Comment

Comment on The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website

eee@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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?

source

Sort:hotnew top

jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

source
Jonna@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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?

source
pqdinfo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

But who decides what should ISPs block next?

The ISPs. Just as in this case. Next question.

source
- eee@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - pqdinfo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    Great, most major ISPs now block all torrent, file-sharing and kodi sites because rightsholders paid them to.
    
    Actually it’s because they’re afraid of being sued by rights holders, the rights holders have only “paid” them in the sense of “We’ll not file this extremely expensive to defend yourself in court case against you if you add these anti-piracy countermeasures.”
    
    Which is entirely OK if I’m reading the EFF’s argument correctly because it’s, while not exactly the same as a court order, is basically an out-of-court settlement that amounts to the same thing.
    
    Some ISPs are also blocking sites talking about abortion and LGBTQ issues because of pressure from certain states.
    
    Yes, and if you follow the EFF’s logic, that’s also entirely legitimate because the government should decide, not ISPs, what’s allowed.
    
    You’re not illustrating how this is a slippery slope (which is a fallacy anyway), you’re illustrating just how insane this EFF position is.
    
    source