It gives the government the right to shut down websites like Funnyjunk, 4chan, and Piratebay because the users may be "evil", and everything on the internet will no longer become private. This means that google may have to give up search records and emails to the government, and if it is used in a court of law, regardless if it belonged to an innocent or not, it becomes public access.

The government will also be likely to enforce STRICT punishment on things like cyberbullying, sending sexual messages, minors going on 18+ sites, etc.
This also would likely be the end of all torrenting.

Its weird how american companies do not understand that torrenting/pirating is boosting their buisness. So many games/movies/songs would not be bought because because people couldn't check it out first.

Yes and no. I buy all of my games that I like, and some of the old games I want I torrent to my computer. I'm quite sure that bands make much less money now, because nobody actually buys CD's anymore. That's why concert tickets are $100+.

To answer your question: Songs, maybe. Movies, probably not. Games, I think so.

Movies definitively, a huge amount of people would rather own discs to show of they can afford it, so they buy the collection sets. Some people buy movies online as well after someone who torrents shows it off.

Songs also definitively, you torrent the song, you go to 5 friends and say "Yo listen to this awesomeness" they go buy it because its awesome and happen to not torrent (this is an example). If nobody torrent-ed that's 5 sales less.

Video games are pretty self explanatory, demo's are far and few between these days and the few that are out hardly ever show the real deal so gamer's will download to see if they like it and buy it when they do like it.

This doesnt normally happen though normally they don't pay at all even if they know they'll like it

But I don't think they would shut down those sites because there would be huge complaints just because of the principal of it, they have no motive to anyway. It's fine if they punish for those things anyway apart from the minors thing which I don't think they will focus on as the system now where they only care officially is fine. Does it matter that much if an email becomes public access because they only want it for evidence which could be important. I'm not actually sure what toe renting is....

Don't thumb this guy down, he just wants to learn about our opinions.

As long as you don't do anything illegal you'll be fine and why would you care if they see what you go on, its not like they know you personally. They won't just make stuff illegal for the hell of it anyway

Never trust your government once they get control over the internet they will censor more and more until only companies are left.

Why exactly would the do this?

I'm just saying that once a law is created it will get only worse (In most cases IMO)

Well in recent times governments have been the best ever with people as wealthy as ever and with basically all civil liberties

They should really just work together......
And to be honest people take for granted that the government protects them and treats them well (unlike china and others)

Sorry bud, it doesn't work like that. Honest people do treat the government well, but not everyone in the government is honest. People will do anything to get elected into office. Private companies will "donate" to the politicians to make sure that they have a word.

You are too trusting in our government.

Extreme example. Walking for longer than 5 miles a week is now illegal. Every step is calculated by a pedometer that you are required to wear at all times. You are taxed for each step a thousandth of a cent. It is illegal to run.

Just don't do anything illegal and you'll be fine.

They make laws based on who pays them the most, not on what's just or good for society.

If they only cared about money (which the don't) they would have a much lower minimal wage and wouldn't get involved in expensive but important military matter such as Libya. Although yh they favour companies that is only to keep the country and it's people wealthy.

The only reason they did that was because of the rampant outcry of the people. We had to shout, scream, yell, and cry to get that into law. It was the exact same thing with Child-labor laws, Equal pay for women(Which is being attacked again right now), voting rights for African-Americans. We even had to go on the offence for something as simple as the right to ask for a raise without risk of being fired!

Governments only look out for the average person if they force them. If let unchained, they will only do what is needed to gain even more power until it's a dictatorship. Every government has done it if gone unchecked.

The Romans did it without being forced into it

I think you have the wrong idea about what Rome was like. They call it the "First Republic", but it was really oligarchy wrapped in a vote. There were some very strong ideas that we took from their model, but that does not mean that Rome was an Ancient model of the US. There is a channel on Youtube called Crash Course where the Historian part talks about Ancient Rome. It's very enlightening.

What's an oligarchy?

Rule of the Rich pretty much. It has some aspects of a Monarchy because those in the wealthy class passed their money, influence, and power to their children. It was the select few who were born into money that created all the rules and had all the power. They tended to be unified by a ruling man of military prowess as Emperor or something similar.

Rome was one such empire. It just gave the men who were born there not as slaves a vote on very simple things like a new bathhouse or a "New" military figure-head.

Perhaps, but it was also well known for it's imperialism, defined by it's constantly growing military and expansionism. This had a part in its eventual collapse. The ire of the citizens had a huge impact on the societies under Roman rule leading to the occasional riots.

