to any of the millions of sites that will be shut-down by SOPA and PIPA. There is no clear or easy recourse for anyone who believes they've been shutdown wrongly.
  
  SOPA and PIPA are draconian measures for a government and industry dictatorship over free expression and informal commerce.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 10:22am
  
  Re:
  "And besides, what is the purpose of the black patch?"
  
  It is to cover their eye that got poked out by a hook.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Freddy, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:49pm

It is great that Wikipedia is going dark to protest the recent murder of political activists in Iran! Oh wait. Maybe it was the killings of citizens in Syria. No. Or the recent legislation that would allow indefinite detention of US citizens. Hmmm.....oh that's right, they are going dark over the evil SOPA rogue sites bill. The one that prevents US tech companies from profiting from sites selling Oxy online to 14 year olds in Kentucky. That one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nuge (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:54pm
  
  Re:
  Dude's funny. I enjoy a little levity as we all get down. Thanks Freddy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    This is what passes for humour in CreativeAmerica?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BearGriz72 (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:55pm
  
  Re:
  Obvious strawman is obvious, -1 troll points, you fail.
  Have a nice day!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:03pm
  
  Re:
  SOPA is a fundamental threat to Wikipedia and the free exchange of ideas on the Internet - Iran and Syria, tragic as they are, don't even come close.
  
  Thanks for playing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:13pm
  
  Re:
  It is great that Congress and the entertainment industry are writing bills and lobbying to protest the recent murder of political activists in Iran! Oh wait. Maybe it was the killings of citizens in Syria. No. Or the recent legislation that would allow indefinite detention of US citizens. Hmmm.....oh that's right, they are writing legislation to try to stop the sharing of 1s and 0s. A bill that doesn't address any real problem and that attempts to stop what the majority don't think should even be a crime. That one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    LOL, and Freddy got outsmarted just like that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Aye, those dolts are really out of ammo, aren't they?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Playing madlibs with troll comments is great fun! These type of comments always get funny/insightful when done well (as above) :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cyberjawn, 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:08am
  
  Re:
  mmmmm ur priorites are a bit out of wack. Who cares what there doing over in Iran or Syria! IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!!! As for the SOPA, did you read it?? IT can keep you from finding the truth about stuff cause the government can block any sites dns if they don't like it. the bill is to loosely written. OUr government will take advantage of it just like the patriot act.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  Nirvana fallacy.
  
  Try harder next time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:53pm

If you were being honest you'd admit to yourself that solar won't prevent people from buying illegal prescription drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:17pm
  
  Re:
  There you go again. With those crazy 'solar' theories.
  
  Smart money knows that wind power is what doesn't prevent people from buying illegal prescription drugs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Damn autocomplete on android tablet
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bjupton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It provided at least a 'guffah' from me.
      
      My iPhone irritated me today by not recognising 'dicl' as 'dick'. For one, I know several people who use that as a diminutive of Richard. I could have been addressing them, and please capitalise the first letter of their name. For two, I swear quite often. I expect that my dear friend iPhone, with me at all hours, would know that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:23pm

I Don�t See It
I type in google.com, it instantly sends me to google.co.nz, which comes up just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:25pm
  
  Re: I Don�t See It
  How dare you be in New Zealand.
  
  Lamar Smith: Making New Zealand Illegal Since 2012
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Violated (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:52pm
  
  Re: I Don�t See It
  If you go to google.com and get redirection to your own country site then go here instead... http://www.google.com/ncr
  
  The /ncr bit means no redirection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:23am
    
    Re: Re: I Don�t See It
    Only exception is, that we overseas people don't get to see the blanked out 'doodle', but we do get to see the call to action below the search bar. Even when going to google.com/ncr
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cardman, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:46pm

Internet On Strike - All Out!
It is good to see Google and Wikipedia are blacked out now.

So is my own website now... www.cardman.com

UK Trader now losing sales all today but I am only happy to have our freedom tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crashoverride, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:58pm

Craigslist is blacked out too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:28am
  
  Re:
  Craigslist is blacked out too
  
  You're right. I'm surprised I didn't hear about this, it's at least as big as the Reddit blackout.
  
  Good for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:02am
  
  Re:
  Craigslist is blacked out too
  
  Good Lord. I am just waking up, and checking some of the links like I do when I'm bored. And in all seriousness, half of the sites I like are going dark today.
  
