Friend, you do you, and in the meanwhile the rest of us are in fact going to be right there celebrating the fuck out of the deplatforming of a bunch of horrible people whose pastime is literally to drive trans kids to suicide.
Comment on The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website
jet@hackertalks.com 9 months ago
I don’t think we should ever celebrate people being deplatformed.
Balinares@pawb.social 9 months ago
GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 9 months ago
🍻
RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 9 months ago
Who is “the rest of us”?
jet@hackertalks.com 9 months ago
To those down voting, you have to decide if the internet is a human right or not. If it is, it must be for everyone, or it is for no one. As soon as we make exceptions to basic rights, those rights get eroded for everyone. Because people in power will bend the exceptions to political expediency.
wahming@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I believe in the tolerance social contract. You deserve rights so long as you respect the rights of others. Kiwi farms has absolutely no respect for anybody’s rights, and hence does not deserve any themselves.
jet@hackertalks.com 9 months ago
I agree with you in principle. My only concern is who is judging, and making the decision that someone doesn’t have any rights. If it’s private companies? That’s going to be very bad for all of us
sab@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Hear hear. Obviously this site should be shut down. But it should be done so on basis of fair trial. Not because of mob justice, or corporations that answer only to shareholders.
wahming@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Right now, this is analogous to having an active shooter walking around gunning down people, and a random person safely elsewhere saying ‘Don’t shoot him, he has rights!’. No, people are actively suffering and dying.
waterbogan@lemmy.world 9 months ago
You deserve rights so long as you respect the rights of others
This is the best approach and one had has far wider application beyond just the internet
GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 9 months ago
Paradox of Intolerance in effect
TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
It’s the paradox of tolerance. “A truly tolerant society cannot be tolerant of intolerance.” Not, “A truly intolerant society cannot be intolerant of tolerance.”
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
We are literally talking about people using an Internet service to kill people, in a way the government cannot do anything about without draconian privacy-invading powers.
You do realize this right?
Or do you just not care when it’s trans people?
jet@hackertalks.com 9 months ago
If the government can’t do anything about it, why should we empower corporations too? It seems the solution to your scenario would be a more elegant legal system that the government could use to go after people conspiring to commit murder. Which I’m pretty sure are two major crimes already.
But that’s moot. If you agree that access to communication and the internet is a basic human right, then somebody who is not been legally sequestered, should have access to their basic human right.
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
If the government can’t do anything about it, why should we empower corporations too?
Wait, what?
Because in this specific case, and yes, you have to address it case by case, the government being able to do something about it would involve draconian anti-privacy international web monitoring of a level that’s literally described in 1984, while the corporation being involved merely involves the corporation cutting off a route knowing that it’ll be publicly debated afterwards and may, if the decision is a bad one, result in it losing business.
But that’s moot. If you agree that access to communication and the internet is a basic human right, then somebody who is not been legally sequestered, should have access to their basic human right.
No. There is no human right to organize the killing of people because you don’t like a harmless mental condition they were born with. There is, as a result, no absolute right to access the Internet.
And contrary to this absolutist nonsense that’s been posted about how if an ISP bans even one packet under the most justifiable circumstances imaginable, it means Marsha Blackburn is going to go back in time and propose her laws that she’s already proposed to ban LGBT information from the Internet, ISPs have never provided this kind of absolute right in the first place. ISPs can and do block, and sometimes kick, for any of the following:
- Attempting to send email via SMTP except via their own service.
- Running a "server"
- BitTorrent
- (Including this to give you some idea of how this isn’t a new thing) Abusive use of Usenet including spam, trolling, posting pornography into the wrong groups, etc.
- Spam
We tolerate this because… well, we tolerate the anti-spam part and we tolerated the anti-abuse of Usenet parts because we accept that people use the Internet abusively and an ISP, at whatever level, has a right to protect itself, its employees, and even society at large.
But here you all are claiming that this is all OK, and remaining silent even on the stuff ISPs block that aren’t actually justifiable (what business is it of anyone if I run a webserver from my home or bypass an ISPs SMTP server?), but when it comes to blocking a website whose sole purpose is to organize actions that will result in the deaths of trans people, you all think ISPs should take no action.
Spam? The worst thing ever.
Killing trans people? Eh. Who cares.
Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
You do realise the trans communities will be affected by this too? This isn’t some magic wand that only the good guys can use, republicans will be using it to ban LGBT information and support networks as soon as they can, they’ll wave that think of the children flag and it’ll be too late.
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
We should let a website organize the killing of trans people and not voluntarily, without government action, block the site, because actual governments are planning to ban trans information from the Internet anyway is a hell of a take.
There is nothing about this that’s going to change what Texas and the US Congress are already planning to do anyway. They’re not going to switch to putting pressure on ISPs to voluntarily ban LGBT information. They’re passing laws to force it.
But sure, ISPs shouldn’t voluntarily do the right thing because they’re going to be forced to do the wrong thing. That makes sense!
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
They are not blocking the domain. They’re making people drop their nazi-ISP from the internet backbone.
eee@lemm.ee 9 months ago
They are not blocking the domain. They’re making people drop their nazi-ISP from the internet backbone.
That’s fantastic news, I agree.
But who decides what should ISPs block next? Should Florida pressure American ISPs to block all abortion-related sites? Should Disney pressure ISPs to block all torrent sites?
jet@hackertalks.com 9 months ago
Good point.
At the geopolitical level if companies are censoring the West’s free and open internet, what grounds do our politicians have to pressure more draconian countries not to censor their internet?
