this post was submitted on
1,869 points (55% like it)
9,166 up votes 7,297 down votes
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]spoulson 61 points62 points ago

Don't forget the OPEN Act. It can be deemed reasonable compared to SOPA and PIPA. While it may not mean blocking sites, it does point out the end of Internet anonymity and it's gotten NO publicity that I've seen. It forces domain owners to be required to provide identity via "Thick WHOIS". This supports ICANN's new top level domain registration they're rolling out.

Source: No Agenda Show episode 374, skip to 14:10.

/ITM human resources

[–]Simba7 314 points315 points ago

For future reference, this is known as the contrast effect.

[–]MehPlusRawr 234 points235 points ago

[–]Jaesaces 214 points215 points ago

Vote for your favorite!

[–]ragegage 22 points23 points ago

Michael Shermer's new book, The Believing Brain, shows that when people are given a ridiculous option, they are more likely to choose one option over the other. Or, if you have an ugly friend that resembles you, go pick up chicks because you'll look better by comparison.

[–]Letmefixthatforyouyo 18 points19 points ago

Or the Overton window.

[–]untoku 21 points22 points ago

Or "the ol' switcheroo"

[–]brwarner 5 points6 points ago

I believe you mean "Ah, the old Reddit switch-a-roo"

[–]excit3d 6 points7 points ago

In cell phone sales, we call it "top down selling". Pitch the absolute top of the line and step down from there instead of starting low and bumping up incrementally.

[–]BrainSlurper 6 points7 points ago

I am not going to read that wikipedia page, and instead assume the technique has to do with hitting someone in the face with a door until they agree with you.

[–]TehNoff 14 points15 points ago

Overton Window.

[–]Barry_McCockiner 486 points487 points ago

The "foot in the door method." Common sales technique. Ask for something really ridiculous, then follow it up with something a little less absurd that seems more reasonable by comparison.

[–]ctr1a1td3l 946 points947 points ago

That's actually door in the face technique. Foot in the door is quite the opposite. Make a reasonable request, then keep pushing for more. Hence, you get your foot in the door (with the reasonable request).

[–]vakeraj 88 points89 points ago

Which one works better?

[–]MrConventional 167 points168 points ago

Depends on the personality type of the person you are trying to persuade.

[–]vakeraj 311 points312 points ago

A female. Like, should I start off with "want to get married?" or "want to make out?" in order to get to sex?

[–]DashingLeech 522 points523 points ago

In my experience, it's foot in the door that works with women. Women tend to (on average) like slow escalation. It's like a dance. You do a move and she responds. You read the signals and move it up a step.

Women also seem to like plausible deniability, i.e., that things "just happened" in the moment rather than planning or knowing what is going to happen. If a woman invites you over to her place for a quiet movie together, and it's mutually obvious what's going to happen, if you ask where you can park overnight you probably won't be getting any and perhaps she'll call off the date. Turning mutual knowledge into common knowledge ruins the plausible deniability, and reduces her ability to change her mind later if you screw up the evening. Now it's an openly planned event. You've already screwed it up. So she changes her mind.

[–]H_E_Pennypacker 177 points178 points ago*

Women tend to (on average) like slow escalation.

Note to self: Try to meet women on slow escalators.

[–]lucidswirl 41 points42 points ago

Like stairs.

[–]originalredditor 9 points10 points ago

I prefer to meet slow women on the stairs. Or, better yet, the elevator!

[–]Freudian_Insinuation 2 points3 points ago

Learning about women on reddit is like learning about math from Jocks. They both resemble your mother's dismissive nature towards you.

[–]BritishHobo 169 points170 points ago

Women tend to (on average) like slow escalation.

Note to friendzonees: slow and stationary != the same thing.

[–]MostAwesomeUsername 391 points392 points ago

To use an apt metaphor: you should be standing still on the escalator, not the stairs.

[–]Alix1723 87 points88 points ago

I think I like this guy and his metaphors. Something about his username too.

[–]skarphace 21 points22 points ago

To use an apt metaphor: you should do a safe-upgrade, not an update.

FTFY

[–][deleted] 111 points112 points ago

Note to friendzonees: slow and stationary != the same thing.

Note to friendzonees: slow != stationary

shit I hate my brain for doing this but I can't continue scrolling with this messed up syntax on the page.

[–]tralfamadorFTW 27 points28 points ago

Thank you for doing this. You are a godsend.

[–]ahugenerd 60 points61 points ago

You should listen to this guy, I hear he's quite dashing.

[–]boraxus 77 points78 points ago

-- - --- -- - -- - -- - - so am I -- - - - - - -- - - - -

dashing enough for you?

[–]zero_iq 25 points26 points ago

Ironically, I found your comment a bit dotty.

[–]clubdepizza 20 points21 points ago

I happen to think he's just an impetuous leech.

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points ago

This is totally true. Even if I want to sleep with you, if you assume it will happen, it probably won't happen.

Went on a date with a guy I liked, was 100% planning on going home with him for the first time... until he implied we should go back to his place an hour into the date without even flirting with me beforehand. Nope.

[–]Dubsey 72 points73 points ago

As a guy, somehow, I can understand this.

As a logic instructor, I can't even begin to wrap my mind around it.

