CBS and SOPA: Why You Should Hate Them

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Quick entry time so here's the rundown: A major media company first distributes a buttload of file sharing software, actually encourages people to download illegally, and then years later sends lobbyists to the United States government to convince them to pass a law against the very thing they encouraged. I know, paranoid conspiracy theory bullshit. Right?

Well, take a gander at the video below the cut and the links provided and then tell me if you're still sure that it's just paranoid hype.

http://www.filmon.com/cbsyousuck/

http://onecandleinthedark.blogspot.com/

I'm pretty well convinced that CBS/Cnet/Download.com are a bunch of dirty little pigfuckers. The evidence looks pretty deep. I'm not making a moral judgment when I call them "pigfuckers", mind you. I'm simply calling them pigfuckers because quite frankly I regard them as enemies. Oh, and did I say pigfuckers? Yes, I did. Sorry, but I just don't feel like using euphemistic sugar-coated bullshit language to appease overweight unmarried mommies and the sad little men who want to e-date them tonight.

Anyway, a few things:

1) I know a few(not all of you, of course) of you conservative GOP folks are itching to defend CBS because they're a big corporation, "job providers"(lmao!), invisible maturbatory hand, etc. Before you do this, let me remind you of something. CBS used to be in the employ of news anchor Dan Rather. Remember him? He's the guy who hated the Bush Dynasty. He dislikes your side with a passion. Can you say, "OMG LIBERAL MEDIA!!!"? Okay, now think of CBS getting their little pigfucker snouts into the internet. Like the idea? No? Okay, go out and help stop SOPA.

2) Hi there, liberals. I just mentioned Dan Rather to the cons and reminded them who he is and who he used to work for. How does it feel to know that one of your own used to work for a bunch of dirty pigfuckers? And a big ass greedy corporation of them at that? Seriously, forget about your boy Dan Rather, grow a pair, and fight SOPA. Unless of course, you'd prefer that internet video be nothing but reruns of The Golden Girls, Matlock, and Murder She Wrote.

3) Now that 1) and 2) are out of the way, the internet is already in a sorry shape, t_p. So many users on social networking sites like this one and youtube.com uploading pure sludge day in and day out. But content will only get even worse if you let the pigfuckers win. Time is short. E-mail all of these links and videos to your senators and congressmen. Spread it around the internet. Make some noise, for fuck's sake.

Rant done. Your turn.

Comments

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Another big company, GoDaddy, not only supported SOPA but helped author the legislation. They even had the foresight to put a clause in the bill to give themselves immunity from government shutdowns (http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/sopa-hearing-will-never-end.php). Of course, the internets caught wind of this and mass boycotted them. So GoDaddy said "Oops, our bad. We take it back... we no longer support SOPA." In one week, GoDaddy lost 72,354 domains (http://www.techi.com/2011/12/godaddy-lost-72354-domains-this-week-its-not-enough/).

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the info. I was unaware of that part of the story.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

1. They are pigfuckers.
2. The "establishment," left and right both, are so very tied to their corporate masters that they'll squabble about small stuff but when it comes to legislatively screwing telecom or retail consumers, they'll all too eagerly suck the mighty corporate cock (DCMA, etc.).
3. Okay, am I really the only person who liked Murder She Wrote??

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

3. My mom liked it.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

1) Thank you for seeing it my way.

2) I can't argue with that.

3) I will grant you this...Angela Lansbury was quite fuckable back in the day:

http://nerdgirltalking.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/annex-lansbury-angela-harvey-girls-the_01.jpg

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

People can be just as persistent as business.
After all, business is just a bunch of people organized in a specific way.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure new legislation is the key though. What businesses really need to do is rethink their game plan because the genie is already out of the bottle. I honestly don't think they can stem the tide of what they've created so they really should find a way to profit from it rather than fight it.

Really, what we're going through right now is another technological revolution.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

What businesses really need to do is rethink their game plan because the genie is already out of the bottle.

Exactly. This internet thing has the potential to rewrite business plans in exactly the way the auto changed the business plans of rail companies, or oil companies changed coal, or diesel-electric rail propulsion changed steam locomotive. It is in every way a disruptive technology, and that ain't going to change through mere legislation.

SOPA seems more a sop to existing business plans than as a recognition that business occasionally faces dramatic change. That's like indefinitely airlifting food aid to an area that (due to some horrible disaster) has become completely unplantable, rather than encouraging people to find new places to settle.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

http://www.access-controlled.net/contact/

I'm not sure how much can be gleaned from this book, but it gives a history of internet regulation from an international standpoint. We're increasingly entering an era of online surveillance, filtering, and censorship. You don't have to look at slippery slope arguments that compare to China; there are recorded cases of filtering, surveillance, and censorship happening in the 'free world' and it doesn't look like it's getting any better.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Oh, very true. Especially the surveillance part. Because it's not just Big Brother we have to worry about. We all have to worry about Little Brother and the camera in his cell phone too.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

You mean Little Brother as opposed to Big Brother? Little Brother is that busybody with a camera in his cell phone. He's the guy who reads your Twitter and your Facebook and then forwards what he reads to your employer or your wife. He's the guy who sees you do something embarrassing in real life and posts fottage of it on youtube.

