Comment on The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website
orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 9 months agoPeople keep piling up on the EFF without reading that article.
Once an ISP indicates it’s willing to police content by blocking traffic, more pressure from other quarters will follow, and they won’t all share your views or values. For example, an ISP, under pressure from the attorney general of a state that bans abortions, might decide to interfere with traffic to a site that raises money to help people get abortions, or provides information about self-managed abortions. Having set a precedent in one context, it is very difficult for an ISP to deny it in another, especially when even considering the request takes skill and nuance. We all know how lousy big user-facing platforms like Facebook are at content moderation—and that’s with significant resources. Tier 1 ISPs don’t have the ability or the incentive to build content evaluation teams that are even as effective as those of the giant platforms who know far more about their end users and yet still engage in harmful censorship.
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?
orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 9 months ago
You somehow think that you know how the law regarding digital rights works (and the consequence that precedents may have in court), better than the EFF. Who have 33 years of experience studying and fighting in courts.
Based on how composed you’ve been in this comment section, I’m going to assume that’s longer than you’ve been alive.