Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#41

Post by nonethewiser »

nkrisc wrote: post #34
nonethewiser wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think it matters for the point im making. Child porn exists and should be censored. What are you suggesting?

I think the point they might be trying to make is that there are religious and socially conservative groups that intentionally misclassify anything even remotely related to LBTQ topics as “pornography” so that anti-pornography laws can be used to silence anyone and anything that opposes their regressive views on sexuality, as one example. So it is a line that must be tread carefully.

Ah thanks that makes sense. And it indeed does not matter to the point Im making, which is some censorship, such as child porn, is good.

People can disagree on what that means, although I think there are some very obvious examples. Unless you think NOTHING called child porn should be censored because it might not actually be child porn, you can see how its a non factor.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#42

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

bawolff wrote: post #38
bradley13 wrote: post #12

It's not just Europe. DMCA takedowns in the US: no liability for taking down innocent content. Really, it comes down to this: censorship is bad. Always. If someone violates the law, get a court judgement. With the judgement in hand, take down that specific material. Too much work? Tough...

> It's not just Europe. DMCA takedowns in the US: no liability for taking down innocent content. Isn't it under penalty of purjury?

Only in theory. If I remember correctly, the "penalty of perjury" is applied to only some small part of the claim, which makes it easy for all but the most blatantly malicious claims (and possibly even those) to get off scot free by claiming a honest mistake.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#43

Post by microgpt »

zuzululu wrote: post #39

the global trend is not good. in south korea the new law prevents anyone from posting memes of the president because they require public square operators to purchase AI hardware that is already expensive at inflated markup (with completely opaque RFP bidding process and no disclosure of beneficiaries) and every image and post be monitored for "fake news/disinformation" by a partisan government body created by the Pre…

Small networks maybe? Make a virtual network for you and some friends and don't let the public access it.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#44

Post by nonethewiser »

izacus wrote: post #32
nonethewiser wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just to be sure to point out the obvious here, I think the main police effort should be on catching the sources of such material. Uhhh how about both? It is vital the material be taken down as well.

Sure, but let's prioritize catching actual criminals, right? Somehow US started completely ignoring the actual criminals and demanding platforms to play police and not try to punish the actual sources of lawbreaking.

I think they should catch the criminals as well, like I already clearly stated. They just aren’t mutually exclusive.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#45

Post by wiether »

gonzalohm wrote: post #17
dummydummy1234 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Out of curiosity, why did they close the street? Was it to turn it into public walking space? (I'm trying to imagine a reason and coming up short...)

It's a wide street and they installed a screen. I guess that's not something that you can set-up for every match so they decided to leave it up the whole time. The problem I have with it is not that my street was closed. It's that soccer always gets all the preferential treatment. Why not set that up for badminton or tennis? We have spectacular players but soccer seems to be the only important sport

Having had this discussion many times, the conclusion we often come to is that part of the popular success of football is the scarcity and simplicity.

In most sports, you have a world championship every year, meanwhile, a World Cup happens only every four years.

When you have screens and stuff setup by the city to follow a World Cup, the crowds are not made of die hard football fans, the majority of people there are normies that don't give a hoot about football during the 47 other months of a WC loop. Here we call them "footix". If the WC was happening every year, they would be bored and less and less of them would come out to the public events. Meanwhile, making it only every four years, they have time to forget that they didn't quite enjoyed it, they can believe things are very different from last time, and they agree to reserve part of their mental bandwidth to the event. They wouldn't do this on a yearly basis because they fundamentally don't care about football. They want to enjoy sharing a unique experience surrounded by friends, family and random peers. You can't do this every year because it removes the special character of it.

To illustrate this further: here we have the Tour de France (cycling), that happens every year, so no scarcity. Unless a stage passes near you. Which is something that happens even less often than a World Cup. In that case, people with no interest in cycling will go to the side of the road and go crazy.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#46

Post by throwaway4139 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #29
huijzer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be sure to point out the obvious here, I think the main police effort should be on catching the sources of such material. There is the root problem. In a world were we’re ruled by Epstein friends, this is probably not gonna happen though

>Just to be sure to point out the obvious here, I think the main police effort should be on catching the sources of such material. Uhhh how about both? It is vital the material be taken down as well.