[–]spideyj 42 points43 points ago

Think of it like this - you have a friend who doesn't drive. You're both going to the same party, but without talking about it or asking you beforehand, he shows up at your house expecting a ride. Not only that but he's brought an acquaintance with him who also needs a ride, and it's someone you kinda know but aren't too keen on. On top of that, the acquaintance is expecting you to drop him off at his house later, and he resides in a rather shady part of town and you're not really comfortable going there, especially late at night. Oh, and neither of them offer you gas money. And this friend has done this several times now.

If a guy expects sex but doesn't bother to flirt or actually, you know, enjoy my company before getting into it, I'm probably not going to be too interested. For one thing, not putting the effort into flirting, which is essentially the foreplay for foreplay, says you're probably not going to put the effort into actual foreplay (and are not too good at it anyway - foreplay is at least half social/mental skills as it is physical). I like sex as much as the next person (yes, really) and most of the time when I go into a date where I think sex is a likely outcome, I still don't make the final decision until a certain point of arousal/interest has passed. You have to meet me halfway.

A lot of this is because the stakes are much higher for women when it comes to sex - we're more at risk from STDs, we're the ones who get pregnant, raped, stigmatized for being promiscuous, etc. Not that some of these risks don't exist for men too, but the chances are much lower.

[–]bkpriest 40 points41 points ago

We both know women don't use logic to make decisions.

[–]deltopia 7 points8 points ago

Can you write more about the rational process that goes into this? Like, at what point did you decide not to go home, what emotions went into it, what was the trigger point when you made the call? At what point did you think, "What? Fuck that. I'm not letting this happen at all."

Some of these forever-alones may question your logic or processes, but every XY chromosome in the place can probably learn something from you. I don't mean to imply your earlier post wasn't useful; I just think it would be more instructive if it were 15,000 words. No pressure :D

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points ago*

Okay first, this is a VERY apt explanation: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/oja0g/now_that_sopa_has_been_shelved_is_reddit_still/c3hss9i

So the dude is probably on this website and I'm nervous to go into details but fuck it, it's not like this was a big deal and maybe he can learn from it if he sees it ha...

In my situation, there were a lot of things that led up to me thinking NOPE. I will say that I wasn't looking for anything serious at all--something more than "fuck buddies" but less than "relationship". And I REALLY REALLY wanted to go home with him. We had great chemistry. I am allergic to latex and brought hypoallergenic condoms with me. I was for real man. FOR REAL.

On the date before, we were both drinking and he was incredibly charming and sweet and we made out heavily for an hour (I didn't go home with him because I was drunk and thought it was a bad idea).

The thing he did that made me think "why did you say that, I REALLY liked you" was when he told me he woke up with his two female roommates/friends after a drunken night out and doesn't remember but basically hopes they had sex. WOW, thanks, I'd have to see them in the morning and does this happen to you often because I don't want to get some STD you haven't been tested for. Don't tell me about shit like that.

But other than that:

  • Texted me all week, dropping hints that I should come to his apartment, had to not-so-subtly tell him to take me out. (BTW, if I had wanted any kind of serious relationship with him, I would have told him to shove off at that point, but like I said, I didn't want anything serious and we had great chemistry.)
  • Asked me out but couldn't think of anything to do with me, at all (we live in the biggest city in America, come on)
  • After I picked a place, didn't flirt with me at all (I kissed him on the cheek when I saw him and stood quite close while we were talking, ample opportunities to put an arm around me, not be awkward, etc)

Then after he subtly suggested I should go home with him an hour after we got there (that was when I was 100% like NOPE) and we went to another bar...

  • Teased me but not in a cute way (aka rude)
  • Repeated stories he had told me before (conversation sucked in general)
  • Mentioned a breakup with an ex-girlfriend
  • Stared at my mouth while I was trying to hold a non-flirtatious conversation

Seriously, my bar was pretty low for this guy and he managed to limbo under it. I thought about doing you all goddamn week, flirt with me for 5 minutes?

tl;dr: here's a bunch of things you shouldn't do on a date.

[–]cpl9190 7 points8 points ago

Spot on

[–]BrownNote 90 points91 points ago

Ah, the foot in the vag method.

[–]harlomcspears 5 points6 points ago

Is this the foot fetish version of fisting?

[–]CloneDeath 7 points8 points ago

It depends on her personality and what you say. To sound less creepy, you should probably say something like "I am going to spain for a week, want to come with me?" When she says no, tell her "Well, how about dinner tonight before I leave?"

As for foot in the door, you could try "Want to have dinner tonight?", if she says yes, start getting more and more gradual until you reach "We should get married"

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points ago

Start by using 'woman' instead of 'female'. That's step one.

[–]cardith_lorda 33 points34 points ago

Depends on female, if she gets horny easily, go with the make out line, if not go with the married line.

[–]MrConventional 29 points30 points ago

Go Full Renegade.

[–]DHandle 49 points50 points ago

But never full retard

[–]lolrestoshaman 42 points43 points ago

ALWAYS full retard.

[–]Geaux12 18 points19 points ago

Never go ass to mouth.

[–]rabbidpanda 31 points32 points ago

You can find successful examples of both all over.

