Pirate site not impressed by Global DNS blocking order

So who said anything about supporting?

That was my whole original point, that if something is bad, it's if anything even more important not to censor information about it, not so thoroughly that it is actually removed from active and specific searches at least.

That absolutely includes things that advocate, because those very statements are the bad thing that needs to be seen to be believed and understood.

You can't just tell some kid who wasn't there "He rose to power and killed millions of Jews." It makes no sense and teaches no lesson. You have to show the crowd-pleasing speeches and other pro-nazi propaganda to show how attractive a bad thing can sound, to show how totally good and normal people just like you can end up cooperating with something wrong, to study and understand that aspect of the badness.

Some people will study that so they can then do it, but I don't see how that changes anything because we're right back to ignorance is no answer. Making everyone else ignorant is even worse. It creates even more victims than the one actually doing something bad.

So is "jaywalking", but we don't bring them up in the same discussion because copyright infringement is not in any way comparable to exploitation of minors.

> and it is absolute non-sensical to argue that spam is something we opt into. [...] and to even imply that people can opt-out of actual spam is wild. go ahead, set up your own email server, don't "censor" any spam, and attempt to opt-out.

Firstly, I was obviously referring to spam filtering, not spam itself. Secondly, spam filtering is not censorship. If the government or private entity unilaterally decided to stop emails from from reaching your inbox, that would be censorship. When you yourself decide to use a spam filter, which you're free to customize to your liking - that's not censorship. There is no equivalence. If you're equating content filtering which you have full control over, with censorship, then any discussion is indeed a waste of time.

> if you can't distinguish between the organizations i listed (restaurants, bars, forums, etc...) curating their audience and some version of wholesale "individuals free speech" then obviously the nuance needed to talk about this in any meaningful manner doesn't exist.

The person above the "Who gets to decide?" question was not talking about "censorship" at private in-person establishments, but wholesale censorship of communication because they perceive the entire concept of freedom of expression as a net negative to society. Perhaps you should read it again.

> now that multiple actual state backed attacks on free-speech are happening across the country. from book bans in libraries, to book bans in schools, to silencing teachers, to drag shows. there have now been 100s (if not 1000s) of these instances

I don't understand, you seemingly agree that "who decides" is an extremely important question when someone proposes "censorship", even though you just spent several paragraphs dismissing it as ridiculous.

It shouldn't be "them" deciding what gets censored, right? So if not them, do you get to decide what gets censored?

> again, there's no false-equivalence as the topic has been so muddied by disingenuous bad-faith actors

I agree, dragging user-controlled spam filters into the debate about government censorship of speech is disingenuous and bad faith.

No it isn't. The motte and bailey tactic is when you advocate for a very broad position, then retreat to something more defensible. I've stated that the broad statement (that all censorship is bad) is false, so as a result we need to have a more nuanced discussion about when it's appropriate to exercise this power and how we can de-fang potential abuses of it. Your position regarding all censorship being bad is your bailey, which quite frankly, I've razed to the ground. Your motte is the position that censorship can be used by a government to manipulate their citizenry, which is true, but significantly more limited in application than the original concept that all censorship is antisocial.

>I’ll engage with your second point only if you yield that the _only_ form of information that is acceptable for a government to censor is speech that is directly and explicitly calling for genocide.

I mean, I wouldn't concede that because I can think of a ton of situations in which banning speech is appropriate. We can start with the classic 'fire in a crowded theater', we can discuss automated scam-driven robocalls, we can look at email spam filter, content moderation on websites, restrictions on the spread of child pornography, etc. What about speech designed to disenfranchise people of their right to vote by lying about where they're supposed to vote? What about financial fraud or any form of censurable misrepresentation?

From a tech perspective, should you be able to DDOS domains without authorization? Does your

>therwise we are talking about the “known bad information” from your first paragraph.

>Does “bad” mean false? Or just malicious? Who decides it’s bad? How does it become “known.”

>As a citizen, are you allowed to challenge the classification of “bad” or does challenging the classification of “bad” itself count as “bad information?”

Great questions. This is where real debates about how legislation and law intersect with censorship occur. Different jurisdictions have different approaches, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. None are perfect, but if you're actually interested in this topic, you can look up review articles looking at comparative law on the subject and I think you'll find a lot of substantive meat to chew.

Even the United States, which values freedom of speech incredibly highly in it's hierarchy of rights have a very large panoply of situations in which speech is restricted.

>I’m suggesting that’s exactly what people are advocating for.

Yes, that's a strawman, which is why people who actually work on the issue don't take the argument seriously. It's the equivalent of someone outside tech saying 'you can't host a website because you can get DDOSed' then being mystified that the internet is still chugging along. The threat is real, but the value of taking action is important, and finding out how to mitigate the threat in real world is where the actual complexity is; identifying a threat everyone knows exists isn't.

Anyways, this is boring. It's the same 101 level discussion every time on this topic and it really gets tiresome.