So, the EFF has 33 years of experience fighting in courts on matters of digital rights, and somehow you feel like you know both the current law and the legal consequences of court precedents better than them?
I have written nothing implying that, no. I’ve said the EFF’s argument is bullshit because the US government cannot enforce the laws the EFF says could be used. Not that they don’t exist, but that this is an international network that heavily uses anonymity. The US government likely cannot at all, and if it can can only do expensively and slowly, too slowly to prevent deaths, ban this website.
Based on how composed you’ve been in this comment section, I’m going to assume the EFF has been around longer than you have.
Right back atcha.
jet@hackertalks.com 1 year ago
They are feeling personally attacked, by the content of the discussion, so they’re acting out. That’s completely understandable at a human level.
The reason we have these discourses is so we can hammer out our ideals, and see them implemented in different ways.
So let’s use other examples, so that people aren’t as emotionally invested in the particular discourse.
Telecommunication providers, at least in the United States, are given safe harbor from the content they deliver, so long as they don’t editorialize (select what’s allowed). If something’s illegal that’s up to the legal system to enforce. And if there’s a court order websites can be taken off, routes can be blackhold, links can be seized.
The United States government, and their politicians, have a long history of not cutting off the communication even of their enemies. We still maintained phone connections to the USSR during the entire Cold war. The internet was not shut off in Iraq during the Iraqi wars. Iran despite sanctions is still online. US certainly could bully many of the world’s interconnects to completely drop these countries. But they don’t. For a variety of reasons, but I think the most fundamental is you have to demonstrate that you believe in your free communication principles if you want everyone to mimic them. A secondary but still important reason, is to see what your enemies are saying. That’s actionable intelligence!
pqdinfo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I was accused of not reading an article in the most patronizing way imaginable, while in fact you’d have had to be a complete moron to think that I’d have said what I said had I not.
Am I feeling personally attacked? Yes. But I’m also feeling like there’s a real attempt to derail the conversation. Look at the parent post, which posts a nonsense assertion essentially pretending I wrote something entirely different to what I wrote, and that the EFF didn’t write what it did.
Right now, people are being killed, and the response by the EFF is “Huh duh, the US government should just use its existing laws to prosecute the people responsible” when actually the US government doesn’t even know who is responsible, would be operating out of its jurisdiction in many cases (such as what’s going on Ireland) and there’s no simple way to get that information that doesn’t involve a giant draconian piece of legislation being passed by governments around the world to ensure that when sites like this are created, it’s easy to find the people who use them in a short space of time and shut them down.
And the response to this is “Well, sure, but ISPs shouldn’t bother to do anything about life and death situations, even when they can.” And then people here are posting drivel about how if a private entity bans one website in a life or death situation, this suddenly opens some kind of gate which means the State of Texas can pass laws to ban other things.
Completely ignoring that (1) that gate, were it to exist, has been open since the 1990s, the anti-spammers and protectors of Usenet and so on, opened it and (2) the gate doesn’t exist anyway, Texas can pass any law it wants as long as it doesn’t violate the first amendment. And, well, Texas can probably ignore the first amendment anyway because SCOTUS.
This isn’t about being emotional, it’s about the fact that the EFF’s viewpoint is… shit. It’s indefensible.
jet@hackertalks.com 1 year ago
I did not accuse you of not reading an article.
jet@hackertalks.com 1 year ago
I see you updated your comment.
“The guy I responded flamed me over something that I never said, and you’re all upmodding them and downvoting me because… I can speculate.”
“But it’s clear nobody here cares about the arguments. Nobody, not one, has addressed the issues I’ve raised. Insulted me, changed the subject, put words in my mouth, sure.”
I have not flamed you, I have not insulted you, I have not misquoted you. As the person your responding to, I’m sorry you have found yourself in this position.
Honestly, rereading all the posts here, no-one has insulted you at all, everyone has been more-or-less civil, with no name calling, or ad hominim attacks.
If your going to be upset with me, please at least be upset with me for things I’ve actually done.