Look at Kirby vacuum sales. They start the pitch with this miraculous vacuum. It's only $2,000, and it'll vacuum everything and never break. Well, you seem hesitant, but I can tell you appreciate the quality of the product. I've been doing pretty good lately, so I can take a hit on the commission on just one of these. I'll let you have it for $1,500.

Then there's the other direction, which you'll see in car dealerships once you've bought the car. Hey, you just bought this car, want to keep it in a decent condition by Scotchguarding the interior? Sure, only $50. If you're gonna protect the interior, you want to keep the exterior good, right? How about we give you the undercoating, only $400. If you're going that far for the car, you don't want your tires to screw you over, right? For only $100 a tire, we can insure the tires for the first 1,000 miles.

[–]skarphace 57 points58 points ago

My favorite example is Bill O'Reilly. Remember when he was the crazy guy on the block? He really was intolerable. Then Glen Beck came around and now O'Reilly is the reasonable one that doesn't throw me into a blind rage.

[–]rabbidpanda 15 points16 points ago

This is unquestionably the best example.

[–]kz_ 18 points19 points ago

For only $100 a tire, I could probably buy another set and sit them in my garage in case i need them.

[–]MadMathematician 11 points12 points ago

holy shit, i actually know someone who bought one for 2k hahahaha

[–]rabbidpanda 13 points14 points ago*

As do I. I bought a used one on eBay for like $300. It's more than I'd be normally willing to pay, but it's easy enough for me to tear down and repair. There's so many damn seals on Dysons and the like that I was sure I'd never get suction if I had to repair it myself. The Kirby is a big and obnoxious, but it works great and is a trooper.

[–]SaltyPancakes 16 points17 points ago

TIL Kirby vacuums really suck

[–]UnappreciatedVacuum 31 points32 points ago

:(

[–]codemunkeh 9 points10 points ago

do you mean they suck hard, or they suck well?

[–]rookie3009 34 points35 points ago

Yes.

[–]funfungiguy 18 points19 points ago

In my experience many times a salesman will use the door-in-the-face technique to get you to agree it a small concession then start the foot-in-the-door shit.

Like if you go to buy a car and they give you a price and you won't accept it so they talk to their manager and come back and you say, "okay that's reasonable". Suddenly, they are throwing in all these extra features that have been added on that drive the price back up, but each little add-on looks like a small bit more that you might say, "okay, I agreed to this, and that is not much more". And then you're nailed. Jerry Lundegaard sold you the True-Coat.

[–]S7evyn 21 points22 points ago

IIRC, according to Wikipedia, the door in the face is statistically more successful in an experimental environment.

[–]resolutionz 11 points12 points ago

Depends on what you want.

With foot in the door you can keep on pushing for more and since people want to appear as consistent, they keep on allowing you more until it becomes apparent to them that they would have never agreed to what you were requesting for if it had been asked for in the beginning.

With door in the face once the 'smaller' request has been filled the person feels like they have provided you with what they wanted and they don't 'owe' you anything anymore so it only works with one request. Though I suppose you could keep on making smaller and smaller requests if the second doesn't succeed....

[–]N0V0w3ls 6 points7 points ago

They both work for different things.

[–]nuinbot 18 points19 points ago

None. I'm the guy that's holding a shotgun giving you three seconds to get of my lawn.

[–]Im_Not_Pinkie_Pie 39 points40 points ago*

I prefer the face in the door technique myself.

[–]LordNorthbury 4 points5 points ago

Personally I prefer the foot in the face technique.

[–]rabbitlion 46 points47 points ago

That's not how the foot-in-the-door method works. You're talking about the door-in-the-face technique.

[–]Toweleeeie 90 points91 points ago

I always use the foot-in-the-face technique.

[–]rageagainstthelatrin 20 points21 points ago

You never go foot-to-face.

[–]neodiogenes 4 points5 points ago

Boot to the head technique.

[–]awrex 4 points5 points ago

[–]fenrisulfur 8 points9 points ago

Thank you. Now my coworkers are giving me strange looks for giggling like a schoolgirl.

[–]butters877 3 points4 points ago

I have found the ultimate technique for reading funny reddit posts, If you hold your nose shut (like when you sneeze) its a lot easier to control laughter

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points ago

[–]tmc_throwaway 9 points10 points ago*

This is how they push through most 'controversial' legislation.

[–]HandyCore 31 points32 points ago*

Except, that's really not how this works. PIPA and SOPA are two versions of the same bill (one for the house, the other for the senate). If you kill one, you effectively kill the other. If PIPA wishes to pass, then SOPA would have to be revived and the two houses of congress wold have to reconcile each bill with the other.

It is confusing that the same bill has two names, but having two names doesn't mean that it is handled differently from any other legislation. If SOPA is truly dead, then PIPA necessarily is too, because a bill must pass both houses of congress before being signed into law by the president.

Edit: To those wondering why PIPA couldn't just be introduced in the house and pass that way, please see my response to SmallPaul, below.

[–]Smallpaul 16 points17 points ago

Why can PIPA not be introduced in the the house word for word and with the name PIPA?

