Talk:The Pirate Bay/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Going soft on crime

This article pays insufficient attention to the criminal nature of stealing intellectual property. Does the word "censorship" accurately apply to a crime-fighting measure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.145 (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

[WP:FORUM] hat removed. Although the topic title may sound forumish, the use of the word “censorship” is a valid question and appears to be stated with the intent to improve the article. Closing a discussion that has yet to take place makes no sense. If an art gallery, pawn shop or street-seller is shut down for selling forgeries or stolen goods, do we use the word “censorship”? Its use here appears to be designed to make convicted criminals look like the victims. In fact, the article contains a quote by Sunde stating that calling this censorship would make it “very difficult to stop the site”. Ironically, a more accurate example of censorship might be the attempt made to close this topic. This is an WP:NPOV issue. Objective3000 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I give in that I might have been to trigger happy here. I found this too forumish because the IP was mere complaining about the article and not stating on how it could be improved . I do remember A Quote from Sunde where he said he was unhappy that they were profiting from sexual advertisement (bc who else wants to advertise with TPB). From the Censorship article Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions it can be assumped that the use of the Word censorship isn't a full out NPOV (bc the governments decide what is a criminal activity) issue. You are however free to propose other synamouns. (Blockings would be a more neutral word but I can't figure out how that can be rephrased to fit the heading. Avono (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

TPB is NOT in a gray area. All of the founders were sentenced to prison and all appeals lost. This has been settled by the courts. It really is time to stop claiming that we’re not sure they broke the law. They are most certainly NOT as guilty as Google. Google has been brought to court many times, and has obeyed court orders. Google obeys DMCA complaints. OTOH, TPB thumbed its collective nose at complainants and posted the complaints with childish responses saying they would never comply. In any case, Google founders have not been sentenced to prison. What matters is what the courts say, not our opinions.

The section on censorship actually uses the word block repeatedly because that is the word used in nearly all the refs. The topic title should reflect that instead of using a biased term. I suggest “Access blocks” or some other form of the word be used instead. Objective3000 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC).

Will be changing it to "Domain Blockings" until someone objects to it Avono (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Looks more encyclopedic. Objective3000 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the word "censorship" accurately apply to a crime-fighting measure? - Yes exactly, "censorship" is by definition a crime-fighting measure; applied in every country based on what local laws consider to be crime.--Der Golem (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If any government of any country blocks any internet content, it falls under the category of internet censorship, no matter of what the content of the website is, with no exceptions. If any government blocks The Pirate Bay, it is the same as when any government blocks YouTube, because Wikipedia is not supposed to represent values of any country or ideology: to prevent a systemic bias. To say that blocking of TPB is not a "censorship" because of the fact that the website founders were jailed is the same as saying that if a book is banned in some country, its not "censorship" becuse the writer was jailed (for whatever reason). Whether the reasons for any kind of imprisonment are right or wrong is subjective matter of ethics that vary in different cultures, jurisdictions and individuals.

"Domain Blockings" refers to one specific action of what the ISPs were ordered to do by the courts (governments/countries), which decided to "censor" the website; therefore "block" is weasel wording for what generally happened. Wikipedia should pick neither the side of TPB, nor the side of some specific jurisdiction; and state the facts as they happened: TPB founders were jailed for an actual crime, "assisting copyright infringement"; and, the website got "censored" in some countries and subsequently "blocked" by ISPs.

Besides all that, the section also describes censorship by Facebook and Microsoft - deleting user pages, content filtering, i.e. other forms of "censorship" that are not "domain blocking" or "blocking" at all.--Der Golem (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting "opinion". Objective3000 (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain making satirical comments as they are not constructive. I think we should move this to WP:NPOVN in order to gain opinions from uninvolved editors. As I said above the word "censorship" does not infer wither the censored material is good or bad. Even the New Zealand goverment uses censorship in this context: The Department of Internal Affairs’ inspectors undertake the role of investigating New Zealand Internet websites and newsgroups and enforcing censorship legislation. Avono (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting "opinion"? If that is your entire answer, why bother undoing my edit if you're not trying to defend the opposite view, nor discussing at all? As per sourced definitions provided by Avono, "censorship" is a neutral juridical word describing exactly TPB's condition; while "blocking" is misleadingly inaccurate for summarizing the actual content of the entire section.--Der Golem (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hardly my entire response. I already discussed this at length. "Censorship" is also misleading for the same reason. And why didn't you discuss before reverting? Censorship is a loaded term pushing a POV that brings up images of book burnings. It implies control of speech and ideas. No one is stopping TPB from saying anything they wish. Indeed, it could be argued that TPB interfered with the ability of artists to control their own works, and therefore continue their own abilities to spread ideas. So, we could say TPB censored artists. But, we’re not here to argue one side or the other. We are not here to push a POV. Loaded terms that imply, in most people’s minds, thoughts of autarchy should not be used. Objective3000 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

