Quote:
Originally Posted by elcreative
You can keep your pity to yourself as you seem more deserving of it being unable to respond to the relevance of distinguishing the source of the blocking action... and censorship per se is not necessarily a fault in itself when it can be an action to discourage illegal activity... you may disagree with the actions, being stopped, being considered illegal and there is a forum for dealing with such things in this country now. Anyone can start a petition for something to be debated in Parliament and it only requires 100,000 signees for it to be considered, not forgetting direct action by engaging with elected representatives but the action taken was a legal action as a result of the equally legal actions of a court which was also legally setup...
Would you ride on such a high horse if the site being blocked was promoting terrorism or snuff films yet blocking them is also censorship by any definition of the word... some things that may be offensive, when expanded to more general areas, are generally regarded as part of the social contract to promote a civilised society by interfering with things that are against the accepted rules that most people live by... getting so irate about a site that (by its very name) promotes activities that are not legal, is a poor choice of target... when we start blocking sites without any legal action for no good reason then you are more likely to gather general support from a substantial part of the population. |
Apparently there was legal action and the site is being blocked for good reason. Will this action reduce piracy? Most probably not. But it does make it more difficult for the pirates to make money and it will make others think twice. It is just like police action against petty theft -- it is never "worth" it. But if society takes no action, then the "bad guys" can just act with impunity.
Are any legitimate users being hurt? Not really, they have plenty of other options. This really only affects the site owners.