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
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.
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.
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!
The EFF position is eminently defendable which is why lots of people here are defending it.
We can have a difference of opinion on how to tackle global crime. And I’m not undermining your position I feel your position is a reasonable one, but removing my rationale, devaluing my rationale and attacking my ability to think is not helping your argument.
“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.
From the very first reply, you implied that the argument that the EFF made was wrong, and that this precedent could not be used to block women’s access to abortion: “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. Banning abortion information is not the same thing as banning a harassment network that’s causing deaths.”
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.
If that’s the case, how did they get Ross Ulbricht? He ran a darkweb marketplace, in theory, harder to pin down than something on the clearnet like Kiwi Farms.
The same precedent that bans Kiwi Farms at the ISP level, could be used to block women’s access to safe abortion, causing deaths as well. And no, I’m not gonna take your word for it that it can be avoided in court in the future. You’re just some rando on the internet with no legal expertise, unlike the EFF.
I’m all in favor in prosecuting people responsible for peoples’ deaths and shutting down that website, but not by using something that could cause harm to others in the future.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right now, this is analogous to having an active shooter walking around gunning down people, and a random person safely elsewhere saying ‘Don’t shoot him, he has rights!’. No, people are actively suffering and dying. Fix the emergency first, then consider the ramifications.
Right now, this is analogous to having an active shooter walking around gunning down people, and a random person safely elsewhere saying ‘Don’t shoot him, he has rights!’. No, people are actively suffering and dying. Fix the emergency first, then consider the ramifications.
The problem is that the ramifications are clear as day and imminent. Other parties have been calling for ISP blocks for the longest time.
Using your analogy, the active shooter is walking around holding a dead-man’s switch connected to bombs in a few other areas. People like you are saying “it doesn’t matter that bombs are going to explode, just shoot him!”
It’s more like there’s an active shooter, and we know any violent techniques we use to stop him will immediately be seen by the right as fair game tactics against us in any context, and used against us in perpetuity.
Sort of. Corps have become bloated with power and this would just be another notch on the belt, however, if there’s an active shooter, it’s the police’s job to take care of it, not local businesses.
This should also be a government role to send people like this to trial. We already live in a surveillance state, use it to stop shit heads at least.
The right will make pleas that sound equally dangerous to the average fool. It’d be easy enough for them to try to get the very sites that exist to support trans kids and say “we need to shut these down because they’re harming/multilating kids,” like they always say. And then a sympathetic judge shuts them down, I hope you’re happy with the kids you saved now, because there will be so many you can’t.
If the government can’t do anything about it, why should we empower corporations too? It seems the solution to your scenario would be a more elegant legal system that the government could use to go after people conspiring to commit murder. Which I’m pretty sure are two major crimes already.
But that’s moot. If you agree that access to communication and the internet is a basic human right, then somebody who is not been legally sequestered, should have access to their basic human right.
You do realise the trans communities will be affected by this too? This isn’t some magic wand that only the good guys can use, republicans will be using it to ban LGBT information and support networks as soon as they can, they’ll wave that think of the children flag and it’ll be too late.
Just because a group of people don’t agree with you doesn’t mean they hate you. To use language accusing them of hating you, not accusing I’m sorry, asserting that they hate you just puts barriers up and prevents us from coming to a workable solution.
If we’re evil hate mongers why are you even talking to us?
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?
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
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.
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.
Edit: Nevermind. I see you’re also responsible for this wonderful gem:
The position is intellectually dishonest unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people.
Sure. Court gets together says hey this content’s illegal, you backbone provider terminate their access. As long as there’s a court and due process I’m okay with it.
Letting a corporation do an arbitrarily is the problem
“We should allow companies that provide what is almost a necessity in the modern world the power to decide who gets to use it and who doesn’t” is a hell of a take.
While we’re at it, I don’t think thieves deserve clean water. Utilities companies should shut off the water supply to households where thieves live.
If you don’t nip it in the bud, it’s going to be really hard to close that Pandora’s box.
Once we allow utilities, power, water, telephone, internet. To have opinions about who they can service, then you’re going to have a very dystopian civilization. Poor credit score? Can’t get on the internet. You voted for the wrong political candidate? No Comcast for you. Don’t believe in Scientology? Sorry we only offer dial-up in your area
Allowing discretion by utility providers, public services, is not only a bad precedent, it’s a clear and present danger for everyone who has enemies which is everyone.
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?
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
To the ones down-voting this comment.
People keep piling up on the EFF without reading that article.
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.
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
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
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!
deleted by creator
I did not accuse you of not reading an article.
The EFF position is eminently defendable which is why lots of people here are defending it.
We can have a difference of opinion on how to tackle global crime. And I’m not undermining your position I feel your position is a reasonable one, but removing my rationale, devaluing my rationale and attacking my ability to think is not helping your argument.
