I doubt he really cares either way, idk I just get the feeling he is saying that for positive attention, it seems bit late to announce where you stand when others are already participating in boycotting the legislation.
yay... FB late to the party, and taking a very reserved/somber position over it. Typical.
A FB blackout would have been HUGE in terms of anti-SOPA push. but no, Zuckerberg didn't want to lose some of the sponsors to whom he sells public information. So, you have this low-moderate statement and that is it.
I think Zuckerberg is the one who deserves the middle fingers mentioned in the beginning of the article.
[citation][nom]anonymous32111[/nom]I doubt he really cares either way, idk I just get the feeling he is saying that for positive attention, it seems bit late to announce where you stand when others are already participating in boycotting the legislation.[/citation]
I think the only reason he made a stance is because everyone else keeps buzzing about it and wanted Facebook to take a stance on the issue.
So just because Zuckerberg didn't blackout Facebook, his well constructed and pretty strong stance against it is considered "mediocre" to the author of this article? Somebody has a biased opinion of Facebook and the founder. I'm not fond of the guy either, but really? Oh well, Tom's Hardware authors aren't exactly notorious for being neutral anyway.
Actually Facebook took their stance long before the majority of the public even knew what SOPA/PIPA was. And he also did the right thing by not taking down facebook. Why on earth would you want to censor over 500 million users, so they can express their concern and negativity towards the bill. Remember last year when the Egyptian Government ordered Facebook to be taken down so the government could launch its Koo? Piss off a few people and know one hears, make a 100 million facebook users pissed beyond belief, someone notices.
meh, if facebook blacks out, they lose advertising, if they dont and it passes, they are out of business, not because we stop using it, but because they cant keep facebook the same and not lose most of their users.
For being a techie I'm quite surprised Mark doesn't follow tech conventions and capitalize Internet when referring to "the Web". -Sorry, it's just the geek in me. Guess I just naturally understand the technical distinction between the Internet and an internet.
It should be a non-issue. Current copyright laws protect copywritten materials already.
SOPA just expands the commie powers of the ruling class giving them the authority to shut down or censor anything they want to without just cause. Obama's already begun the process. Anyone in the press who speaks out directly against him loses their job.
As the world becomes increasingly indebted to the Chinese, we will see the commie philosophy begin to pervade of our lives. This all in the name of short-term profits for executives.
[citation][nom]chumly[/nom]Stealing movies is wrong, but stealing everyone's information is ok.[/citation]Stealing movies is wrong, but stealing a concept for a brand new social network 8 years ago was ok.
Facebook didn't need to blackout like wiki did but they should have done something rather than nothing. Make it known what SOPA/PIPA will do to our internet of which Facebook is a huge part of (albeit one I don't use). Facebook should have gotten info moving, switch some of the ads and crap with anti-SOPA/PIPA especially considering if either bill gets passed Facebook could be in trouble.
I'm just saying that Facebook doesn't seem to be active enough to stop something that could destroy it.