[–]HandyCore 28 points29 points ago*

That would effectively reset the legislative process and set things back quite a bit. The same could be done for ANY bill that is defeated. There is legitimacy to suggesting that no bill is ever actually defeated, as there is no law against reintroducing reworded/renamed bills after they have been voted down. At that point, we would have to debate what actually qualifies as 'defeated'. The bill in its current form, is defeated.

There is no legislative history, of which I am aware, of legislative entities repeatedly reintroducing bills till they pass. When a bill is defeated once, it is generally not the name, but the content, on which people object and vote down. The content of SOPA was voted down, and the same would happen to any other legislation with the same content.

The only way you could actually permanently defeat any such bills would be with a constitutional amendment, which are notoriously difficult to pass, often taking decades.

Edit: Accidentally a word.

[–]file-exists-p 6 points7 points ago

I think this is known as the "door in the face" technique. You get the door in the face after your made an outrageous proposal, and then you come with the less outrageous one.

[–]njdss4 4 points5 points ago

This. We still need to spread knowledge about this to the masses. Blacking out Reddit may be preaching to the choir, but it will hopefully be the first domino in a long line of websites doing temporary blackouts in support of freedom of the internet.

[–]FFQFZZ 4 points5 points ago

[–]hueypriest[A] 828 points829 points ago

Yes. Senator Reid made it clear in an interview Sunday that Protect IP is still going forward in the Senate. We should be encouraged by recent developments, but this fight is far from over.

[–]lombrejuju 347 points348 points ago*

Begun, this Internet War has.

[–]Lecard 137 points138 points ago

There is no way out of that bill. The internet is walking into a trap. We think we are being lead to safety. What we will get is a massacre. The internet has a strong will but I fear for it. I fear for the survival of Reddit. It will need you before the end, lombrejuju. The people of Reddit will need you. The defenses HAVE to hold.

Lecard... that’s what they used to call me. Three hundred lives of men I’ve lurked this site and now I have no time. With luck, my search will not be in vain. Look to my coming at first light on the fifth day. At dawn, look to the East.

[–]ChaChaBolek 7 points8 points ago

Is it bad that I can't imagine my life without Reddit?

[–]acokanahaf 23 points24 points ago

That was...sniff sniff...beautiful.

[–]Lecard 13 points14 points ago

Hot damn I have a sexy voice when it's recorded!

[–]Coasty 4 points5 points ago

My new tag for you from here on out will be ... Lecard the White

[–]x_x_x_x_x 18 points19 points ago

Exactly! Don't let your guard down, Reddit! The war is not over!

[–]blackstar9000 5 points6 points ago

Nor will it be over when(/if) PIPA flounders. The blackout serves a limited goal, but in the long run it may be necessary to settle on a less exclusively defensive plan.

[–]mindless_philosopher 1 point2 points ago

"But if we fail, then the whole internet, including Reddit, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the Internet and its Web Sites last for a thousand years, men will still say, this was their finest hour."

(with apologies to Sir Winston Churchill)

[–]jakotheshadows 692 points693 points ago

PIPA hasn't been shelved yet, so I say the blackout should still happen. Hell, even if both got shelved I would still say carrying out the blackout would be a good idea. It would just serve to further highlight how dangerous and all-encompassing these types of legislation are. I think that the blackout would raise awareness particularly in people who might not be paying attention to the news as much. For this reason, I think that the blackout would make it that much harder for the government to justify bringing this type of legislature back onto the floor in the near future.

[–]klutch2 90 points91 points ago

I agree completely because most of the public doesn't know about what's going on.

[–]Ed_Tivrusky_IV 106 points107 points ago

I agree as well... but mostly because I have a lot of stuff to do on Wednesday...

[–]amp_it 46 points47 points ago

Wednesday is my only day off this week. When I realized it was the 18th, my only thought was damn it.

[–]Ed_Tivrusky_IV 28 points29 points ago

I used to have Tuesdays off when I played WoW, which is also their maintenance day. I know the feeling!

[–]Prockzed 46 points47 points ago

It's my god damn birthday so don't you even speak.

[–]failsafe0 13 points14 points ago

Yeah but it's not your reddit birthday, so you're not missing anything.

[–]random_potatoes 9 points10 points ago

Your reddit cake day or your birthday IRL? Cake day would definitely suck more.

[–]Prockzed 13 points14 points ago

Says you. I get to have the most boring work day ever on my irl birthday.

[–]RageAgainstTheRobots 4 points5 points ago

I thought the same thing. Well, at least I have my collection of documentaries and stoner movies to make me feel like I'm still on Reddit.

[–]jakotheshadows 8 points9 points ago

Exactly. I think that when an uninformed person suddenly can't access their favorite website, it may serve as the needed motivation to act. At the very least it will greatly raise awareness of the issue. A coworker of mine had no idea what SOPA/PIPA even were when I mentioned the news about SOPA being shelved today...

[–]Colostomy 12 points13 points ago

I still think PIPA is about stopping pigeons.

A campaign fronted by Dick Dastardly.

[–]HiReception 39 points40 points ago

I still think PIPA was the highlight of the Royal Wedding...

[–]ordinarypsycho 13 points14 points ago

No, that's Pippa, Kate Middleton's sister. You're thinking of that witch from Charmed.

[–]smile_e_face 15 points16 points ago

No, that's Piper. You're thinking of the High King of Narnia.