When you censor something, it is banned from public consumption. None of the material linked to by TPB is banned from public consumption. You can get it from the distributor. Objective3000 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

All your aguments only point out that TPB founders commited a crime, according to Swedish courts. Everyone knows and accepts that fact and it changes nothing in this discussion. The reason why TPB blocking is called censorship is because it censors people from sharing data the way they want. Repeating that it is copyright infringement is talking apples when the discussion is about oranges.

As Avono clearly explained, censorship by definition does not infer whether the censored material is good or bad. If you only associate censorship with book burnings, then it is you personal view that does not match the meaning of the English word.

The ethics of file sharing are not up to Wikipedians to decide. Please stick to sourced definitions.--Der Golem (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

First, censorship by dictionary definition absolutely does imply whether the censored material is good or bad, and using bold characters does not change this. Look up the origin and history of the word. Read the OED definitions. You are the one iserting your feelings about ethics by using charged words. Second, the general public also infers this. Third, the material is absolutely still available, and therefore not censored. Censorship states that the work is suppressed, not that you have to pay for it. The fact that some people don’t wish to use the legal distributors does not make it censorship. Some people would rather buy car parts at half-price from car thieves. That does not mean that shutting down chop shops is censorship. Question is, why do you insist on using a loaded word when the English language has such a rich variety of neutral terms? Objective3000 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Your lengthy explanations are original research. Please respect consensus and sources--Der Golem (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Relying on dictionary definitions of words is NOT OR. Objective3000 (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your claims are unsourced. "Censorship" is used in the context of copyright infringement or other crimes by mainstream press (example) as well as governments (example). You can also find Wikipedia consensus that "censorship" is routinely, extensively and specifically used in this context; for example: Internet censorship in the United Kingdom#Copyright and Internet censorship in the United States#Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Note that if you keep editing against the consensus, you risk being blocked.--Der Golem (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You’ve proved my points yet again. The first link you point to is simply using the term used by, here it comes, TORRENTFREAK. You are being led around by the nose by TF. The second link you point to talks about REAL Internet censorship. The total list of offenses are: exploitation of children or young persons for sexual purposes; use of violence or coercion to compel any person to participate in sexual conduct; sexual conduct upon the body of a dead person; use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct; bestiality; acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty. NOTHING is said about piracy. I never said censorship doesn’t exist. I said that blocking sites that violate intellectual property rights is not censorship. The link you provided shows that piracy is NOT on the list of censored material. The rest of your links point to Wikipedia articles that are also wrong. You can’t justify an edit in one WP article by using another WP article. Ironically, the threat you made against me at the end sounds like actual censorship. The simple fact is that you are pushing a POV and threatening me with censorship because you don't like what I'm saying.Objective3000 (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:TLDR--Der Golem (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIV When you can't respond, make a snide remark. Objective3000 (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Der Golem, Your last threee edits included a threat, a pointless snide remark, and a template designed for articles, not talk pages. Please discuss in a civil manner.Objective3000 (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Type into google "pirate bay block Censorship -torrentfreak -freak". You will exclude any article that as much as mention TF or the word freak, or that has a link to an article which talks about it. If you want to go even further, add -browser to exclude the story about the pirate bay browser. No matter how much you try to avoid it, you will still end up with third-party reliable sources, posting articles that talks about about the pirate bay blocks in the context of Censorship.

