61–70 of 1001 posts
[1] https://theintercept.com/2018/08/06/net-neutrality-repeal-re...
EFF is on the wrong side of this, just as they were on the wrong side of the debates about what to do about spam email back in the day. They're committed to the view that the only acceptable place to block any flow of information (which they define very broadly) is at the receiving user's end and that the end user must personally opt-in. This is completely at odds with the last 30 years of experience on the internet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that you're being sarcastic, but don't understand exactly what you're implying. Are you saying that Nancy Reagan became a drug addict? Or else are you saying that experimenting with one or more drugs is beneficial?
I am saying that "Just Say No" is not an effective intervention for addiction. A lot of internet content is addictive, and the more addictive it is, the less likely it is to be bound to reality. So relying on individual self-control -- "just walk away from your computer" -- to counter the deleterious effects of misinformation on the internet is no more likely to succeed than it did for drug addiction.
I agree, we've got far too many entities that should just be 'dumb pipes' trying to play moral police at the moment, and it's a very worrying situation when it comes to free speech on the internet. Cloudflare is an often brought up example, as are payment processors like Visa and Mastercard and app stores like the iOS and Play Stores, but ISPs trying to block traffic for a site that's not actually illegal feels like…
>It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society right now, and that it's almost become a loophole for censoring free speech on a whim.
"Feels like"? This is clearly embraced as a necessary step to preserve democracy by a small-but-powerful segment of population.
EFF is on the wrong side of this, just as they were on the wrong side of the debates about what to do about spam email back in the day. They're committed to the view that the only acceptable place to block any flow of information (which they define very broadly) is at the receiving user's end and that the end user must personally opt-in. This is completely at odds with the last 30 years of experience on the internet…
I hit CTRL+F to find the word 'neutral' in this article, but no such word appeared. But it did appear in another EFF article titled 'We Need to Talk About Infrastructure'[0], which is the crux of the issue here. My only question is; what is regarded 'internet infrastructure' these days? Is Cloudflare really just an ISP? Is VPN infra considered an ISP? Are mixer nets like Tor/Hyphanet an ISP? 'Essential internet infra…
Content neutrality is a higher bar than you think it is. Content-neutral means the rules cannot take content into account at all.
If the content is millions of ssh login requests on thousands of servers with ec2-user and the top 10000 most used passwords, the infrastructure should be able to block that.
Content-neutrality would probably make it illegal to prevent DDoS attacks. At some levels of infrastructure, sure, but broadly speaking, content-neutrality seems like a bad requirement.
Viewpoint-neutral, however, is a better goal.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/o...
> But just because there’s a serious problem doesn’t mean that every response is a good one. This is a fantastic line, one that I'm tucking away for future use.
"Being on the border of the precipice, they decided to act and step ahead." "We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this." I've seen that thing rephrased so many ways, it's not even funny anymore. People always fall for that bias. I'm sure if you make some loud proclamations that "Global Warming will destroy everything, we must go and kill the wales", you will get followers.
Are there any lawsuits pending against KiwiFarms? If not, why not?
A civil might have a higher chance of succeeding, but I suspect this will also be very hard. "People say mean things" is neither illegal nor harassment, and outright organisation of harassment doesn't really happen on KiwiFarms, at least not in public. Trying to get damages from doxing (in a civil suit, because in most jurisdictions it's not illegal AFAIK) might be the best shot, especially for people who are otherwise non-public figures, but I'm not sure what chance that will have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech has never existed. We've always been pushing and pulling against what's acceptable.
Absolutely. Causing a stampede or crush being the obvious example. I do get baffled by the absolutionist statements about the freedom of speech. Speech is a side-channel into violence. My country has a censor's office, for example. Some 'speech' is literally illegal to possess. Government ministers aren't free to speak state secrets in public. It's not legal to disclose the names of persons with judicial name suppres…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can just...walk away from your computer I take it that (a) your income doesn't depend on your internet presence, and (b) you're reasonably well off. KiwiFarms has done massive damage to people in "the real world", and some people concerned for their safety cannot afford to ignore it. It is a genuine danger.
There are laws and law enforcement already in place to address bad actors, particularly those who would pose tangible harm upon an individual. Violating the principle and right of free speech is nothing more than grabbing and abusing power.