Topic: Wikipedia requests your support (Read 541 times)

No-one can force you to be something you're not. And I agree (and reiterate): at least you're honest (about yourself at least)

Talking about me is very boring, but since you ask... Yes, I do respect myself because I don't lie to myself, I don't consider myself or my goals to be better than someone else's, I don't consider that fighting is better than adapting and know enough about human nature to live how I want to live.

I do have the respect of the people I care about, and as far as others are concerned, I frankly don't care much. I don't need new friends, I don't need to belong to a group nor a cause and even if I don't care I do probably have the respect of some people for being clear to myself and others.

See... boring.

Well, if you can still maintain self-respect with that attitude, then you're definitely choosing honestly. Will anyone else respect you? How valuable will that respect be?

I am in Bitcoin for selfish reasons have no doubt, as opposed to you and most people here who are here for charity

No that is just a Whois Guard, it always shows that to many sites.
Real IP is hidden between CloudFlares reverse proxy so there is no easy way that I know of to tell where it comes from.


Mesh network is a anti-censorship solution on a physical layer, but there are already solutions like Tor that operate on a network layer.

I agree. But physical power has it's limits, both logistically and politically. And decentralised networks are the kind of bottom-up technological organisation that can defeat those who would use force against you.

If you don't find that convincing, what are you doing here? Don't you understand that Bitcoin threatens the status quo in the most fundamental way? Banks will likely lobby to turn the internet into something much less permissive than it is even today (the case for doing so mounts up in the media every day). Either you're in Bitcoin for selfish reasons, or you want to use it to get true democracy. The former get out while they can, the latter will fight.

Someone needs to be negative here: You can't grant your own right unless you wield physical power. Physical power as today requires an organization that by default will damage your rights. Not working.

This is the real solution.

If anyone's learned anything since Bitcoin began and all the events that followed, it should be this: don't ask powerful or influential people to protect your rights, they don't care about you. You are the best person to turn to, you actually care about what happens to you.

If we work together, like what happened with the popularisation of Bitcoin, we can protect our own rights without needing authorities to do it, and our rights will be far stronger as a result. The free and open internet will eventually end, the more we try to assert our own authority to protect our rights using decentralised tech on today's corporate internet. A true internet, provided by meshnet tech will be our only way to assert our rights when it happens.

We need to take our rights for ourselves instead of waiting for someone else to give them to us. When it comes to a worldwide meshnet, the only possible way is if we work together.

True, I am not very precise. Most people understand that I am referring to the UE and that some European countries and territories are not included.

As for the Brexit, I think we have opposed views, but I find political discussion a bit boring and useless so I am not getting into it. Let´s say that I am glad that you consider the UK part of Europe.

There is a new vote in September I believe, and it was defeated only by a not so large margin.

Fair question. A few others....Would this legislation force the world to comply just because Europe says so? Would Europe ban the non-compliant sites? Would this be the start of pure censorship? Would this legislation make Europe less competitive in the IT scene?

Well, it looks like we’ve been given a break today: EUs’ Copyright Directive has been rejected today by 318 votes to 278, with 31 abstentions. Now the proposal will have to go back a step and be redesigned over the next few months. A relief for now, and I figure they will have to bring it all down a notch for the next round.

See The EU's dodgy Article 13 copyright directive has been rejected.
Note: The above article seems to have an Alt of @Jet Cash taking part.

What they are trying to do is to stop uncensored reporting, and to control the growth of populism. It won't work, as there are alternatives being created. I believe that there is even a mesh network to be used as an alternative to the current Internet.

Checking the Whois, it seems to be hosted in Panama...

Well, that is what I tried to get rolling into discussion in a post a few days ago. I was curious as to whether the regulation could affect Bitcointalk somehow. My initial thought was a determined “no implications”, precisely because it the site is hosted in Panama. The thread is now lost on page a billionth on the Off-Topic section with no activity, so I basically forgot about it (not the subject itself though) until Paxmao brought in back to my mind with his OP based on the same fundamental root.
Personally, I do not think it will affect Bitcointalk directly, but sometimes laws and regulations have a copycat (¿plagiarized?) effect, and spread to some extent with ease to other countries.

This new European copyright law could (we have yet to see the fine print) however affect some habits in Europe noticeable, and it could have implications businesswise, which I’m not sure are calibrated enough yet. Who is going to create An information based business in Europe information as a first option, if stronger restrictions on content are to be enforced ? Might as well set the base elsewhere right?