[–]Kaarboer 13 points14 points ago

No, that's Peter. You're thinking of that red-headed girl with long stockings.

[–]Sonorous_Epithet 14 points15 points ago

No, that's Pippi. You're thinking of the small forward that played on the Chicago Bulls.

[–]KristusV 16 points17 points ago

No, that's Pippen. You're thinking of one of the stars of Entourage.

[–]eek_a_shark 13 points14 points ago

No, that's Piven. You're thinking of those things scientists use to aliquot small amounts of liquids.

[–]QuestionableRag 12 points13 points ago

I don't think reddit going down will help the public that much. I'm sure the majority of the public who comes to reddit is still subscribed to the default subreddits(or not even logged in), which gets plastered full of SOPA stuff everyday. I'm sure anyone who comes to reddit already knows about SOPA, unless they've unsubscribed to all the big subreddits in which case I wouldn't consider them the public(but that's just me).

Google and other sites going down can still help, but I don't think reddit will be informing many people about SOPA by going down.

[–]Islandre 7 points8 points ago*

Remember the average visit is 16 minutes, not all redditors are as addicted as those of us you see in the comments. I agree with you that the majority of redditors will already know but some will not and it will likely get people already in the know talking about SOPA PIPA on the day, which can't hurt.

[–]usav3t 3 points4 points ago

I agree completely because most of the public doesn't know about what's going on.

Most of the public does not read reddit either. This blackout is ridiculous. If you want to get "most people" interested in whats going on, blackout Fox news.

[–]Brandaman 3 points4 points ago

Everyone on Reddit knows about SOPA. I don't think a day has passed without SOPA being on the front page. However it should still happen IMO.

[–]frymaster 24 points25 points ago

more importantly, the blackout wasn't a threat ("do what we say or we cut your supply of kitten pictures for the day") - it's a publicity stunt ("this is what the web will be like with these stupid laws") and so is, imo, still valid.

[–]ETL4nubs 7 points8 points ago

If the blackout happens, all my work for this week will be completed.

[–]akbc 5 points6 points ago

if only google and youtube can be roped in too. a mass blackout like that will scare the shit out of us all, and make us take this freedom seriously.

[–]IlfirinVelca 2 points3 points ago

Yea, everyone should still participate.

[–]CheesesOfNazareth 139 points140 points ago

If opposition lets up SOPA will just get slipped in to the next military appropriations bill as an amendment. That's what Congress does routinely because almost no one votes against military appropriations bills.

[–]UGTA 34 points35 points ago

I'm honestly not sure why this isn't higher up. There's almost no way the president will veto an appropriations bill for the military, and if support gets let up, we'll be living under SOPA without even knowing it.

[–]tdov 104 points105 points ago

The blackout absolutely must go on. Halting the blackout because SOPA is probably dead, while PIPA is still going forward, sends a terrible message: that we're not in support of SOPA, but we're perfectly fine with a slight modification of it.

[–]raskolnikov- 169 points170 points ago*

How about you turn your attention to copyright reform? The law ALREADY is draconian. If you want to make the world a better place, focus on solving problems, not just repeating headlines on the current hot button issues.

Here is why copyright is already awful, and why you should be concerned:

When you sue someone for a copyright violation, you are entitled to statutory damages which bear no relation to the harm caused. You can be liable for $150,000 for willfully downloading one song. This makes asserting your rights, like the fair use defense, and actually litigating against the copyright holder, insane. Best to just settle -- you can't afford to lose. This regime gives way too much power to copyright holders. Beyond that, copyrights last too long. Nobody should be entitled to income for 70 years after their death. That hurts the public and it only benefits layabouts and leeching corporations that do nothing other than hold copyrights. Far less restrictive means could sufficiently encourage content production.

So yes, pressure the government on SOPA, but also pressure them on the laws that already exist, and shouldn't.

[–]angery 39 points40 points ago

This is correct. It would extremely difficult to change these laws considering how much money the movie and music industry was will to spend lobbying for more expansive copyright laws.

It is most likely worth the fight, the issue is convincing others that it is. It's sad that the only other response to this comment is a terrible attempt at trolling.

[–]raskolnikov- 11 points12 points ago*

I don't really blame "money in politics" per se, although it's clear that lobbying is what caused these laws. I mean, nobody knows the details of copyright unless you're in the industry or you're a lawyer. Who will a politician listen to, industry professionals who say, "yo, give us these statutory damages and long copyrights, they're really important," or the public, who say, "statutory whats?" Special interests always have a leg up because they really fight for their issue, and they have even more of a leg up when the issue is technical.

The only way to really fight back is to have an educated populace that expresses its concern, or rely on ethical politicians (which, as cynical as you might be, does work sometimes -- there are a lot of consumer protective yet technical laws on the books, including the Securities Acts of '33 and '34, the Sherman Act (or rather the common law that goes along with it), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and on and on...copyright is not one of the places where this has worked, though).

[–]WetBrain 4 points5 points ago

I would also guess that a big hurdle with real IP reform are international treaties (Berne Convention, WIPO Copyright Treaty, etc.). Not to mention that the US has been the driving force behind worldwide copyright reform. We've put pressure on a lot of countries in the form of sanctions or inclusion on our 301 watchlist, so I am sure that suddenly turning course would have some complicated political issues.