• cnet talks about the tool used in the block, describing it as the "Web censorship switch".
• theguardian describe how Google accused Hollywood of attempting to “secretly censor the internet” by reviving the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) to enable wholesale site-blocking.
• ibtimes publish statements from T-Mobile and KPN, suggesting the entertainment industry should fight piracy with new business models rather than online censorship.
• electronista reports that the duth court found during the hearing that the blocks were both ineffectual and unnecessary censorship.
• EFF, has an article talks about a Proposed HTTP Error Code to signal Internet Censorship, and uses the pirate bay blocks as the primary example.

I really could go on and on and on with more examples, or do more refined google searches (using the word censor rather than Censorship), or do searches through books on internet censorship and find pirate bay mentioned there, and research papers on the world state of censorship, and so on and so on. No matter the pilling evidence that news article and technical experts in the field describes Internet blocks as censorship, they do not seem to have an effect in the discussion here. At some point, if you can't get anyone to agree with your views, continuing relentlessly is just disruption. Wikipedia has noticeboards if you want to continue, and I would ask you to use them. Belorn (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is now the third time that I have been threatened with censorship for having an opinion on censorship. Don't you people see the irony in this? Go right ahead and ask an admin to block me for making civil arguments on a talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. You've expressed your point of view, and it seems that others disagree. More discussion is only going to lead to more dissension. Let's end it here. Dodoïste (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been personally threatened (not here) by someone at TF. I have been threatened with censorship here repeatedly. I can no longer afford to speak my opinion here . The Wikipedia censors have won. The convicted criminals can say anything they want. I can’t. If you understand what the word “censorship” means and why it is so important, you will understand it has to do with the concept of speaking of ideas and beliefs. In absolutely no manner has TPB been halted from speaking about their ideas and beliefs. In no way whatsoever. But, I have been threatened, time and again, to stop speaking my ideas on threats of, now, topic banishment at WP, and worse from TF. The people here are the censors that can’t stand any criticism of convicted criminals. Isn’t irony ironic? Objective3000 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to you at TF, but it's off topic. Here at Wikipedia no one is threatening of censorship. It's quite the opposite actually. You've not only been allowed to express your opinion. You've been allowed to repeat the very same opinion time and again, and editors engaged in debates with you. That's not my definition of censorship. We've heard your opinion, and we would like to focus the discussions here on other topics, or listen to other points of view.

It is like a person appearing in a TV debate one day, and allowed to share his point of view. Let's imagine this person is invited a few more times on TV, and he express exactly the same point of view. The TV producer might say "We don't want to have you in our debate anymore, we want to invite someone else. We want to have other points of view in our show." That's not censorship.

There are some implicit rules and ethics about wiki discussions. If others disagree with you, you have to accept it and move onto something else. Dodoïste (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Belorn suggested that an admin be asked to "topic ban" me, even though I've violated no rules. That sounds like censorship to me. Of course I have responded to arguments including refs that don't say what editors claim they say. And I have done so in a civil manner and violated no rules. That's what a discussion is for. The fact that you don't agree doesn't make it wrong for me to state my case. And if someone else yet again comes up with new bad refs, why shouldn't I respond to them? In one discussion, some time back, one of the editors in this thread, not gaining concensus, took it to a noticeboard. Lost, took it to another, lost, took it to a third. Now THAT is an example of failing to accept and move on. No one suggested that he be sanctioned. Objective3000 (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think an admin can decide by himself to "topic ban" anyone or on a single user's request. And it should not happen this situation where other solutions can still be found.

