Reblogging SFB’s reblog of me, because T U M B L C E P T I O N Also: Seeking to protect a “line between information source and activism” presupposes that there is such a thing as objective reporting. I do not believe there is: Objectivity is impossible, as human beings are inherently subjective—honesty and transparency are as close as anyone can get. Given that, I don’t find a bit of so-called “activism” irresponsible. The whole point is to show the population at large what a world with a censored Internet would look like. It’s basically a “starve the beast” tactic, and reporting on the blackout—when you’re as popular as something like SFB, at least—strikes me as more like giving the beast a tiny taste of what it isn’t getting, which means it’s both participatory and contradictory. It’s like an amuse-bouche of protest. This humble blog is nowhere near popular enough to register any change on the meter (except in the Netherlands, because they are handsome and intelligent), so I plan to continue shouting into the void tomorrow. I will, however, post only SOPA/PIPA or blackout related things. (With Reddit and BoingBoing down, I’ll have to do something with all that extra free time.) shortformblog: awesomebrainpowers: Not to trivialize an incredibly important issue, but I foresee an off-the-charts spike in office productivity tomorrow. Sadly, the websites that track that kind of thing will have gone dark, so no-one will ever know. tpmmedia: A lot of major websites are “going dark” on January 18 in protest over the internet bill SOPA, and this timeline shows you how the campaign has ramped up in the last week. Google is even planning a special doodle about SOPA tomorrow. (via TPM) We’re on the fence about going dark. We’d rather cover the phenomenon and inform people about it than disappear entirely. I asked inothernews about this, and his thought was this: “I think that if it affects us directly in our ability to deliver information to our audiences, then we have no choice but to participate.” However, to us, it seems like it breaks the line between information source and activism; we’d rather tell people about the activists than play that role ourselves. What do you all think? — Ernie @ SFB
Pop-upView Separately

Reblogging SFB’s reblog of me, because T U M B L C E P T I O N

Also:

  1. Seeking to protect a “line between information source and activism” presupposes that there is such a thing as objective reporting. I do not believe there is: Objectivity is impossible, as human beings are inherently subjective—honesty and transparency are as close as anyone can get. Given that, I don’t find a bit of so-called “activism” irresponsible.
  2. The whole point is to show the population at large what a world with a censored Internet would look like. It’s basically a “starve the beast” tactic, and reporting on the blackout—when you’re as popular as something like SFB, at least—strikes me as more like giving the beast a tiny taste of what it isn’t getting, which means it’s both participatory and contradictory. It’s like an amuse-bouche of protest.
  3. This humble blog is nowhere near popular enough to register any change on the meter (except in the Netherlands, because they are handsome and intelligent), so I plan to continue shouting into the void tomorrow. I will, however, post only SOPA/PIPA or blackout related things. (With Reddit and BoingBoing down, I’ll have to do something with all that extra free time.)

shortformblog:

awesomebrainpowers:

Not to trivialize an incredibly important issue, but I foresee an off-the-charts spike in office productivity tomorrow. Sadly, the websites that track that kind of thing will have gone dark, so no-one will ever know.

tpmmedia:

A lot of major websites are “going dark” on January 18 in protest over the internet bill SOPA, and this timeline shows you how the campaign has ramped up in the last week. Google is even planning a special doodle about SOPA tomorrow. (via TPM)

We’re on the fence about going dark. We’d rather cover the phenomenon and inform people about it than disappear entirely. I asked inothernews about this, and his thought was this: “I think that if it affects us directly in our ability to deliver information to our audiences, then we have no choice but to participate.” However, to us, it seems like it breaks the line between information source and activism; we’d rather tell people about the activists than play that role ourselves. What do you all think? — Ernie @ SFB

(via shortformblog)

Source: livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com

863 Notes/ Hide

  1. cheap-curtains-uk reblogged this from awesomebrainpowers
  2. boxing--equipment reblogged this from awesomebrainpowers
  3. bodybuilding--supplements reblogged this from awesomebrainpowers
  4. gretal-griffin reblogged this from sinergiasincontrol
  5. healthnewsbytehost reblogged this from awesomebrainpowers
  6. brittany-elliott reblogged this from awesomebrainpowers
  7. cityaddict reblogged this from shortformblog
  8. ajilivizion reblogged this from ilovecharts
  9. phabel reblogged this from seabomb
  10. pod313 reblogged this from shortformblog
  11. leftturnsignal reblogged this from ilovecharts
  12. shadedsneakers reblogged this from discoverynews
  13. mysticeden reblogged this from medusacanibal
  14. amyroti reblogged this from metromayela
  15. shutyourmouthandlistenclosley reblogged this from ilovecharts
  16. mooooniez reblogged this from discoverynews
  17. kevinspeedostakata reblogged this from ilovecharts
  18. businessdna reblogged this from pstonier
  19. mrbroregard reblogged this from ilovecharts
  20. arcane-laser-hens reblogged this from ilovecharts
  21. abcatie reblogged this from ilovecharts
  22. lyddlesthekiddles reblogged this from ilovecharts
  23. cleopookie reblogged this from voldymore
  24. piros reblogged this from ftrc
  25. experimentallullaby reblogged this from ilovecharts