[–]el_cheato 158 points159 points ago

They could be lying. They're politicians, it's what they do.

[–]comment_filibuster 17 points18 points ago

I agree, PIPA and ACTA should replace SOPA on the 18th. Remember, ACTA...

[–]PabstyLoudmouth 28 points29 points ago

Shelved means they can bring it back to the table at anytime. Keep fighting folks, it is working, but don't stop now. Maybe my favorite quote will keep you inspired.

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women." -Conan The Barbarian.

[–]shystie1 5 points6 points ago

Yes keep fighting!

"I'll be back" - The Terminator

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" - Howard Beale

"You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?" - Dirty Harry

[–]OpenThirdEye 14 points15 points ago

PIPA is still bopping around the Senate. I prefer to think that SOPA has been "delayed" if nothing else.

It'll rear its ugly head again - I say keep the blackout in place!

[–]mindglitch 50 points51 points ago

*Ctrl+F "SOPA", replace "PIPA"

[–]dfrehil 23 points24 points ago

Ctrl+H would be faster.

[–]huepfburg 24 points25 points ago

Try Alt+F4

[–]poodleface 11 points12 points ago

That was the classic comeback when someone would beg for ops in an IRC channel, which would shortly thereafter be followed by messages such as "squeezeMeMacaroni has left #mrbungle."

Never got old.

[–]PietFriet 9 points10 points ago

Gets them everytime.

[–]JimmerUK 7 points8 points ago

Why? What does it d...

[–]soylent_absinthe 59 points60 points ago

It inserts ellipses apparently.

[–]tidux 19 points20 points ago

:%s/SOPA/PIPA/ is faster still, but we're talking about web pages which you can't edit in a browser, not text documents in an editor.

[–]dick_sammich 31 points32 points ago

I don't know why you're getting down voted

Sent from my Emacs

[–]henry82 43 points44 points ago

Lets just do it anyway, might get some work done :(

[–]Moikee 14 points15 points ago

Nice try, boss.

[–]lanceicarus 7 points8 points ago

PIPA is still out in full force and there's nothing to say SOPA won't ever reemerge, so the fight is never over to keep the Internet free.

[–]Great_Gig_In_The_Sky 8 points9 points ago

PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME GO OUTSIDE

[–]unsensible 22 points23 points ago

This isn't over yet, they want us to think we've won and that we'll forget about it and PIPA. We have to remain steadfast, and continue pressuring them to stop trying to pass this type of legislation.

[–]MusicMissionary 26 points27 points ago

When you got a man by the balls don't let up for a better grip.

[–]HireALLTheThings 12 points13 points ago

If they don't, it's going to make us (and other sites participating) look like we aren't serious. Moreover, PIPA hasn't been shelved yet, so the battle is only half-over, and the war doesn't end until SOPA AND PIPA are both scrapped entirely.

[–]shadowslayer978 7 points8 points ago

These blackouts need to still happen.The world needs to understand the dangers of internet censorship, and a show of force such as an internet blackout is the best way to do it. SOPA/PIPA aren't the first bills aimed at censoring the internet, and they certainly won't be the last. The world needs to see what internet censorship means so that everyone remains vigilant enough to fight these kinds of bills in the future.

[–]random_digital 8 points9 points ago

SOPA down, PIPA next and then I think this momentum should be used towards copyright/patent reform. Don't stop now.

[–]immortalagain 7 points8 points ago

shelved like infinite denention was? the protest must go on

[–]Sevii 8 points9 points ago

The blackout should continue.

[–]Hand-on-Dans-Man 6 points7 points ago

They don't want global, mainstream attention on the contents of the bill, so they've shelved it for now because it was getting too much attention.

That's the exacts reason to go ahead with it. They know if people were aware of it they'd never be able to get it through. And they know Wikipedia and Reddit going dark would make worldwide news.

Once the mass of people know what they're trying to do, it's over. So they're going to do it quietly, like NDAA. When your guard is down and you've no time to mount a defensive. Go on the offensive and force the issiue.

[–]Jaboomaphoo 12 points13 points ago

Protect IP still exists. The blackout moves forward

[–]akpak 4 points5 points ago

Keep the blackout. The fight is NOT over.

[–]deeptime 5 points6 points ago

Shelved does not mean dead. They did the exact same thing with NDAA, before rescheduling a vote!

[–]mileylols 37 points38 points ago

"Can't turn back now, I'm haunted." ~ Taylor Swift

[–]DigitalN 7 points8 points ago

I'm not sure why, but I found it hilarious the first comment on this is a quote from Taylor Swift.

[–]FictitiousForce 1 point2 points ago

Love that song.

[–]banderwocky 7 points8 points ago

It's been shelved. Not killed. Also, PIPA is still there.

[–]epsd101 3 points4 points ago

Yes, definitely - I confirmed this with Reddit GM Erik Martin (hueypriest) this morning.

EDIT: He also confirmed so here.

[–]DjKaiserCharles444 3 points4 points ago

I was going to ask the same but I say do it anyway. People need to know how serious this was and also that way it won't happen in the future.