On the other hand. a behavior that does not violate any rules is not necessarily a good behavior. Does your behavior produces a good teamwork ? Are you trying to collaborate with us in order to improve the article ? Or are you trying to prove others wrong ? Do you provide references and material to support your claims, that can be used in the article ? Dodoïste (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. No, an admin cannot topic ban someone on his own. But, this is the third suggestion that I be blocked because people don't agree with me. Yes, I am trying to improve the article and be constructive. Editors are making the claim that blocking TPB is censorship. The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees. The NZ definition of Internet Censorship reffed by another editor here disagrees. I am not making a claim. I am asking for a claim that is wrong to be modified to use NPOV language. The language that has been used by governments and courts when enacting these domain blocks, not the metaphors and inflammatory words used by TPB/TF and blogs. Why wouldn’t we use the actual words of the bodies that ordered these blocks? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog shading the commentary. I have responded to editors showing refs. My responses are met with insults “We are not here to teach you to read”, snide remarks “TLDR” and threats of actual censorship. Objective3000 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If I was not assuming good faith I would not be writing to you in such manners. It is useless to repeat what you have written several times already. I can read your previous posts just fine. Editors did not agree with you when you wrote it earlier, why would they agree now ? Dodoïste (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to different editors with different refs. Look, aren't they repeating the same things over and over? Talk to them. This page has been a problem for years. Many editors flat-out refused to accept the fact that the founders were found guilty after they lost case after case. They kept claiming that the judges were all corrupt. Took quite a while to get accusations of judicial corruption out of the article with the same long repetitious discussions. Now they do what they can to make it look as though TPB are victims. The article even includes a disgusting image that depicts copyright holders with bags of money taking pictures of cute kittens away from children. Objective3000 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are convinced that your behavior is perfect, I can not help you. By the way, the image you are talking about has a lot of historical significance, and is well know in the debate about copyright and so called "loss of profit" for the entertainment industry. Dodoïste (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Putting words in other people’s mouths is one of the methods of dishonest debate. I never said I was perfect, and you know it. And, I don’t need any “help” from you. The image was on TPB for ONE DAY and has no historic significance whatever. It was created by a pro-piracy person a couple years ago. You are not at all helpful to the situation. This article needs a great deal of work to become encyclopedic. A handful of editors have resisted any NPOV language for years. It is an embarrassment to an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, most of the editors that built this magnificent site have left. We are left with people pushing POVs. POVs like any copyright holder is a fat man sitting on bags full of gold that steals from children. And I am not even allowed to place a template on the site asking for better references, when 90% of the refs either directly link or link back to one extremely biased blog with a direct connection to the convicted criminals that run the organization that is the subject of this article. Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia article or a blog echo?

The source of this article now contains “torrentfreak” 261 times. TorrentFreak is a two-person blog that editorializes in nearly every post and bases the majority of its posts on anonymous sources. Time and again, statements have been made in this article that came from TF that later had to be removed as they were simply outright fabrications from TPB (maybe, who knows) passed on to TF, passed on to Wikipedia. This article is starting to look like an RSS feed from a blog that is extremist in its views and unreliable in its claims. The result is that Wikipedia has repeatedly published false info from tricksters. Why doesn’t this embarrass WP editors? Objective3000 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been policing the article lately. In the past, whenever I put anything from TF in, I made sure for the most part to have other sources supporting the claim. If you check the Talk history, you'll find dozens of times where I advised against putting dramatic TPB news in that was only sourced by TF. I agree that things sole-sourced to TF should be vetted; uncontroversial statements could arguably stay, but controversial, or claims likely to be challenged, should be removed until multiply-sourced. BTW, TF is, by WP's RSN, considered reliable because of topic expertise and longevity, BUT is to be used with care to stay away from editorialized claims. We use lots of editorializing sources, just not the controversial parts, and quite frequently quoted, and not paraphrased. I agree with some of your concerns, but would prefer not to swing the other way, toward self-censorship of facts sourced to knowledgeable sources. So, to answer your question, no, there's very little to be "embarrassed" about. If editors make mistakes, we correct and educate, we ideally don't shame them by saying they should be "embarrassed". And I don't think it should be your position to be shaming other editors. As I like to say, we document, but do not serve. --Lexein (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC) amended "censorship" to self-censorship --04:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

TorrentFreak is regarded as the most knowledgeable source about torrent sites, and is often quoted by the mainstream media. However, it is a good idea to take publicity material given out by torrent sites with a healthy pinch of salt. TPB is a good example, because it has said things in the past which were probably spoofs or propaganda.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Couple years ago, I was in a meeting. Someone was talking about the importance of Twitter as a source of info. As an example, he pointed out that Twitter was the first to report that some baseball player was rehired. I pointed out that the report turned out to be dead wrong. He responded “But, it was first”. Is that what an encyclopedia aspires to? To be first, not correct? Objective3000 (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was about the reliability of TorrentFreak as a source, and how to use this source correctly. What is the link with "being first" ? Aren't you off topic ? Dodoïste (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

