> Article 6 (para II and III) of the SREN Bill would force browser providers to create the means to mandatorily block websites present on a government provided list Why would this ever be done on a browser level? Any nation with internet censoring intentions can already do this by blocking it on an ISP level.
>Why would this ever be done on a browser level?
Because government says so. Its signaling/actionism for political/power purposes.
They can ban it from appstore/googleplay, with the provision that it should be banned for ALL countries, or else.
Or else what? What ability would any country have to demand that an app be removed from offer outside of their jurisdiction?
It has been seen in the form "if you don't comply then your operation in the country will be considered illegal regardless what you do locally". That carries a different weight depending on the country, e.g. missing out on the market in Greenland isn't going to get you much but not being able to participate in the Chinese market can be a big hit. Movies are a more classic example of this push.
Almost no part of the world was free from European colonialism. France was one of the largest colonial powers. If England lost to France maybe India would be speaking French instead of English now.
And we can all agree that french revolution values are much better than whatever crap the rest of europe was pushing?
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité: yes. What actually happened, the Terror and an Emperor: no.
It just is, the law specifies exactly under which law articles websites can be blocked, and all of said articles are quite specific about scamming, phishing, extortion of personal data, etc
Laws are easier to add than revoke. Might be just for scam websites now (haven't checked your claim), but it's a single majority vote away for any website in the future that those in charge want to label as terrorist, propaganda, unethical, or whatever else the next group that comes to power finds as an excuse for information that is against their own agenda.
Depending how the law is implemented, it may only be a ministerial decision away.
That's quite a revisionist history. The early web was heavily moderated, just on a smaller scale. >Hate to say it, but once the tech elite ( or more like the money elite controlling tech ) started talking about minority, lgbt and women's 'rights', they all started censoring, deplatforming, oppressing. There's nothing stopping you from creating yet another "free speech" website. They typically fail because what the "t…
Tangential, but, nowadays there are many digital spaces where saying "its not ok to hate cis white men" will get you a chorus of people saying "yes it is", followed by the boot.
Very tangential. Those sorts of spaces do exist, and likewise pockets of racism, homophobia, transphobia, and misogeny all exist too. Hating cis white men for existing isn't something that should be acceptable, and death threats are never okay. And there are stressors that they do face - the suffering of others does not invalidate your own. But at the same time, there are also plenty of spaces mocking and belittling trans people, gay people, black people, and women in general. Those places also spam death threats, only these death threats are a little more credible, a little more real, because there is a history of real, physical violence against all those demographics. At the same time, there are many people who just genuinely don't understand, who were sheltered by the previous generation's willful ignorance, who phrase their questions in a way that looks, at first glance, like another unprompted malicious attack. The violence is why those communities react so strongly to those questions, and why they are so hostile to what is, by all accounts, a reasonable statement. In more closed off digital spaces, where conversation is focused around issues common to those demographics, like the violence or discrimination they've experienced, it might come across as uncaring - if a trans woman is talking about how a cute guy she was talking to at a bar stalked her and tried to beat her after she mentioned that she is trans, and someone chooses that moment to say that it's not okay to hate cis white men, it just comes across as intentionally uncaring, as if that person saw all of the murder, rape, violence, hatred, and discrimination these people experience in daily life, then decided, "Nope, your attitude towards white cis men is the real problem here". Open spaces often use the same heuristic to determine if someone is acting in good faith, but due to being open this tends to catch a lot of people who aren't familiar with the heuristic at play, and only see a perfectly legitimate statement that seems to put everyone in a frenzy.
Now this isn't to say that these communities don't take it too far on their own. There are some which engage in doxxing, death threats, and all sorts of terrible behavior, but those communities are not the whole majority, just as the racist, transphobic, misogynistic and homophobic groups aren't the whole of cis white men. In both cases, those groups simply are the loudest.
France is really far from a planned economy. Marseille's worst neighborhoods are really chill compared to the bad parts of any American city. The streets are pretty safe. Your comment is kinda ridiculous, stop watching TV. Yeah there are lot of taxes, but those taxes come in handy when you can get 2 years of unemployment benefits when starting a company. Or when you know, get a cancer that would cost a few millions t…
In Marseille, 68 shootings and 30 deaths in six months. There are worse cities in America, but not many. https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2023/08/17/a-marseill...
There are many, many, many worse cities in the US. That's a homicide rate of 3.75/100'000, which is lower than the US average of 4.9/100'000 : most US cities have worse homicide rates than Marseille. If Marseille was a US city, it would be the 3rd or 4th city with a population over 1 million with the lowest homicide rate.
It seems to be a version of safe browsing that is mandated by law to be a full block rather than a warning. It will be very easy to bypass, making this a very stupid law. It's slightly more worrisome that the law doesn't include any privacy protection measures, but the GDPR still applies and whoever runs the checking service has to comply with it since the browsing history is personal data.
> It will be very easy to bypass, making this a very stupid law. It’s not about being effective, it’s about making things illegal. It’s trivially easy to break the speed limit, but that doesn’t stop local police using it to collect millions of dollars of fines every year
It doesn't seem that the law makes it illegal to use a browser that bypasses the block, unless the content was already illegal.
France should have listened to GNU/Stallman: You can't have an antifeature in free software. If you try, someone is just going to comment it out.
It doesn't need to be impossible to remove, just illegal to do so. It's like cars - you can driver faster than the speed limit, but if you get caught doing so, you may be punished.
Unlike cars, going to website happens alone in your house.
It would be nice if Mozilla would add more context around it. That said, it’s freaking exhausting how these dumb actions keep being taken by governments all over the world. It seems like every month there’s some new crap going on
France and the UK nowadays seem to beat Australia when it comes to dumb actions. Only the Turnbull and Morrison governments had more idiotic ideas.
Rules exist to require messages be shown on phones - for example the emergency alert system for hurricanes. Doesn't seem unreasonable that computer OS's and/or web browsers be required to support the same.
> Doesn't seem unreasonable that computer OS's and/or web browsers be required to support the same. Why? Web browsers were designed from the start to show you only content you expressly requested. Notification APIs are still opt-in. A browser is primarily pull-oriented, whereas a phone was always bi-directional. Inverting this expectation for the browser is very much unwelcome.
You are interpreting "unreasonable" from the perspective of a citizen, not from the perspective of the government.