[–]kyleyorkke 3 points4 points ago

It absolutely should. Shelving legislation is just a way to get it out of the public eye. A lot of environmental (or, I should say, anti-enviornmental) legislation is passed this way. Shelve it. Wait for the public to forget. Pass something very similar to what they were protesting in the first place.

[–]goldenrod 4 points5 points ago

Just because it's shelved does NOT mean it's gone. They'll try again.

[–]Cmrade_Dorian 6 points7 points ago

Just change it to say its protesting both SOPA & PIPA

[–]Raijer 7 points8 points ago

PIPA is the new SOPA

[–]taniquetil 5 points6 points ago

This absolutely must move forward (sorry, working Redditors), because demonstrating that we are willing to stand back and activism because the government is giving us an "only-marginally-less-shitty" offer is not a good idea.

For this to succeed we must be full steam ahead until Congress stops trying to fuck with the internet as we know it.

Normally, I'm not really the activist type, but when Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and eBay (and to some extent Microsoft and Apple) come together and agree that a piece of legislation is bad, I vote that we listen to them.

[–]k9pyro 3 points4 points ago

To parrot the rest so far, it should. Any attempts to control the internet, especially by politicians who have proven they don't understand even the fundamental concepts of the internet industry (not to mention the 'series of tubes' moment), should be resisted. SOPA and PIPA should be removed from consideration, and should be treated as laughing-stock legislation for decades to come.

"Can you believe Congress tried to pass THAT?! hahahaha!"

[–]cryonine 4 points5 points ago

Even if both PIPA and SOPA are shelved, the 18th should still happen across the internet but the general message should be changed. This should have never been about a singular bill having an impact; it should be about the impact tampering with any form of freedom the internet gives. People often forget what they have until they lose it, and honestly this should be a yearly movement.

[–]topapito 4 points5 points ago

SOPA must be eliminated completely. If they can have this kid from England extradited for the same shit, why do they need SOPA?

[–]binksy92 3 points4 points ago

I vote yes

[–]J-TEE 3 points4 points ago

Of Course. PIPA still exists

[–]gusssy 4 points5 points ago

I've got an exam on the 19th, so yeah, go ahead!

[–]L-dubz 3 points4 points ago

It shoud because that is the first day of classes for me.

[–]noagendaproducer 2 points3 points ago

Turns out that SOPA has NOT been killed. Apparently calls have been made to the representatives office and apparently they are going to continue working on the bill in hopes of coming up with something that isn't so bad. So the fight is still on!

[–]Incoherentrant 2 points3 points ago

I think so, even if it was publicly announced that SOPA is a bad bill and will never be passed by everyone that currently endorses it, it is still important to blackout. Here is my reasoning...

Despite us here at Reddit and other sites, knowing about it, literally NO ONE outside know a thing about it. Try it ask around to non internet friendly or redditors. I would argue us average American goes to work, love our families, and only concerns ourselves in the political process when something we interact with is directly threatened.

Because of how most average Americans use the internet, most couldn't be aware of it. Facebook hasn't said anything, CNN and Fox News haven't posted many if any stories on the topic...and they don't say anything about it on the TV or in mainstream papers.

If this gets shelved without a blackout, what will happen is the local papers will put a small blurb on page 37 in the corner of the paper, saying "Bill failed to get required votes. XXX Bills Passes...blahblahrant about other bill." And that will be the end of it. Know one will be any more enlightened on what Congress and Hollywood still want to pass in one form or another in the future. Giving them the opportunity to readdress how they need to get this bill passed. Probably by including provisions slowly through other widely accepted bills, until eventually all the requirements are in place to enforce what and how they want on the internet.

The Blackout needs to be big, and coordinated. It needs people talking about what is going on. It needs people to understand this is a big issue, so when you bring it up, people aren't staring blankly at you wondering what the hell you are talking about. The Blackout needs to mention how important it is to care and discuss this regardless what is said by our Congressmen and Congresswomen.

[–]acangiano 4 points5 points ago

[–]viticuss 8 points9 points ago

If redditors actually read things, we would know that both PIPA and SOPA are dead in the water.

[–]rdeluca 4 points5 points ago

Can't read the link, only get "log in" but I haven't heard that anywhere...

[–]rasolne 15 points16 points ago

Here you go:

White House Says It Opposes Parts of Two Antipiracy Bills

By EDWARD WYATT

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Saturday that it strongly opposed central elements of two Congressional efforts to enforce copyrights on the Internet, all but killing the current versions of legislation that has divided both political parties and pitted Hollywood against Silicon Valley.

The comments by the administration’s chief technology officials, posted on a White House blog Saturday, came as growing opposition to the legislation had already led sponsors of the bills to reconsider a measure that would force Internet service providers to block access to Web sites that offer or link to copyrighted material.

“Let us be clear,” the White House statement said, “online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs.”

However, it added, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

The bills currently under consideration in Congress were intended to combat the theft of copyrighted materials by preventing American search engines like Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites that allow for the distribution of stolen materials. They would cut off payment processors like PayPal that handle transactions.

The bills would also allow private citizens and companies to sue to stop what they believed to be theft of protected content. Those and other provisions set off fierce opposition among Internet companies, technology investors and free speech advocates, who said the bills would stifle online innovation, violate the First Amendment and even compromise national security by undermining the integrity of the Internet’s naming system.

