In fact, google cloud already be blocked by GFW.
Many of AWS server's ip have been blocked by GFW.
Only Azure can be used in China.
TLS 1.3 Is an Opportunity for Amazon, Google and Microsoft to End Censorship
61–70 of 102 posts
Re: TLS 1.3 Is an Opportunity for Amazon, Google and Microsoft to End Censorship
#62Why would anybody think that Amazon, Google, or Microsoft are against censorship? Recent events have demonstrated that they love them some censorship, when they do it. Witness the case of gab.ai - Google was happy to pull their app from the Play store. Microsoft didn't mind at all threatening to shut down their Azure account unless they censored a post. The Azure case is particularly amazing. I can't believe the tech…
AWS has absolutely taken down websites because they didn't like what was on them, just recently, in fact: https://freebeacon.com/issues/gun-rights-activists-posted-gu... I'm a journalist and have seen a screencap of the takedown that Amazon issued to the Firearms Policy Coalition, which started and maintains the censored site (CodeIsFreeSpeech.com). The takedown erroneously cited a temporary restraining order issued…
Interesting, thanks! I hadn't heard of that.
Re: TLS 1.3 Is an Opportunity for Amazon, Google and Microsoft to End Censorship
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
No no no, you don't get to throw out gab.ai as an example without expanding on what they wanted censored. For those who don't know what was censored I'll link it as I will not be reposting it: https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/microsoft-threatened-gab-shut... You muddle the waters greatly when you pretend it was just some free speech issue (Newsflash: FREE SPEECH DOES NOT EXTEND TO NON-GOVERNMENT ENTITIES),
I really hate this meme; Randall did the world a great disservice by missing the point and putting it in a format which spread like wildfire for smug people to quote until the end of time. Free speech is a principal which extends farther than a very limited right in US law -- it's not a rule, it's not prescriptive, it's not afforded by any law -- it's an ideal. I don't in any way deny that you can find people who con…
I agree. What I have been saying is that Free Speech means far more than the literal text of the First Amendment and nothing else. Free Speech is a critical cultural norm to the maintenance of Democracy. Free Speech means that all people and all institutions hold as important values to not restrict the speech even of those they disagree with.
Values such as these do not flow from the Government to the people and culture, but from the people and culture to the Government. If the culture is to disregard free speech for certain forbidden opinions, then that will seep into the Government eventually. I fear that if we continue on the path we have been going down for the last few years, we may lose the Freedom of Speech at the Government level in a generation.
Re: TLS 1.3 Is an Opportunity for Amazon, Google and Microsoft to End Censorship
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hate this meme; Randall did the world a great disservice by missing the point and putting it in a format which spread like wildfire for smug people to quote until the end of time. Free speech is a principal which extends farther than a very limited right in US law -- it's not a rule, it's not prescriptive, it's not afforded by any law -- it's an ideal. I don't in any way deny that you can find people who con…
I love how you can say "free speech is an ideal" while simultaneous arguing to limit the free speech of platform holders. The reason free speech only lawfully bounds the government is because the ability to kick bad actors out of your business is an essential free speech to the populous. MS is free to moderate their platform in anyway that doesn't violate US law; that's their exercise of free speech. Groups that disa…
Now this is where things get interesting. There's a decent argument to be made that internet communication is becoming dominated by a handful of platforms. There may be a point at which you are practically unable to speak on the internet if a half-dozen Silicon Valley companies do not like your opinion. I do not say that we are at this point yet. It is a possible and visible future, though. I think we can consider how we would determine when that domination of internet discussion constitutes a monopoly, and what should be done about it in that case.
We don't allow companies that are monopolies in critical industries to do as they please, in many areas and for many reasons. If there is effectively widespread censorship of speech, who elected Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, et all to be the deciders of what gets censored and what does not? If the ability or potential for that is out there, shouldn't it be the democratically elected government that determines what does and does not get censored and not a cabal of private corporations?
Re: TLS 1.3 Is an Opportunity for Amazon, Google and Microsoft to End Censorship
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hate this meme; Randall did the world a great disservice by missing the point and putting it in a format which spread like wildfire for smug people to quote until the end of time. Free speech is a principal which extends farther than a very limited right in US law -- it's not a rule, it's not prescriptive, it's not afforded by any law -- it's an ideal. I don't in any way deny that you can find people who con…
I love how you can say "free speech is an ideal" while simultaneous arguing to limit the free speech of platform holders. The reason free speech only lawfully bounds the government is because the ability to kick bad actors out of your business is an essential free speech to the populous. MS is free to moderate their platform in anyway that doesn't violate US law; that's their exercise of free speech. Groups that disa…
[deleted]
Re: TLS 1.3 Is an Opportunity for Amazon, Google and Microsoft to End Censorship
#66This article is unfortunately inaccurate. TLS1.3 does not include encrypted SNI. Encrypted SNI is still being worked on by the TLS working group, and isn't in a deployable state.