Most were content though. It had a relatively stable economy and they were very technologically advanced for their era. It's kinda sad how we humans will be content with even tyranny if the goodies are good enough.

Thats all they knew though, murder was quite commonplace back then so fighting for power made sense and any rich societies were imperialist as this was another way to expand wealth and power

Perhaps, but we are in the 21st century. This is the Era of Knowledge. We have no excuse for sticking with these failed ideals simply because they're traditional. We have the ability to visit other planets within months, when just 200 years ago, it took months to move from one side of the US to the other. Old ideals are fine if they work, but if they do not work, then they do not work, regardless of how old they are.

If we actually work on making our people intelligent, well-thought, knowledgeable people, then our government, which is made up of those people, are much more likely to be just. Just having knowledge of science, math, history, and language makes us better people on average.

We are just now, in our lifetimes, able to see the birth of entire stars, nearly witness the beginnings of our very universe, and understand the complexity of our own DNA. Imagine a society where every man, woman, and child regardless of race, ethnicity, orientation, or age has the knowledge that would have been called magic just a few centuries ago.

Strip our government of the ability to attain due to greed, and make it where the only way to gain is through honesty, intelligence, and logic. We will then see a government worth fighting for.

I take all sciences so am surrounded by people with that knowledge and they are arrogant, shallow, bigoted, lack empathy, only really value social status, lazy, sexist or only think about sex and drugs. I would much prefer a farm worker who might be honest, humble and hardworking or a sportsman who could have leadership abilities and realise the importance of a team and know no one should be overlooked and everyone is an individual who should be given a chance.

Are they arrogant, or are you perceiving them as such? I am not doubting your experience, but that does not speak for all of those in science. Those in science know what they know, and will never say they know more than that. They will of course, have their own bias in what they know, but that is not arrogance. It is the result of countless studies confirming the hypothesis.

I would much rather a person who knows how to think logically without letting feelings blind them, than a person with utter conviction, but is wrong. The role of government is not to give support to the emotions of the masses. Its job is to keep things safe, sane, and maintained. To keep laws, be just, and know their power enough to use it safely without being corrupt.

I do not need those who believe that the are ordained by some higher power or the like telling me what is just or unjust. I need those who can look at a law or proposal, examine it, and make their judgments on it without blind emotions.

In charge yes but as a general populace no, and yes it's definitely arrogance they act as though they are perfect and don't even give recognicition to those socially lower (not me btw, I'm not just bitter) you need people with passion though, it sounds like you just want a supercomputer in charge. If someone lets no emotion interfere and tries to use only logic he will still have biases but won't be as easy to persuade so will just end up being stubborn

Not exactly. And let me assure you that no true scientist believes that he or she knows everything or are perfect. Knowing more tends to make one more humble, not less. But of course, the way in which one is educated has an impact as well.

Please do not let your past experiences with the wrong people influence the ideal though. And I am not saying that there should be no emotion. I am saying that it shouldn't cloud your judgment.

Most laws and regulation should be based on Empathy. The ability to feel for others and understand their situation. Those who are in charge today tend to be Apathetic, those who only know their own motives and care only about themselves.

When it comes to ruling and having power, it is not the lack of emotion you seek. It is not letting those emotions control your actions.

Empathy is exactly right that is the perfect quality of someone who makes the rules, emotion should charge some ideas as it makes them less detached. As long as it doesn't stop the right call being made it is good as many feats cannot be achieved without it.

>Many government officials are also military officials
>Military conflict
>Government wants power
>It gets it
The moral of the story is, you can't trust the system.
What country do you live in? Americans tend not to be so authoritarian, it's strange talking to someone who seems to be that way.

The got no power from Libya just saved thousands of lives. I live in England and I'm constantly thinking about how to run a country. If I had my own country I probably would like it to be authoritarian, but just so I could control things I feel are important such as corporate greed and also smaller things like a high quality compulsory p.e

What I mean, is that I want them to be focusing on freeing us of our oil dependency, or fixing our welfare system that people take advantage of. I don't think they should be given a large amount of power, but they need to do their job without bias.

That is true they should focus on things like that but general running of the country decides its wealth and the happiness of the populace and there are so many different ways to do it so there will always be disagreements, they need power to do these things and to stay organised

Read 1984, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, and V for Vendetta and then you should decide what you believe, again.

God damn it !!