No, he didn’t. The administration issued a statement of its concerns that might be taken to give that impression without actually committing to anything.
Thanks for the clarification Evil. I’ve been digging down to the roots of this conflict, and you’ve been a big help…
“Will not support” is not a commitment to veto.
Oh, that’s good. That differs from a news report I read early this morning which specifically mentioned he hadn’t promised to veto the PROTECT IP Act.
The wording feels a little weasely but I’m going to trust he means what he says and will oppose both.
This part is sort of scary because I’m imagining supporters of these bills will say they won’t do that. It’d have been nice for him to specifically address these bills.
Of course, theoretically, the bills only censor unlawful activity (by, of course, rendering certain types of activity, like linking to other websites, unlawful.)
I think online piracy is, at most, only slightly harmful to our economy, although I oppose it too.
So, yeah, a little iffy on the specific working but that does put my mind somewhat at ease.
I believe it has only gone dark for people accessing it from the good ol’ USA.
Nope. The English-language Wikipedia was blocked globally (the majority of us voted for a global block rather than a U.S.-only block.) Personally I considered it appropriate because of the likely global effects of this legislation (foreigners can’t vote on it, of course, but they can alert any friends in the U.S.) and because the other Wikipedias were unaffected. And we can all survive without it for just one day.
But they did make it easy to get around the block, so it’s probably just not affecting them because of NoScript or having Javascript disabled.
Then I refer you back to my other point, which is that Obama will be perfectly happy to take an apparently principled stand against the most unpopular piece of legislation of his term.
Of all the versions of Google’s logo, I especially like todays.
Aside: I find it extremely disturbing that any one organization (whether Wikipedia or the NRA or the DAR) can ultimately block legislation (regardless of the value of the legislation.) I don’t like the idea of Congress being held hostage by any one specific special interest group; although, sadly, it seems to happen all the time.
“Held hostage”? Really? It’s wiki-fucking-pedia, not the launch codes to the missile silos. The damn thing could vanish from the face of the earth tomorrow, and the earth would continue to revolve around the sun. It might take a little longer to find out who guest starred in episode 19 of some obscure television show, but otherwise, so what?
(bolding mine)
Ah, c’mon now Oakminster, [del]Whatipedia[/del] Wikipedia is a little more useful than that. 
I don’t mean to start a debate in here, but how is this different from any other protest, whether in DC, or anywhere else, including cyberspace?
Isn’t that what democracy is all about? How else are the people supposed to have a voice? It’s Google’s, Wikipedia’s, or even LOLcats prerogative to participate in whatever way they so choose.
Congress just took a huge misstep under their own shortsightedness, perhaps even ignorance, while under the thumb of huge media lobbyists, with pockets the size of Justin Bieber’s fan base, and an ever present waging finger. This would’ve done squat to stop piracy.
They almost broke the internet, and all of its series of interconnected tubes.
He said “blocked by one specific organization”. If such a trivial organization as Wikipedia (sorry, but it IS a trivial organization) can all by itself do this, the human race is doomed.
Trivial? Wikipedia has 20 million articles, 100,000 editors and it’s the sixth most popular website in the world.
And if it went down forever, no one would notice after a while. What do you think people did before it existed? Watch paint dry?
It wasn’t just Wikipedia. Other sites joined in, and other opponents of the bills were very active in getting the word out there.
I know that, and I presume Dex does as well. I didn’t think that was the main point however. I could be wrong though.
What do you think people did before the Internet existed?
They can’t block legislation. All they can do is publicize the issue and promote their perspective, just like any other protest. Sure, they have visibility, but they don’t have a lock on Congress.
How could it not be? Someone who was informed would realize that it was other companies that almost forced this law to be passed, and that it was only because the banding together of several smaller organizations, backed by practically the entire Internet, that we’ve fought off something that would have broken it. This is a victory for anyone who doesn’t want a big corporation controlling the legislature.
His complaint sounds very much like one I’ve heard from the ads by the other side. And people who believe those are not informed at all.
SOPA and PIPA both started from RIAA and MPAA trying to get legislation passed and passed quickly. Congress was stacked in their favor, with only Google invited for the opposition, and Google repeatedly tarred as being pro-piracy so that they wouldn’t even be listened to.
Plus, there’s the fact that Wikipedia is not an organization, but a community. They put the entire thing up for a vote, and a blackout won. That’s democracy in action. Anyone who tries to create anti-corporate feelings towards Wikipedia is clearly just trying to hide the fact that they are the ones who deserve said anti-corporate feelings.