Enforcement budget is limited. If you have $1, would you rather spend it to fight crime, or to chase whatever gets distributed online?

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#47

Post by athrowaway3z »

nonethewiser wrote: post #13
bradley13 wrote: post #12

It's not just Europe. DMCA takedowns in the US: no liability for taking down innocent content. Really, it comes down to this: censorship is bad. Always. If someone violates the law, get a court judgement. With the judgement in hand, take down that specific material. Too much work? Tough...

Isnt taking down illegal content censorship? If not you can get around the absolute statement “censorship is always bad” by just making more things illegal. I think censorship is so clearly good in some scenarios that we would never think to even debate it. Like child porn.

Anything you want to censor has at least 5 stages:

Creator, first share (direct), second order sharing (public-ish website), third order sharing (indexed resharing), and finally the consumer wanting it presented.

In the way there are things we clearly want to censor for being awful, there are things we must never allow to be censored. Eg knowledge of a genocide.

But the solution kind of rights itself. To censor something you need as many actors as possible in that enormous graph of sharing nodes to clearly want to censor that thing we all agree we clearly want to censor. I.e. a public library doesn't censorship child porn because they are required to.

> Isnt taking down illegal content censorship?

So yes this is censorship, but 'illegal' content is too vague.

We want to know about the censorship beyond the natural baseline.

Censorship, usually, means the extraordinary request for powers to control the web of communications - in the context of what and why.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#48

Post by kg »

bawolff wrote: post #38
bradley13 wrote: post #12

It's not just Europe. DMCA takedowns in the US: no liability for taking down innocent content. Really, it comes down to this: censorship is bad. Always. If someone violates the law, get a court judgement. With the judgement in hand, take down that specific material. Too much work? Tough...

> It's not just Europe. DMCA takedowns in the US: no liability for taking down innocent content. Isn't it under penalty of purjury?

It's impossible for a victim to enforce this penalty, even if they hire a lawyer, in my experience.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#49

Post by Retric »

nonethewiser wrote: post #37
qweqwe14 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters because if you can't determine if something is child porn, then you'll end up overblocking, so it doesn't matter if it "exists" and "should be censored"

But my point is some censorship is good. Such as child porn. We can disagree on what constitutes child porn in practice but you arent saying nothing should be censored right? You do think there is such thing as child porn right? And that it should be censored? Im not claiming more censorship is better. So I agree it could be overapplied. Im saying some censorship is clearly good.

I don’t think it’s inherently obvious that censorship is the right tool for CP.

I’d rather track people downloading CP than prevent them from being able to find it and thus not know who was more likely to be a child predator. Of course any negative outcomes without due process is problematic but there’s tradeoffs here.

Now people paying for CP (including online advertising) creates an incentive to create CP so that’s definitely worth banning. Similarly there’s a justification for banning ownership of CP on the premise you’re going to catch child predators, but do we then lockup kids looking for people their age?

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#50

Post by holoduke »

nonethewiser wrote: post #13
bradley13 wrote: post #12

It's not just Europe. DMCA takedowns in the US: no liability for taking down innocent content. Really, it comes down to this: censorship is bad. Always. If someone violates the law, get a court judgement. With the judgement in hand, take down that specific material. Too much work? Tough...

Isnt taking down illegal content censorship? If not you can get around the absolute statement “censorship is always bad” by just making more things illegal. I think censorship is so clearly good in some scenarios that we would never think to even debate it. Like child porn.

Everyone into childporn use uncensored models/sites deeply hidden from the public. Every single part of censorship is having a bad effect on the common world where normal people try to operate normally. The ones caught at this levels are not the interesting ones you want to catch.
Post reply on HN