TF is always first, and very often wrong. But, it is used here far more than any other source. And, as a result, this article has contained a great deal of nonsense. The only reason TF is considered RS is that there aren't any other sources. So, WP uses secondhand anonynous sources and somehow feels comfortable that it's doing its job according to its rules. Objective3000 (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have a problem with how we use TorrentFreak bring it to WP:RSN; note that many sources use TorrentFreak as a primary source, should we not be using them as well? I agree that TorrentFreak shouldn't be directly linked to but sources that link to them shouldn't fall into the same criteria. Avono (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

First, actual reliable sources say things like "According to..." or TF claims". They don't state something and have a footnote to TF or a footnote to someone that merely says TF said something. Secondly, going to RSN is pointless. The very large number of anti-copyright editors will come out of the woodwork and claim TF is more reliable than the dictionary. Wikipedia has an enormous blind spot when it comes to this subject. The continuing misuse of the term "censorship" is a prime example. Objective3000 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I amended to self-censorship above. --Lexein (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Avono: There is nothing "disruptive" about placing a needs additional citations template on this article considering that such a huge number of refs trace back to one blog throughout the entire article. A blog that uses anonymous sources. What's "disruptive" about asking for a larger variety of sources? Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

because tagging the entire article is not constructive at all, I am fine with tagging sections that only source TorrentFreak but tagging everything is disruptive because they are sections that are not sourced from TorrentFreak. Avono (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

So, I should tag nearly every section, including the lede? It's the article that has the problem. Objective3000 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

As stated previously, it would be better to raise this at WP:RSN. I don't have a problem with uncontroversial statements sourced to TorrentFreak, but it does need to be used with caution for "hot off the press" stories.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This should be solved here. It will NOT be solved at RSN. Meanwhile, it was incorrect to remove my template and would actually be "distuptive" if I added multiple copies of the template as suggested. (At least we are no longer claiming that TPB is hosted in the Riksdagshuset.) Objective3000 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, if this were taken to RSN, and by some chance, they ruled correctly, this article would pretty much have to be scrapped. Objective3000 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Last time Objective3000 complained about TF sourced statement, I took a 30 second google search and added 3 sources from large reliable news papers. Yet again, here Objective3000 are, complaining, without doing the minimal effort in order to improve the article by adding more sources. See the lead? It mention that proxies was created after the site got blocked. Let me type the words "pirate bay blocked proxy news" and see how many news paper has written about it. The result in the first half of search result lists articles by bbc, PC magazine, independent, and the theguardian. This talk comment took more time and more effort to write, than it took to add more sources for the statement in the lead. If Objective3000 only goal here is to push his personal POV onto the article, then I for one has no intention to continue humor his "concerns". Belorn (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You just proved both my points. You added three refs. But, if you read those refs, they all say things like "According to TorrentFreak" Or, "Sources reported by TorrentFreak". They all go back to the same "source" that uses anonymous sources. And, as respected journalists, all use qualifiers that show these are only claims. You first accuse me of not adding anything and then accuse me of trying to add a POV. Make up your mind. I don't even know what point of view it is you think I'm trying to add. Objective3000 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, you will note that none of the refs you added called the TPB blocks "censorship". It is not censorship. This is a false claim made by TPB, TorrentFreak and Wikipedia. Objective3000 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not our job to teach you how to read an article. Neither of the news article attribute the statement about proxies to TF, and the guardian article do not even mention TF anywhere in the article. You seem to be disillusioned that as soon a news article mention TF, then suddenly the whole article MUST be based on TF. And incidentally, the statement those sources support do not include many things. They don't include the word grape juice, or james bond, world peace, cyborgs. Incidentally, that doesnt mean anything. Also incidentally, 'Censorship creep': Pirate Bay block will affect one-third of U.K. clearly do not talk about censorship, or techdirts article UK High Court Expands Censorship Regime: Orders The Pirate Bay To Be Blocked. I am sure that you also don't see the word censorship being used by the guardian with their: "PirateBrowser was designed to help people access The Pirate Bay and other torrent services even if they were blocked by their ISP, while also circumventing other kinds of internet censorship in countries including Iran and North Korea.". Clearly, no such articles exists and you are clearly thus not trying to push your POV into the article. Belorn (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• First, you are conflating multiple issues in multiple sources. There is Internet censorship in North Korea which prevents the citizenry from reading pretty much everything. And then there are blocks of TPB to prevent violations of intellectual property rights. Both are mentioned in the articles. The word “censorship” is used to talk to N. Korea. But, the reliable sources use the word “block” when referring to the TPB site except when quoting TPB or TorrentFreak.
• Second, the source you gave that actually uses the term “censorship” in referring to TPB (Techdirt) is a blog with only two paragraphs in WP. In fact, their headline referring to the UK gov’t as the “censorship regime” clearly shows they shouldn’t be used as a source.
• Third, you are again accusing me of trying to push a POV. I ask again, what POV? I’m not trying to add anything. I’m trying to subtract an obvious POV.
• Fourth, your opening line: “It is not our job to teach you how to read an article” is way out of line and I’m growing weary of your WP:CIV violations. Objective3000 (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

