Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
How would you propose changing the fact that it's illegal? Disobedience to bad law has been a pretty common method of fomenting change.
|
Yes, and the reason it has worked in the past is because the civil disobedience and the people who would be punished because of said civil disobedience were the same. In this case, shitting in your sandbox is only going to help get the sandbox taken away, not change who manages the playground.
Quote:
|
I was under the impression that getting topics to the top of digg ranking is via the relatively anonymous "Digg it" mechanism. There is no means for the protestors to helpfully line up against the wall.
|
I have to wonder why you are arguing for the protesters when apparently you don't really know what you're arguing for. First off, along with submitting a link to Digg, one can provide a description. They could have put their name and address in there. Second, the comments to all the articles were also spammed with hundreds (thousands?) of copies of the code. Each of those comments could have been accompanied with the identification of the poster. Anyway, this isn't really a serious suggestion. The point is that, social website or not, Digg is not the place for their civil disobedience. If they want to be disobedient, they need to find a way to tie their own fate to the outcome of their action, otherwise it's pointless and ineffective (and, last but not least, incredibly disrespectful to the people who create things for them to use).