this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
93 points (89.1% liked)

Technology

59347 readers
5032 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)

I don't think we should ever celebrate people being deplatformed.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no-matter-how-awful-it

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

But let's say they win, and they get the domain blocked everywhere. They'll just launch a new domain, just like all the pirate streaming sites do.

If a telecommunications provider disconnect someone because of content, they should lose their safe harbor provisions as a telecommunications provider. They should now be responsible for all content on their wires because they're now editorializing

[–] orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (21 children)

To the ones down-voting this comment.

People 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.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no-matter-how-awful-it

The EFF supports prosecuting Kiwi Farms, they are just opposed to the dangerous precedent an ISP block sets.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They are not blocking the domain. They're making people drop their nazi-ISP from the internet backbone.

[–] eee@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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 15 points 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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 1 year 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

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 10 points 1 year ago (13 children)

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

[–] wahming@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

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.

Imagine a small town power company turning off the power to a small town newspaper because they said something mean about their cousin the sheriff.

[–] sab@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] waterbogan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year 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 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Paradox of tolerance* in effect

See below for a smarter user than me

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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."

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Balinares@pawb.social -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Who is "the rest of us"?

load more comments (12 replies)