Comment on The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 1 year agoIf 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.
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?
sab@lemmy.world 1 year 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 1 year ago
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:
(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 1 year ago
Everyone here, including the EFF, has explicitly said the state should take action against people plotting to murder.
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Cool story bro.
Now address what those laws would look like if you’re trying to take down an international network with anonymous users and you want it to be effective.
There is no way, no way on Earth, the EFF would be in favor of those laws.