North Korea has a near total ban on Internet access. You need special authorization to access the Internet, generally for gov’t purposes. I think conflating North Korean Internet censorship and blocks of TPB seriously dilutes the use of the word “censorship”. Clearly, TPB and TF are trying to relate the two just as some people try to relate everything they dislike to Hitler (Godwin’s law). The two are not the same, and Wikipedia should stop using such a charged word bringing to mind centuries of disturbing history. Wikipedia is falling for this false comparison pushed by TPB/TF. TPB can and do say anything they wish. They have not been censored. Objective3000 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• you have obviously ignoring sources which do not fit your Point of View. The cited text above says: while also circumventing other kinds of internet censorship in countries including Iran and North Korea. It is a very simple English phrase to read.
• you think an article title is conflating multiple issues, but has nothing to support your view on this. The system for blocking the pirate bay in UK, called Cleanfeed, is described by cnn as "the Web censorship switch".
• I’m growing weary of you complains when multiple people have told you how to proceed. Either go to WP:RSN or do the work needed to find sources and then argue over statements which you can't find sources for doing. It takes 30 second google search for both statements you have so far objected to. If you go the RSN route, Have fun arguing if a self-describe blog with a editorial staff (techdirts) should be counted as primary source and not.
• Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If reliable sources uses TF and it passes their editorial control and fact-checking, then that statement is what Wikipedia defines as sourced by a reliable source. If you want to argue with the definition of reliable source, go to Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources. As a hint, it is not defined as "only if it follows Objective3000 view of the world". Belorn (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"only if it follows Objective3000 view of the world". I will attempt to discuss with you again when you stop violating WP:CIV. Objective3000 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To other editors, with the one issue of the use of the word “censorship”, all I am looking for is neutral language. Domain blocking is (NPOV) language. It is what is actually occurring. It is the terminology that respected sources use. It is unarguably correct. The word “censorship” carries heavy baggage and comparisons with North Korea are gross hyperbole. Domain Blocking pushes no POV whatsoever. Censorship clearly pushes a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally have six static IPs. North Korea has 1024 IPs for 25 million people. You can get 20 years hard labor, if you aren’t shot, for viewing the Internet in N. Korea. The vast number of citizens there have never heard of the Internet. I realize that some people think not getting free movies and games is some sort of great crime against nature. But, this is an encyclopedia. These refs to sites that compare blocking one source, that is in violation of property rights, to North Korea’s blocking of the entire population’s ability to see what the world is all about is…. I have no words. No speech has been blocked. No ideas have been blocked. This is not censorship. You are belittling the actual enormous crimes against humanity when you compare what is happening in North Korea, and what has happened elsewhere, to blocking sites that have been found guilty of property crimes. Use neutral wording. Do not create yet another corollary to Godwin’s law. Objective3000 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You guys win. Not getting free games is the same as what North Korea is doing to its citizenry. Objective3000 (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocking a website is always censorship. "And then there are blocks of TPB to prevent violations of intellectual property rights" means that Wikipedia would be blocked by SOPA only because some people violated copyrights. Many people use file-sharing websites to share their own material. 85.240.153.57 (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not by definition. Blocking TPB in NO WAY stops AYNONE from expressing ANY opinion they wish. It's not relevant, but it also in no way prevents anyone from sharing their own material. They just need to use a legal site. Objective3000 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)