TL;DR: The article was basically a critique of people like the parent commenter. In the thread that followed, I came down on the side of those who agreed with the article.
So I would downvote parent for two reasons:
(1) Attempting to twist a thread about the Pirate Bay into a thread about the Super Bowl and "'Murica" is pretentious in the extreme even without Latin, and
(2) I disagree with the popular premise that downloading Game of Thrones and porn == "fighting authoritarian governments". I realize that this makes me a minority here, to the point of possibly being considered a troll for admitting it. Which is one reason why I don't bother posting more, which in turn is one reason why HN is so "hivemind-ish" on many subjects.
>the popular premise that downloading Game of Thrones and porn == "fighting authoritarian governments"
You're confusing the users of the pirate bay with the site itself.
I strongly cheer for the site on freedom of speech grounds, even while I think the kind of downloading you describe is bad.
I think the word "authoritarian" is appropriate to describe shutting down a site for "contributing" to a crime just by letting users leave descriptions and contact info.
1. I think the comment was mostly about applauding the very few who do stand up and fight rather have a good time, i.e., watch football, play video games, dance like nobody's watching, or whatever it is they like to do. I don't think it's extreme at all to use watching football as an analogy given it's popularity. Knitting would have been an odd choice, wouldn't you agree?
2. I'm pretty sure the commenter was talking about running a site like TPB, rather than using it.
By the way: I really don't see any reason to be offended by the comment. Some people stand up and fight, others don't. No shame in that at all.
I really don't see any reason to be offended by the comment.
As someone who enjoys football, I am offended by the comment. It presents a cheap, fictional dichotomy -- this notion that on one side are people who watch football (and apparently nothing else -- if you watch the Super Bowl, clearly that is the entirety of your being), and on the other are the freedom fighters and good people of the world.
My Facebook feed is full of similar people who, when they aren't posting pictures of drinking, building model airplanes, or doing other ultimately selfish acts of little consequence for the world, post trite motivational images that decry those who "care more" about a game than whatever pet cause they've decided is important...at least when berating people who might like something they don't. It's boorish and aggressive, and actually terribly offensive.
And the notion that the Pirate Bay is some sort of good cause is uproariously hilarious. Even putting aside the whole complex, nuanced discussion on piracy (no, people don't don't use the Pirate Bay to download Linux distros), The Pirate Bay is one of the most aggressively shitty sites on the internet. It is full of malware ads, diversions, pop-unders. The operators sell your security to make themselves money (and, apparently, a lot of it). Hurrah for their great benevolence.
I guess the implication is that people who watch football don't care or are simply to stupid to realize what's going on. On the other hand, it is well known that politicians pass unpopular legislation during major sport events — hoping that nobody will notice. Saying things like "Panem et Circenses" can't be offensive by itself then, can it?
Aside from all that, you lost all your moral high-ground in the last paragraph anyway. It might be true that a lot of these people are offensive, but so are you.
I guess the implication is that people who watch football don't care or are simply to stupid to realize what's going on.
Which is an asinine, ignorant bit of comical sophistry. It's the sort of thing that people who are covering for some personal inadequacies project onto others (like the armchair critic who decries someone donating time at an animal shelter because...like...Africa or something. Anything to feel better about one's own inaction). It's especially humorous when we're talking about a site primarily used for sharing entertainment material.
On the other hand, it is well known that politicians pass unpopular legislation during major sport events — hoping that nobody will notice
Is this actually true? At all? Do you have any citation whatsoever to back this up? It sounds like manufactured nonsense.
Aside from all that, you lost all your moral high-ground in the last paragraph anyway.
Because I pointed out the reality about TPB? If you are offended by that, you need to land back on planet Earth, and engage in reality-based discussions.
I tried to find an american article for you, but the Buffalo Bills made that impossible. Anyway, I found a german article (I'm german) from our NPR-equivalent, quoting a law maker during last year's world cup. He said that he believes they could pass the most obscene bills as long as it's during a soccer match. The article then goes on and shows some of the bills they did pass during the world cup (selling tanks to Algeria, what have you). You can read it yourself if you like.
> As someone who enjoys football, I am offended by the comment.
I don't think the poster has anything agains watching football personally, he was just using the activity in a figure of speech as an example. Which passive entertainment activity would you suggest? There is always someone who will be "offended" by anything.
I realize that this makes me a minority here, to the point of possibly being considered a troll for admitting it.
You do come off as a troll, not so much because you oppose TPB, but because of the blatant straw man you use to characterize it.
The main advantage that permissive torrent trackers carry is that they serve as vast cultural archives. No, consuming media is not necessary for survival, but should poverty condemn you to cultural illiteracy?
For the record, I downvoted you both for posting insubstantial comments that are basically throwing out an opinion with nothing of substance, while I upvoted this one for talking about relevant issues.
But I do think that there's an argument to be had that spreading pornography and entertainment against artificial governmental restrictions could be construed as "fighting authoritarian governments". I don't know that I'd consider this kind of struggle particularly brave even, but not every kind of authoritarianism is locking up dissidents and not every kind of struggle is militaristic.
However, I currently am in a monarchy that recently had the civilian government taken over by the military, and currently uses government control of the internet to block pornography on a nation wide basis, so spreading pornography to me is literally combating the arbitrary policies of de facto military government parading around as a monarchy.
