311–320 of 519 posts
Let these Nations enjoy their sovereign right to protect their borders--even their digital ones--as they see fit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've posted this (wiki page that you wrote) several times in this thread... but the issue is that all the unblocked companies are already unblocked. What do they stand to gain from this other than a near-term disruption (at best)? The only way collateral freedom works is when there is mutual need for everyone to be included, otherwise why take the risk to carry the designated targets? Also I wouldn't underestimate…
The mutual need should be considering the freedom of communication that everyone should have as a human right. Like a lot of things when you think of it purely in terms of dollars you end up with an opressive authoritarian system like in China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that they posted the e-mail from Amazon, so readers could direct the blame at them. You can’t read that blog post and say it’s the most unbiased and objective way they could have presented this, especially if they want to remain on good terms with Amazon, who has done nothing wrong at all.
One can have an opinion and disagree with Amazon without feeling entitled to anything from them. I'm not objective; it's my subjective opinion that you're wrong. That doesn't mean I feel entitled to have you change your mind.
That's a straw man. In this case, they don't only disagree, they also feel entitled; that's what I'm saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing you haven't spent much time looking into how oppressive regimes work. They aren't going "to realize that they are being an oppressive regime" and have an epiphany where they realize, "Hey maybe I'm an evil dictator?" If you are up for reading, I highly recommend Michael Malice's book, Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong Il . After reading that you will completely understand why "see h…
There is a difference when people have never had access to things and when you take away access. A difference would be like America and North Korea and taking away the internet. The vast majority of Americans use the internet and it is an integral part to their lives. You take it away and they would riot in a heartbeat. On the other hand if you have a regime where the majority of people never had access to the intern…
I'm not certain that this is true.
No American Dictator would just outright ban the internet, no they'd say they were protecting children and blocking terrorists, and require internet providers to block that content.
Anyone arguing that this is censorship would be branded as a supporter of child pornography and terrorists.
A few more steps along that line and what you have is no longer the internet as we know it, but PatriotNet(tm) (insert waving flag, anthem, etc).
Do it enough subtle steps and they'd get away with it without anything more than a few grumpy "libtards" complaining on TV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But effectively that is the case. If major providers like AWS and Google ban domain fronting, it is effectively dead - nobody needs domain fronting when you have three domains, three domains can be banned the same way as one. AWS and Google could throw their considerable weight on the side of anti-censorship and openness. They instead chose - as businesses frequently do - to play along with oppressive dictatorial reg…
AWS and Google are companies. It's not their job to push for societal changes really. In fact, I hope they don't push for those. I'd prefer them to steer clear of pushing for any higher objectives, that's best left to governments and lawmakers.
"to be Earth’s most customer-centric company, where customers can find and discover anything they might want to buy online, and endeavors to offer its customers the lowest possible prices." - https://www.amazon.jobs/working/working-amazon
"Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” - https://www.google.com/about/our-company/
"Founded in 2004, Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them." - https://investor.fb.com/resources/default.aspx
Its interesting how these mission statements present vastly different goals.
At what point is something a public utility? If everyone abandons their servers for cloud providers you are at the whim of the corporate political stance of where your machine is hosted..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since Signal is open source, presumably anybody can fork it with a version that implements domain fronting.
Except as the article points out, both Amazon and Google have or intend to make domain fronting not work, regardless of the domain being fronted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"in a world where every important event you can't find in Google for all practical matters never happened" Except Google isn't in China, and least I heard important events still happen there...the world isn't as FANG centric as western media would want us to believe.
> FANG Stands for Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, apparently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is perfectly understandable why Amazon did that and siding with oppressive regimes is of course not unreasonable at all. Just unethical, hence the discussion.
AWS is not siding with oppressive regimes, what's with the misleading political slant? They don't want customers breaking terms of service, whatever those terms are, and especially when it means the rest of their customers are affected. It's not a single company involved here and they're looking out for everyone else they serve.
Sorry, I'm not on board with using an Amazon owned domain for this. That's got the potential to get Amazon itself blacklisted in some places, so they're absolutely not going to be okay with it.