ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

Post by ehhthing » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 12:55 AM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #66

gravitate wrote: post #12

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…

Essential internet infrastructure should not be content-neutral. 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…

Post by tortue0 » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 12:55 AM UTC

ehhthing wrote: post #163

jauer wrote: post #89

Yawn. Non-telco(*1) Tier 1 provider declines to carry routes for an entity they don't like. Happens all the time. This is why you buy from a Tier 2 instead and bypass DFZ(*2) politics. Drop routes from spammers: Spamhaus DROP list. Drop routes from DDoS sources? All the time. Even Google wasn't reachable from Cogent over IPv6 for years because of a business dispute. For all we know someone working at HE was targeted…

I'm not entirely sure about this but I believe that HE may have been null routing rather than just dropping routes.

Post by Avamander » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 12:56 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #94

unsui wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Give people power and they will use literally every single bit of it and then some This is going back to slippery slope argument issue. What makes you think there isn't pushback to create an equilibrium of policies? Why does it necessarily need to be one-sided, where giving in to one iota entails giving in to the whole enchilada? Complex systems entail dialogue and pushback across competing incentives and motivatio…

> Why does it necessarily need to be one-sided, where giving in to one iota entails giving in to the whole enchilada? Because every single time this is what happens. Your argument basically comes down to creating some speedbumps to slow down how long it will take, not whether it will or not create the same predictable outcome. I'd rather not live in a place like the UK where SWAT teams do over-night raids of peoples…

Post by autoexec » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 12:59 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #170

zeroCalories wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Cloudflare are nearly as well behaved as they could possibly be. This is not true. There has been at least two high profile cases where Cloudflare dropped their commitment to free speech when under no real legal pressure(kiwifarms and stormfromt). Maybe you think they did the right thing, but it's clear that they are not a neutral party.

[flagged]

Post by voidpointercast » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:00 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #170

zeroCalories wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Cloudflare are nearly as well behaved as they could possibly be. This is not true. There has been at least two high profile cases where Cloudflare dropped their commitment to free speech when under no real legal pressure(kiwifarms and stormfromt). Maybe you think they did the right thing, but it's clear that they are not a neutral party.

[flagged]