Could you please read the whole article before commenting?
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.
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 these sorts of things in court, they have enough experienced people to know what they are talking about.
A state has enough leverage to push around an ISP to comply, and the ISP gains nothing in opposing.
The EFF deserves to be roundly condemned for this, especially as it has no obvious alternative.
There is. People can be prosecuted individually. This has happened in the past without ISPs blocking whole websites.
The position is intellectually dishonest unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people.
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.
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?
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.
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!
Banning abortion information is not the same thing as banning a harassment network that’s causing deaths.
This sentence alone shows how short-sighted your point is.
“Abortion is the killing of fetuses. Providing women with access to information about abortion will lead to more deaths in just one year than Kiwifarms has brought about in its entire existence. ISPs have shown that they are able to block such sites. Given the higher level of harm abortion sites pose as compared to Kiwifarms, the Texas Court of Appeals moves that ISPs have to block all access to abortion information.”
You don’t have to agree with the paragraph above (I certainly don’t), but that’s exactly the point - if it can be used to block things you want blocked, there will be a way to justify blocking things you do NOT want blocked.
Removed as a protest against the community’s support for campaigns to bring about the deaths of members of marginalized groups, and opposition to private entities working to prevent such campaigns, together with it’s mindless flaming and downvoting of anyone who disagrees.
As a postscript for this discussion only, be aware that virtually all the replies to my comments quote me out of context, or claim I’ve made arguments I haven’t. It’s safe to disregard them.
Quoted verbatim here, just in case you choose to edit it again.
The only reason you got downvoted to hell in this thread is because you want to paint everyone who opposes corporate censorship as transgender murder supporters, in, what the article itself describes as a futile, neverending effort.
And now that you are time and time confronted with the fallacies you employ, you decide to edit all your comments “in protest”. Stopping only to call everyone who opposed you even in the slightest an accomplice to murder. Very mature.
Edit:
Ah cute. They delivered another show of their good intent in my DM;
Fuck off and die you harassing, lying, piece of shit.
Everyone who disagrees with you must be pro-kiwi huh? I rest my case.
deleted by creator
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 these sorts of things in court, they have enough experienced people to know what they are talking about.
A state has enough leverage to push around an ISP to comply, and the ISP gains nothing in opposing.
There is. People can be prosecuted individually. This has happened in the past without ISPs blocking whole websites.
Speaking of fallacies…
deleted by creator
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?
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.
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!
This sentence alone shows how short-sighted your point is.
“Abortion is the killing of fetuses. Providing women with access to information about abortion will lead to more deaths in just one year than Kiwifarms has brought about in its entire existence. ISPs have shown that they are able to block such sites. Given the higher level of harm abortion sites pose as compared to Kiwifarms, the Texas Court of Appeals moves that ISPs have to block all access to abortion information.”
You don’t have to agree with the paragraph above (I certainly don’t), but that’s exactly the point - if it can be used to block things you want blocked, there will be a way to justify blocking things you do NOT want blocked.
deleted by creator
Quoted verbatim here, just in case you choose to edit it again.
The only reason you got downvoted to hell in this thread is because you want to paint everyone who opposes corporate censorship as transgender murder supporters, in, what the article itself describes as a futile, neverending effort.
And now that you are time and time confronted with the fallacies you employ, you decide to edit all your comments “in protest”. Stopping only to call everyone who opposed you even in the slightest an accomplice to murder. Very mature.
Edit: Ah cute. They delivered another show of their good intent in my DM;
Everyone who disagrees with you must be pro-kiwi huh? I rest my case.
You should report that to the lemmy.world admins, that is against their community code of conduct.
I could, but it would only reinforce their belief they’re victim here. Nothing would change.