We have to demonstrate our principles if we want them to be adopted globally. If we demonstrate censorship… We will have it
There’s a reason North Korea still has an internet connection
Jonna@lemmy.world 9 months ago
You are comparing the work of a mass of people to fight back against hate with the actions of authorities and institutions.
Can you see how the work of masses of people is more democratic?
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
But who decides what should ISPs block next?
The ISPs. Just as in this case. Next question.
eee@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Great, most major ISPs now block all torrent sites because rightsholders paid them to.
Some ISPs are also blocking sites talking about abortion and LGBTQ issues because of pressure from certain states.
No thanks, I’d rather live in a world where the ramifications of far-reaching actions are considered properly. Next.
jet@hackertalks.com 9 months ago
Sure, the net effect is the site won’t load.
Their onion site is still up, so not all of their data center links were severed
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
If the content is illegal pursue legal means to punish the posters. But to create a layer of censorship on the internet, that is enforced by opinions of companies, is a terrible precedent
“We should force ISPs to carry a service that’s designed by and used by Neo-Nazis to kill people because governments around the world are unable to stop it because they don’t have the draconian laws necessary to shut down an international neo-Nazi network” is a hell of a take.
sab@lemmy.world 9 months ago
No, the whole point is that an isp should not be forced to do anything, unless ordered to do so by a court.
As the title mentions, this an endless chase if you approach it like this. Vigilante mobs aren’t going to solve this, it’s going to take specialist agencies with mandates to request data civilians can’t. Crimes are being committed there (not murders, but a good way to get the scare votes, I suppose), and there are laws in place to deal with that.
As mentioned several times in this thread, shifting the responsibility for what is allowed to be said on the Internet from governments to corporate entities is a terrible precedent.
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
No, the whole point is that an isp should not be forced to do anything, unless ordered to do so by a court.
That’s not the point, no. The “whole point” from the EFF’s standpoint, if you’d bothered to read the article, is that ISPs shouldn’t block each other unless ordered by a court, even when lives are at stake.
Edit: Nevermind. I see you’re also responsible for this wonderful gem:
it’s going to take specialist agencies with mandates to request data civilians can’t. Crimes are being committed there (not murders, but a good way to get the scare votes, I suppose), and there are laws in place to deal with that.
(Unlike you, I’m not quoting out of context above. As I already wrote, there are no enforceable laws here, the only way the state can act is if it passes draconian laws that work on an International level.)
(Oh, and the quote out of context? We’re talking about the EFF demanding ISPs not block websites organizing the deaths of transgender people, while simultaneously saying it’s the role of the state while arguing (rightly) the state shouldn’t create draconian privacy invading laws to do just that. Explain please how you can be against privacy invading laws AND against private entities from deciding their infrastructure should not be used to kill transgender people, unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people? Because there’s no fucking middle ground here. There’s no third option between “The state shouldn’t take action” and “ISPs shouldn’t voluntarily take action”. What is it?)
jet@hackertalks.com 9 months ago
Everyone here, including the EFF, has explicitly said the state should take action against people plotting to murder.
Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
The levels of exaggeration about kiwifarms is getting a bit much, of course everyone uses emotive language but this is just getting wild.
How many websites do you think should be blocked, all the ones that are as bad or worse than kiwifarms? Because there are a lot, so you want sweeping measures to restrict the internet and you don’t see that having any problems or negative affects?
orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 9 months ago
People keep piling up on the EFF without reading that article.
eff.org/…/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no…
The EFF supports persecuting Kiwi Farms, they are just opposed to the dangerous precedent involving ISPs causes.
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
This is called the Slippery Slope fallacy, as opposed to Slippery Slope fact, for a reason.
It’s incredibly easy for an ISP to point out that they’re not going to block a network for a different reason by pointing out it’s… not the same reason. Banning abortion information is not the same thing as banning a harassment network that’s causing deaths.
The EFF deserves to be roundly condemned for this, especially as it has no obvious alternative. Claiming the authorities should do it while ignoring the fact that draconian laws would be required to actually enforce the laws here, that the EFF would (I assume) be opposed to, is handwaving at best.
The position is intellectually dishonest unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people. I prefer to call the EFF’s position intellectually dishonest, because the alternative is even more horrific.
orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 9 months ago
Could you please read the whole article before commenting?
No offense, but don’t pursue a law degree, that’s not how things work in the real world. The EFF has a long history of fighting for these sorts of things, they have enough experienced people to know what they are talking about.
A state has enough leverage to push around and ISP to comply, and the ISP gains nothing in opposing.
There is. People can be persecuted individually. This has happened in the past without ISPs blocking whole websites.
Speaking of fallacies…
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
No offense, but keep your patronizing “Anyone who disagrees with me could only have just heard of this article I just skimmed, and not been discussing it in depth for the last week” bullshit out of my replies.
As for a “law degree”, the idea that the state needs to justify ordering an ISP to do something by pointing out it did something different previously shows both a complete lack of understanding of the law, and ignorance of how the real world works, especially when fascists are involved.
No, they can’t. Not without introducing a layer of draconian laws with international agreements to prop up these laws that would almost certainly include the end of privacy on the Internet as we know it.
And, incidentally, THAT, not “Hey, an ISP once blocked another ISP to check notes prevent people from being killed, therefore we suddenly have the power to make ISPs block abortion information which we didn’t before”, is what would bring about a world where free speech ends on the 'net.
Where?