I doubt it. They would have to block a ton of sites. I figure it would be more in the line of large economic fines, if those companies cannot prove they are fighting against plagiarism (those that they can act upon).
For example, local language Wikipedia sites in Europe are deeply worried as stated by the OP, and have gone on to protesting as can be seen here:
Wikipedia is blacked out across Europe in protest against laws that could change the internet forever. By the way, Reddit is also under the same umbrella, the same as Facebook, Google, etc. Many of these have European sites (I guess they have to by some sort of regulation and business targets).
 
The operational idea is to have information/forum related sites enforce the use of anti-plagiarism engines, similar to how Youtube was encouraged to do. Of course, Youtube seems to do a relatively good job on movies and TV shows, but not on personal content that can be plagiarized from the next with slight changes, and go undetected. The additional problem is that this kind of engine, being as effective as it may, is very expensive to implement, and could create a set of elite companies that can afford to implement and control their own engine, whilst other would have to hire a third-party service. That at least what is the talk right now.

That is the debate. There are bags of indetermination now as the fine print is not spelled out, so we do now know today what the full implications may be. Nevertheless, the stepping stones being laid out by Europe are not leading to a pleasant sunny side resort at the end of the path.

I figure they would try to pursue corporations rather than individual citizens, as the former is way easier than the latter.

Please don't refer to the EU as Europe. The EU is a bankrupt super-state that is on the verge of disintegrating, Europe is a geographic description that includes a number of countries such as Russia, and shortly the UK, that are not part of its parasitical practices.

The best way to handle this problem is to block site access to all EU designated countries, and allow them to put pressure on the dying bureaucracy to stop them trying to suppress the details of their death throes.

I have one newbie doubt about this subject.

Is bitcointalk server hosted in Europe? Can't it be hosted somewhere else?

If it's not hosted in Europe, why should we care about this regulation?
Europe would block bitcointalk or Wikipedia from being accessed, just like China do to Google?

I think thats too authoritarian for such political correct continent.

What are the real implications of this regulation? How far can governments and states regulate the internet ?

It is indeed. Imagine if that were to be applied here on Bitcointalk... people would no longer be able to be exempted from plagiarism accusations since the justification by means of a link may cause even more trouble.

Then cases like the one published today on Meta ( vulnerability of the forum. slander in plagiarism ) could boost in search for economical compensation or simply harming the forum.
Let’s hope someone puts some sense into the matter. At least there are 861K citizens against it on change.org, that could help quite a bit (8k more in just over an hour and a half).

It is just ridiculous to avoid "links", is like killing the internet. Thanks for the link... now that you can still have them I mean 

Just last week I created a related thread ( Could Europe’s new copyright directives affect Bitcointalk ? ), focusing on the new law that is being brewed up in Europe on Copyright, and it’s potential effect on Bitcointalk.
The effect on the law, while applying to Europe, may eventually have a ripple effect on other countries and could become a trend change in regulations, even if it is just to prevent conflicts with European laws on Copyright in platforms that are of an international nature.

The laws, as I describe in the post above referenced, are still being processed, but already have the clearance of the European Parliament’s Legal Commission, and could be set in motion within the next natural year, pending parliamentary fine-tuning and voting.

The problem affects many areas, and to highlight the main concerns, I’ll summarize briefly the main concerns to complement paxmao’s OP:

Article 11: Protection of press publications concerning digital uses.
In short, including a link to an article or a quoted extract of copyrighted text could be pursued if no copyright authorization is provided (that would work great here when we require this to avoid plagiarism…)

Article 13: Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users.
Platforms that offer services in the area of information societies are required to apply filters to content in order to avoiding the publishing of text, images and videos that have copyright protection.

Adding those who together, most memes (Wall Observer alikes tremble) would have to be deleted by the platforms automatically, and forget referencing copyright text if you don’t want to pay royalties. Wikipedia is therefore one of the exponential cases of such nature that could well be deeply affected by the change of regulation.

There’s a signatory petition in Change.org to stop these rules from being enforced (see https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition). The number of people signing the petition is growing at true lightning-speed, being 584K signatories less than a week ago and having scaled up to 853K as the counter states of now.

Note: I made a slip of judgement by placing a post on the subject in off-topic, not being sure where to place it, but thinking that the matter could be of relevance due to its potential implications. Bad choice of placement I’d say, since it didn’t get a conversation going at all (neither did the topic move a key on anyone’s keyboard in my local board…).

Sorry I did not bother to read the whole thing since I am not a fan of Wikipedia however...

Yeah you do, another example agenda from centralized authorities. This is how they start interfering and then control everyone using their power tip. I might be wrong for this entire Wikipedia stuffs since I have not read the whole thing.