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.
deleted by creator
From the very first reply, you implied that the argument that the EFF made was wrong, and that this precedent could not be used to block women’s access to abortion: “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. Banning abortion information is not the same thing as banning a harassment network that’s causing deaths.”
If that’s the case, how did they get Ross Ulbricht? He ran a darkweb marketplace, in theory, harder to pin down than something on the clearnet like Kiwi Farms.
The same precedent that bans Kiwi Farms at the ISP level, could be used to block women’s access to safe abortion, causing deaths as well. And no, I’m not gonna take your word for it that it can be avoided in court in the future. You’re just some rando on the internet with no legal expertise, unlike the EFF.
I’m all in favor in prosecuting people responsible for peoples’ deaths and shutting down that website, but not by using something that could cause harm to others in the future.
“Why won’t anyone engage with my fallacious bullshit?” - pqdinfo “Well, this is why” - orizuru “BLOCKED” - pqdinfo
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Right now, this is analogous to having an active shooter walking around gunning down people, and a random person safely elsewhere saying ‘Don’t shoot him, he has rights!’. No, people are actively suffering and dying. Fix the emergency first, then consider the ramifications.
The problem is that the ramifications are clear as day and imminent. Other parties have been calling for ISP blocks for the longest time.
Using your analogy, the active shooter is walking around holding a dead-man’s switch connected to bombs in a few other areas. People like you are saying “it doesn’t matter that bombs are going to explode, just shoot him!”
deleted by creator
It’s more like there’s an active shooter, and we know any violent techniques we use to stop him will immediately be seen by the right as fair game tactics against us in any context, and used against us in perpetuity.
They’re going to do that anyway
That’s no reason to make it easy.
Sort of. Corps have become bloated with power and this would just be another notch on the belt, however, if there’s an active shooter, it’s the police’s job to take care of it, not local businesses.
This should also be a government role to send people like this to trial. We already live in a surveillance state, use it to stop shit heads at least.
The right will make pleas that sound equally dangerous to the average fool. It’d be easy enough for them to try to get the very sites that exist to support trans kids and say “we need to shut these down because they’re harming/multilating kids,” like they always say. And then a sympathetic judge shuts them down, I hope you’re happy with the kids you saved now, because there will be so many you can’t.
This is the best approach and one had has far wider application beyond just the internet
Paradox of tolerance* in effect
See below for a smarter user than me
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.”
deleted by creator
If the government can’t do anything about it, why should we empower corporations too? It seems the solution to your scenario would be a more elegant legal system that the government could use to go after people conspiring to commit murder. Which I’m pretty sure are two major crimes already.
But that’s moot. If you agree that access to communication and the internet is a basic human right, then somebody who is not been legally sequestered, should have access to their basic human right.
deleted by creator
The answer to international conspiracies are hard is not mob justice.
deleted by creator
You do realise the trans communities will be affected by this too? This isn’t some magic wand that only the good guys can use, republicans will be using it to ban LGBT information and support networks as soon as they can, they’ll wave that think of the children flag and it’ll be too late.
deleted by creator
‘organize the killing of trans people’
How far can this hyperbole go?
removed by mod
Just because a group of people don’t agree with you doesn’t mean they hate you. To use language accusing them of hating you, not accusing I’m sorry, asserting that they hate you just puts barriers up and prevents us from coming to a workable solution.
If we’re evil hate mongers why are you even talking to us?
Ha, are you calling me a transphobic right-winger? That really is funny.
What exactly are you claiming kiwifarms is doing?
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?
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
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?
deleted by creator
Great, most major ISPs now block all torrent, file-sharing and kodi 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.
deleted by creator
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
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.
Who is “the rest of us”?
🍻
deleted by creator
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.
Edit: Nevermind. I see you’re also responsible for this wonderful gem:
There’s no point in arguing with you.
deleted by creator
Everyone here, including the EFF, has explicitly said the state should take action against people plotting to murder.
deleted by creator
Sure. Court gets together says hey this content’s illegal, you backbone provider terminate their access. As long as there’s a court and due process I’m okay with it.
Letting a corporation do an arbitrarily is the problem
“We should allow companies that provide what is almost a necessity in the modern world the power to decide who gets to use it and who doesn’t” is a hell of a take.
While we’re at it, I don’t think thieves deserve clean water. Utilities companies should shut off the water supply to households where thieves live.
To households where they suspect thieves live, but without any legal determination of such
deleted by creator
If you don’t nip it in the bud, it’s going to be really hard to close that Pandora’s box.
Once we allow utilities, power, water, telephone, internet. To have opinions about who they can service, then you’re going to have a very dystopian civilization. Poor credit score? Can’t get on the internet. You voted for the wrong political candidate? No Comcast for you. Don’t believe in Scientology? Sorry we only offer dial-up in your area
Allowing discretion by utility providers, public services, is not only a bad precedent, it’s a clear and present danger for everyone who has enemies which is everyone.
deleted by creator
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?