Though the Obama administration called for legislation this year that would give prosecutors and owners of intellectual property new abilities to deter overseas piracy, it also embraced the idea of “voluntary measures and best practices” to reduce piracy.

Whether Congress can produce a compromise is uncertain, particularly in the House of Representatives, where Republicans have fought bitterly over the antipiracy legislation and party leaders, who control the chamber, are loath to offer further opportunities for intraparty battles.

The Motion Picture Association of America, the Hollywood lobbying group that has been most visible in its support for the current bills, said in a statement on Saturday that it welcomed the administration’s call for antipiracy legislation. But, the trade group added, “meaningful legislation must include measured and reasonable remedies that include ad brokers, payment processors and search engines.”

Hollywood and the music industry have broad political support for their efforts, and the Chamber of Commerce and labor organizations have pushed for the legislation. But they often find themselves facing off against the libertarian views of leaders in the technology industry.

Opponents of the House bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and the Senate bill, the Protect IP Act, have focused most of their attention on the proposed blocking by Internet service providers of Web sites that offer access to pirated material.

In December, a group of influential technology figures, including founders of Twitter, Google and YouTube, published an open letter to lawmakers saying that the legislation would enable Internet regulation and censorship on par with the government regulation in China and Iran.

That argument struck a chord with the Obama administration, which through the State Department and other channels has been pushing other countries to loosen restrictions on Internet access.

In its statement Saturday, the White House said any proposed legislation “must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet.” Parts of the bills that provide for filtering or blocking through the Domain Name System — the Internet’s address book — could drive users to unreliable routes through and around the blocked sites, the White House said. That would “pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online.”

The statement did not threaten a presidential veto, but it made plain what types of piracy enforcement measures the White House would not accept.

The statement was attributed to Victoria Espinel, the intellectual property enforcement coordinator at the Office of Management and Budget; Aneesh Chopra, the administration’s chief technology officer; and Howard Schmidt, a cybersecurity coordinator for the national security staff.

Jenna Wortham contributed reporting from New York.

[–]yourdadsbff 27 points28 points ago

Well, he also had "serious reservations" about NDAA, but that didn't stop him from signing it.

[–]leafeator 6 points7 points ago

I was wondering the same thing. I support still going with a blackout to stir the media pot and spread the word more about this whole event.

[–]vsync 5 points6 points ago

Has PIPA been shelved yet?

Have all the legislators that supported either of these been run out of office yet?

[–]chunchuck2000 4 points5 points ago

short answer : yes

long answer : fuck yes

[–]BiGirl1 3 points4 points ago

Dont fall for this! They are not gonna just shelf this!

[–]emerald232 3 points4 points ago

They put it on the shelf and then bring it back when everyone is preoccupied with something else ... like war with Iran or something of that nature and then pass it. Don't give up the fight now. This is just the first quarter!

[–]vivvav 5 points6 points ago

SOPA's been shelved? That mean postponed again?

[–]cullen9 20 points21 points ago

Postponed till we aren't paying attention and can be rushed through.

[–]GhostedAccount 9 points10 points ago

SOPA is not shelved, it has only been rescheduled to a TBD future date.

[–]akusu 22 points23 points ago

That's the definition of shelved. "Shelved" is often a synonym for "dead" though.

[–]JTIEMO 2 points3 points ago

We didn't stop boycotting godaddy when they "dropped" their support for SOPA. We shouldn't stop fighting SOPA and the idea behind it just because it was shelved.

[–]MedeaDemonblood 2 points3 points ago

Still do the blackout for PIPA, ACTA and NDAA.

[–]jumpyspinnything 2 points3 points ago

Who's Pipa? She sounds hot!

[–]Goggles2114 2 points3 points ago

The thret exists, no matter how slim. Let's pull the plug on the web. Show the hill rats what happens if they try anything like this again.

No not throw a hissy fit. I mean pull the plug and show the Joe Average voters that haven't been in the loop due to it getting no TV coverage what will happen.

[–]viwrastupr 2 points3 points ago

They still should.

With public ignorance on their side it is only a matter of time before a law like this gets pushed through. What about the next republican administration? Do you think they'll be nearly this kind? And shelved is hardly forgotten. They can wait till the public is distracted by something else and push it through. Its not like it was even partisan in the first place. They can tack it on to some other bill, rename it something even more opposite to what it does, make it a hollywood fight, tell seniors that the internet is stealing, do one of a thousand things to get support.

As an earlier reddit post pointed out. It is no longer ok for these old bastards to not know how the internet works. We need to show them and the public at large the consequences of their actions, and inspire other sites to do the same.

[–]shewhisperedtome 2 points3 points ago

the battle is won but the war continues...stay vigilant!

[–]theantirobot 2 points3 points ago

Let it be an Internet holiday for the purpose of encouraging civic engagement.

[–]Brodecahedron 2 points3 points ago

Still should happen.

[–]pompousjohn 0 points1 point ago

Not only that but we also need to remove the people who tried to remove our freedom from office. Let's not forget who's on their way out of office.

[–]knut01 2 points3 points ago

DON'T LET THIS DROP, REDDITORS!