ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
1–10 of 1001 posts
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#2> 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.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#3> 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.
The EFF's response is not a good one, either. The previous sentence is:
"We fully support criminal and civil liability for those who abuse and harass others."
That's not sufficient. These are extremely slow mechanisms, when they work at all. The harassed individual can suffer for years, and the EFF isn't rushing out to aid them. As their post says, "law enforcement and legislators have failed".
The Internet is different from the physical world. It's much easier for people to cross legal jurisdictions and hide from law enforcement. Law enforcement and legislators haven't merely failed. They will continue to fail for a long time, during which there are real consequences to human beings.
The Internet is going to have to develop its own ways of dealing with people who use it to harm others. The EFF could help lead that. But they haven't yet, and so others are going to take action when they feel it's appropriate. They'll take the EFF's injunction to "resist the temptation to step in" as being worth the paper it's written on.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#4> 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.
The EFF's response is not a good one, either. The previous sentence is: "We fully support criminal and civil liability for those who abuse and harass others." That's not sufficient. These are extremely slow mechanisms, when they work at all. The harassed individual can suffer for years, and the EFF isn't rushing out to aid them. As their post says, "law enforcement and legislators have failed". The Internet is differ…
> develop its own ways of dealing with people who use it to harm others
So far, every "way" that's been developed of dealing with people who harm others has itself been used to harm others in more extreme ways than the harm they were supposed to mitigate.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#5> 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.
The EFF's response is not a good one, either. The previous sentence is: "We fully support criminal and civil liability for those who abuse and harass others." That's not sufficient. These are extremely slow mechanisms, when they work at all. The harassed individual can suffer for years, and the EFF isn't rushing out to aid them. As their post says, "law enforcement and legislators have failed". The Internet is differ…
[dead]
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#6Maybe Hurricane needs to police it's own network first.
My web server constantly receives malicious probes and invalid requests from Hurricane owned IPs.
How does a malicious actor get direct access to a Tier 1 address? The only way I can see is by being inside their facilities.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#7> 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.
let me tell you about a military 'headset'
1] doing something, even if it proves to be wrong, is better than doing nothing.
2] asking forgiveness is better than asking permission.
these [1,2] support each other in a circular discourse.
if you do nothing, you hesitate in want for confirmation of the right thing, you are ineffective.
asking permission, you hesitate in lieu of risking the wrong thing, you are ineffective rather than acting, and later apologizing for doing the wrong thing.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#8It's heartening to see the EFF come out sticking to principles on this in a time when other organizations of their stature have not.
I hate to say it, but I could easily imagine something like the ACLU opposing the EFF on this.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#9> 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.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#10> 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.
The EFF's response is not a good one, either. The previous sentence is: "We fully support criminal and civil liability for those who abuse and harass others." That's not sufficient. These are extremely slow mechanisms, when they work at all. The harassed individual can suffer for years, and the EFF isn't rushing out to aid them. As their post says, "law enforcement and legislators have failed". The Internet is differ…
The EFF can defend its mission in multiple ways. One, as you point out, is offering an alternative solution all agree is better. This is fantastic if you can find a feasible solution everyone actually agrees is better but there is no guarantee such a solution is going to be found until after you've managed to find it. Another way for the EFF to defend its mission, as this article aims for, is to make an argument the loss of what the mission is trying to protect is not worth the gains made by tossing it to the side. You can be unpersuaded and disagree with the balance but the lack of alternative solution alone isn't proof of a bad response.