Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
In this talk by Sal Khan he uses CNN as an example of a site that would be under scrutiny from the legislation, but we still hear no objections from the major news outlets. Why? Because this would ensure a continuance of business as usual. A while back posted this http://hubski.com/pub?id=5740 about Anderson Coopers report on reddit. In the comments I asked whether CNN may have done this piece because they feel threatened by crowd sourced media? Something I think they should feel threatened by. (accountability is a bitch).
This legislation wouldn't touch their websites but the aggregators out there would be fiznucked. We cannot let it come to that. We can't!
–
thenewgreen · 4699 days ago · link ·
Only if my slogan can be, "99% of us have 100% in common" ;)
–
–
–
Tell your friends, as well. To have just a single family (Paul) as the "last hope" for America is neither reasonable nor comforting. And why does this "hope" exist? Because he ran for public office to serve his nation. Because what matters is who is running what committee, who gets to set the agenda, and who writes the bills that become law. Where the rubber of democracy meets the road of governance.
Think long term. SOPA is nothing. Right around the corner is the man-machine interface tech, nano-tech, surveillance-focused-AI, etc. And I sure as hell am not pinning my hopes on Sergey-Brins-of-this-world's good judgement on these matters, and neither should you. They participated in SOPA protests because it directly threatened their business model. They were mum on NDAA, for example.