  The latest site MS Paint Adventures:
  http://www.mspaintadventures.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    You must be one of those pirates then.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:15am

Google dot co dot uk is as normal this appears to be only the dot com site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tectopedia (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:33am

technology news, latest technology news
Techtopedia.com provides news about latest technologies and new inventions in all technologies to all over the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeebok (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:55am

Are we missing something?
google.com.au still looks normal and has the monkey king logo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:22am

You Guys Don't Get It
Obviously the only time a big corporation is allowed to say anything is when it's something approved by the RIAA/MPAA (the one's who tout themselves as staunch supporters of our 1st amendment rights, don't forget) and the only way they're ALLOWED to say it is in the form of hundred dollar bills going to politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:32am
  
  Re: You Guys Don't Get It
  It's not the only way they are allowed to say anything, it's just they find it the most effective way.
  After all, given that the facts are not on their side, they lose all their arguments, but money doesn't care if you have a bad argument, it's neutral and not at all biased like google and reality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Beech, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:57am
    
    Re: Re: You Guys Don't Get It
    A good point. Still pisses me off how this guy comes here whining about how google should be apolitical and not talk about its opinions on stuff, but I can GUARANTEE he'd be singing a different tune if google put up a "hey guys, this sopa thing is pretty great, support it with out really looking at any of the details" banner
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DesignSmith, 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:05am

another approach
I like the xkcd approach. A simple black banner with some explanation of why it is there and some appropriate links to find out more.
He has a direct personal stake in the issue and put his signature on his position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly Anon, 18 Jan 2012 @ 6:33am
  
  Re: another approach
  I had 6 of my web comics blacked out this morning, but I find XKCD's one the best. I like how he states that piracy helped him grow and that he opposes this bill.
  
  Pro-tip to other sites blacking out today though...don't link to Wikipedia or Reddit when explaining why....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:11am

I signed the petition
I can't wait to hear how many people sign the petition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:23am

The "Industry"
The whole RIAA/MPAA/etc group are a bunch of vindictive, willfully ignorant, entitled group that doesn't think twice when given an opportunity to abuse laws.

This group is trying to push open-ended laws that can shut down their opposition based solely on accusations, with little or no recourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:24am

Not for Canada
Right now, if I try to go to www.google.com, I get redirected to www.google.ca which looks no different from normal.

Very disappointing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly Anon, 18 Jan 2012 @ 6:27am
  
  Re: Not for Canada
  Actually, there is a link in the bottom right of the screen that says 'Go To Google.com'.
  
  What is actually disappointing is that apparently this bold move by Google is only visible in the US. If you hit it from a non US IP, you don't see it.
  
  I feel that is a cop-out on Google's part.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:40am
    
    Re: Re: Not for Canada
    https://encrypted.google.com/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sachi, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:20pm

Even Gaia Online got in on this, censoring both their name and some avatars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LC (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:31pm

Doesn't look like that for me. Wikipedia's blackout is working though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Luke Witnesser, 20 Jan 2012 @ 5:18am

Here lies the truth about SOPA/PIPA that even TechDirt has yet to report: what MPAA, RIAA, and Hollywood execs do not want you to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzS5rSvZXe8

The truth behind why these big companies responsible for SOPA and PIPA are also responsible for piracy itself is far more insidious than even their outmoded business model.

Hint: can you say, do as I say so I can crush you under heel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:28am

Where can I see the article's image in a size big enough to read the text below the various numbers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 3:01am
  
  Re:
  You work for the MPAA?
  
  Click the link and open the .pdf file(click on image in link).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 23 Jan 2012 @ 5:42am

I did click through. The image there is big enough to read the main text, but not the text in the lower left region. As for some .pdf, no thanks. Link to a png, gif, or jpg I don't have to open some proprietary, bug-ridden extra plugin to view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 7:01am
  
  Re:
  I didn't make the graphic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 24 Jan 2012 @ 1:22am

I didn't say you did.

Now is someone gonna post a link to a full-size .png, .gif, or .jpg?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  Is that fair use?
  
  I'm not going to a US court to find out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tholen, 24 Jan 2012 @ 11:11pm

You're such a silly liar, Masnick.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with Techdirt, Anonymous Coward?

It's endlessly amusing.

What does your amusement have to do with Techdirt, Anonymous Coward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]