Big Brother=government intrusiveness.
Little Brother=intrusiveness by regular folks.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Actually, Little Brother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Brother_%28Cory_Doctorow_novel%29) is the guy who records police brutality and forwards it to the media. He's the guy who exposes corporate and government injustice. Little Brother might be the only thing stopping us from becoming a police state.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...maybe we'll have to take the good with the bad when it comes to Little Brother.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Well the media does what your alleged 'Little Brother' does all the time. People say and do stupid things and the media jumps all over that. But that has nothing to do with government intrusion.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

1) I know a few(not all of you, of course) of you conservative GOP folks are itching to defend CBS because they're a big corporation, "job providers"(lmao!), invisible maturbatory hand, etc.

It seems to me that you don't have a good grasp of how the conservative ideological beast thinks.

That a corporation is not a bad thing inherently is what I think.

(frozen) (no subject)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that you don't have a good grasp of how the conservative ideological beast thinks.

Translation: "You're too dumb to deserve any other effort from me apart from my usual short snark - so here it is".

(frozen) (no subject)

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

He's not snarky, he's just bitter. So so bitter.

(frozen) (no subject)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

He should've used sarcasm satire instead. ;)

(frozen) (no subject)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

That wasn't snark. How could you see that as snark?

Saying "This is a wrong assessment." Isn't snark. All I did was be milder in my statement by not stating absolutely he was wrong. I didn't insult his intelligence. Though in your response you did insult me by stating that I respond back usually with short snarky replies.

If you want to see snark, look at the first response your post engendered. If in your view what I posted is snark, then what is that?

(frozen) (no subject)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Except you didn't say "this is a wrong assessment".

That thing you talk of was snark too. Does that make yours any less snark? Nope, it doesn't.

you did insult me by stating that I respond back usually with short snarky replies.
Then don't do it and you won't be insulted.

(frozen) (no subject)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry. I'm afraid I can not stop making myself hit me.

(frozen) (no subject)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

So you don't deny that you're very prone of short snarky replies? Cos right now I could come up with at least ten examples, just over the top of my head.

(frozen) (no subject)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I'm prone to short snarky replies. This however was not one.

Is it just me or is it just short snarky replies? Because I really don't think it's the tactic that you loathe.

(frozen) (no subject)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I'm prone to short snarky replies.
Then why be insulted by my statement that you respond back usually with short snarky replies, if you yourself acknowledge that? :D

Because I really don't think it's the tactic that you loathe.
Well at least I've never called people "rambly and incoherent", nor "worthy jackasses", or "idiots", or "morons", or "trolls", or "bitter partisan who is utterly insane and bereft of any iota of honesty", or "Ms. I don't read things before making claims", and neither have I advised them to "take their pills", or to "go frolic and multiply" because they'll be "worthless in time", nor have I told them that "being stupid doesn't make them clever".

Again, which part of what I said here was snark on my part?

(frozen) (no subject)

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what the purpose of all this is. If you have something to say on the original point of the post, please do. Other than that, the rest doesn't serve any purpose.

(frozen) (no subject)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Then why be insulted by my statement that you respond back usually with short snarky replies, if you yourself acknowledge that? :D'

Your statement implies it's all I do. That I'm capable of it is not in dispute.

'Well at least I've never called people "rambly and incoherent", nor "worthy jackasses", or "idiots", or "morons", or "trolls", or "bitter partisan who is utterly insane and bereft of any iota of honesty", or "Ms. I don't read things before making claims", and neither have I advised them to "take their pills", or to "go frolic and multiply" because they'll be "worthless in time", nor have I told them that "being stupid doesn't make them clever".'

Sure, point out what I've said and not what I've been referring to.

What did you think about that poor Lee Harvey Oswald being gunned down by Jack Ruby. Clearly Jack Ruby is a monster for murdering a man in cold blood.

(frozen) (no subject)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Can't even resist on Christmas can you?

Most conservatives I know are not big fans of CBS no matter how many people they employ.

(frozen) (no subject)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

What does CBS have to do with anything? And what do "most conservatives" have to do with anything? And what does Christmas have to....well, anyway.

(frozen) (no subject)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Erm, go back and read the post that Bogey was commenting on, I would say, everything.

(frozen) (no subject)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that *you* don't have a good grasp... *You* = the OP.

He said it's OK, though. So I duly step away. Christmas peace, boys! <3

(frozen) (no subject)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

:D

(oh and while as Charlie Brown (or Linus) suggested it's not possible to have peace and good will everyday, it's nice for one day in the year, enjoy your clan :D

(frozen) (no subject)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I am. Same to you!

(frozen) (no subject)

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

I don't perceive bogey's comment as snark, tbh.

(frozen) (no subject)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Then I apologize to you.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

"It seems to me that you don't have a good grasp of how the conservative ideological beast thinks."

I said a few of you, so I think I've got a pretty good grasp after all. Hell, I used to be one of you people.

"That a corporation is not a bad thing inherently is what I think."

Neither do I. But I don't think unions are inherently bad either. There's both good and bad corporations and unions.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"you people".....

I didn't know whether to be offended or laugh....so I laughed :D

Merry Christmas!

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

lol Merry Christmas to you as well, sir.