Thanks for the heads up. I've made some proxy software that routes on SNI. If TLS1.3 drops SNI then I feel like that will accelerate ipv6 adoption because we're going to need a shitload more IP addresses.
I'm not following the connection between how IPv6 would accelerate in the absence of SNI. Could you elaborate?
Re: TLS 1.3 Is an Opportunity for Amazon, Google and Microsoft to End Censorship
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hate this meme; Randall did the world a great disservice by missing the point and putting it in a format which spread like wildfire for smug people to quote until the end of time. Free speech is a principal which extends farther than a very limited right in US law -- it's not a rule, it's not prescriptive, it's not afforded by any law -- it's an ideal. I don't in any way deny that you can find people who con…
I love how you can say "free speech is an ideal" while simultaneous arguing to limit the free speech of platform holders. The reason free speech only lawfully bounds the government is because the ability to kick bad actors out of your business is an essential free speech to the populous. MS is free to moderate their platform in anyway that doesn't violate US law; that's their exercise of free speech. Groups that disa…
You're pretty much proving my point when it comes to confusing the law with what is right. Ignore the law, it's completely orthogonal to the discussion. Free speech isn't prescriptive. Holding it as an ideal doesn't mean you want zero restrictions any more than holding liberty as an ideal means you want anarchy.
Your 'system' is simply unrestricted speech to the powerful and your 'solution' is just a suggestion that Gab's community become powerful enough to speak. Does that sound like free speech to you?
Re: TLS 1.3 Is an Opportunity for Amazon, Google and Microsoft to End Censorship
#68TLS 1.3 is just a protocol for transporting encrypting communications. We have had such protocols for a long time. Censorship has continued unabated.
There is no technical solution that can prevent censorship. Censorship is a social issue. If a government policy, or the policy of a privately held corporation, insists on censoring something, it will do so.
Literally the only way a transport protocol could end censorship is if a law were enacted that specifically stated "This protocol may not be circumvented or obstructed by any party, private or public, by any means, for the purpose of censorship.".
Re: TLS 1.3 Is an Opportunity for Amazon, Google and Microsoft to End Censorship
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
No no no, you don't get to throw out gab.ai as an example without expanding on what they wanted censored. For those who don't know what was censored I'll link it as I will not be reposting it: https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/microsoft-threatened-gab-shut... You muddle the waters greatly when you pretend it was just some free speech issue (Newsflash: FREE SPEECH DOES NOT EXTEND TO NON-GOVERNMENT ENTITIES),
I really hate this meme; Randall did the world a great disservice by missing the point and putting it in a format which spread like wildfire for smug people to quote until the end of time. Free speech is a principal which extends farther than a very limited right in US law -- it's not a rule, it's not prescriptive, it's not afforded by any law -- it's an ideal. I don't in any way deny that you can find people who con…
>And no matter what I think about the things they said I still hold that they ought to be allowed to say them among themselves.
And they are. No one is stopping them from talking to each other. They however are telling people to stop talking to each other in the office building Microsoft owns and rents out.
Perhaps that's the best analogy? Providing (P|I|S)AAS is a business transaction. Its like renting out commercial space. And landowners turn down potential leases for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with money ("we're trying to cultivate a certain image in this area"), and we don't bat an eye. We would think absolutely nothing of a landlord saying "no, local KKK chapter, you cannot set up your lounge here".
But when the space is virtual, it magically changes from a landlord to a speech thing. Even though the activities at the KKK lounge would be, by and large, the same kinds of activities that would happen at stormfront, except perhaps overall less harmful (more potlucks, less extremism).
The landlord isn't stopping them from chatting, he just isn't going to be party to a transaction that actively facilitates it. Why's Microsoft (or Google, or anyone else's) action different?
I'm happy to provide thought experiments to test where you actually lie on this debate. I expect that your views will normally fall on the "no one is under any obligation, even ethically, to provide someone else a speech platform, and refusing to provide someone a platform is not the same as censorship", although I can't say for sure.
Re: TLS 1.3 Is an Opportunity for Amazon, Google and Microsoft to End Censorship
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wrote about this last year: https://fightthefuture.org/article/the-new-era-of-corporate-... It's easy to side with CloudFlair when they go against a site like The Daily Stormer (Which is so out there it might just fall into Poe's Law). The fact is that most decent hosting is only available in a handful of industries. Even the CF CEO has had misgivings of his decision and it gets us into a really questionable space.…
It's actually worse than there being only a couple of big providers. The problem is that the same sort of people who are trying to shut down sites through legal pressure tactics against Amazon, Google etc are absolutely happy to use illegal tactics too. In particular once sites are booted off large providers onto smaller ones or self hosted sites, that's when the DDoS attacks start. Infowars already saw one, for inst…
I agree. I see this all the time when otherwise reasonable people spout "oh well, Google/FB/Twitter are private companies so free speech argument does not apply to them and that racists/nazis etc aren't owed anything by social media platforms."