Could you please read the whole article before commenting?
It’s incredibly easy for an ISP to point out that they’re not going to block a network for a different reason by pointing out it’s… not the same reason.
No offense, but don’t pursue a law degree, that’s not how things work in the real world.
The EFF has a long history of fighting these sorts of things in court, they have enough experienced people to know what they are talking about.
A state has enough leverage to push around an ISP to comply, and the ISP gains nothing in opposing.
The EFF deserves to be roundly condemned for this, especially as it has no obvious alternative.
There is. People can be prosecuted individually. This has happened in the past without ISPs blocking whole websites.
The position is intellectually dishonest unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people.
No offense, but keep your patronizing “Anyone who disagrees with me could only have just heard of this article I just skimmed, and not been discussing it in depth for the last week” bullshit out of my replies.
So, the EFF has 33 years of experience fighting in courts on matters of digital rights, and somehow you feel like you know both the current law and the legal consequences of court precedents better than them?
Based on how composed you’ve been in this comment section, I’m going to assume the EFF has been around longer than you have.
They are feeling personally attacked, by the content of the discussion, so they’re acting out. That’s completely understandable at a human level.
The reason we have these discourses is so we can hammer out our ideals, and see them implemented in different ways.
So let’s use other examples, so that people aren’t as emotionally invested in the particular discourse.
Telecommunication providers, at least in the United States, are given safe harbor from the content they deliver, so long as they don’t editorialize (select what’s allowed). If something’s illegal that’s up to the legal system to enforce. And if there’s a court order websites can be taken off, routes can be blackhold, links can be seized.
The United States government, and their politicians, have a long history of not cutting off the communication even of their enemies. We still maintained phone connections to the USSR during the entire Cold war. The internet was not shut off in Iraq during the Iraqi wars. Iran despite sanctions is still online. US certainly could bully many of the world’s interconnects to completely drop these countries. But they don’t. For a variety of reasons, but I think the most fundamental is you have to demonstrate that you believe in your free communication principles if you want everyone to mimic them. A secondary but still important reason, is to see what your enemies are saying. That’s actionable intelligence!
The EFF position is eminently defendable which is why lots of people here are defending it.
We can have a difference of opinion on how to tackle global crime. And I’m not undermining your position I feel your position is a reasonable one, but removing my rationale, devaluing my rationale and attacking my ability to think is not helping your argument.
“The guy I responded flamed me over something that I never said, and you’re all upmodding them and downvoting me because… I can speculate.”
“But it’s clear nobody here cares about the arguments. Nobody, not one, has addressed the issues I’ve raised. Insulted me, changed the subject, put words in my mouth, sure.”
I have not flamed you, I have not insulted you, I have not misquoted you. As the person your responding to, I’m sorry you have found yourself in this position.
Honestly, rereading all the posts here, no-one has insulted you at all, everyone has been more-or-less civil, with no name calling, or ad hominim attacks.
If your going to be upset with me, please at least be upset with me for things I’ve actually done.
From the very first reply, you implied that the argument that the EFF made was wrong, and that this precedent could not be used to block women’s access to abortion: “It’s incredibly easy for an ISP to point out that they’re not going to block a network for a different reason by pointing out it’s… not the same reason. Banning abortion information is not the same thing as banning a harassment network that’s causing deaths.”
I’ve said the EFF’s argument is bullshit because the US government cannot enforce the laws the EFF says could be used. Not that they don’t exist, but that this is an international network that heavily uses anonymity. The US government likely cannot at all, and if it can can only do expensively and slowly, too slowly to prevent deaths, ban this website.
If that’s the case, how did they get Ross Ulbricht? He ran a darkweb marketplace, in theory, harder to pin down than something on the clearnet like Kiwi Farms.
The same precedent that bans Kiwi Farms at the ISP level, could be used to block women’s access to safe abortion, causing deaths as well. And no, I’m not gonna take your word for it that it can be avoided in court in the future. You’re just some rando on the internet with no legal expertise, unlike the EFF.
I’m all in favor in prosecuting people responsible for peoples’ deaths and shutting down that website, but not by using something that could cause harm to others in the future.
Could you please read the whole article before commenting?
No offense, but don’t pursue a law degree, that’s not how things work in the real world. The EFF has a long history of fighting these sorts of things in court, they have enough experienced people to know what they are talking about.
A state has enough leverage to push around an ISP to comply, and the ISP gains nothing in opposing.
There is. People can be prosecuted individually. This has happened in the past without ISPs blocking whole websites.
Speaking of fallacies…
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
So, the EFF has 33 years of experience fighting in courts on matters of digital rights, and somehow you feel like you know both the current law and the legal consequences of court precedents better than them?
Based on how composed you’ve been in this comment section, I’m going to assume the EFF has been around longer than you have.
They are feeling personally attacked, by the content of the discussion, so they’re acting out. That’s completely understandable at a human level.
The reason we have these discourses is so we can hammer out our ideals, and see them implemented in different ways.
So let’s use other examples, so that people aren’t as emotionally invested in the particular discourse.
Telecommunication providers, at least in the United States, are given safe harbor from the content they deliver, so long as they don’t editorialize (select what’s allowed). If something’s illegal that’s up to the legal system to enforce. And if there’s a court order websites can be taken off, routes can be blackhold, links can be seized.
The United States government, and their politicians, have a long history of not cutting off the communication even of their enemies. We still maintained phone connections to the USSR during the entire Cold war. The internet was not shut off in Iraq during the Iraqi wars. Iran despite sanctions is still online. US certainly could bully many of the world’s interconnects to completely drop these countries. But they don’t. For a variety of reasons, but I think the most fundamental is you have to demonstrate that you believe in your free communication principles if you want everyone to mimic them. A secondary but still important reason, is to see what your enemies are saying. That’s actionable intelligence!
deleted by creator
I did not accuse you of not reading an article.
The EFF position is eminently defendable which is why lots of people here are defending it.
We can have a difference of opinion on how to tackle global crime. And I’m not undermining your position I feel your position is a reasonable one, but removing my rationale, devaluing my rationale and attacking my ability to think is not helping your argument.
I see you updated your comment.
“The guy I responded flamed me over something that I never said, and you’re all upmodding them and downvoting me because… I can speculate.”
“But it’s clear nobody here cares about the arguments. Nobody, not one, has addressed the issues I’ve raised. Insulted me, changed the subject, put words in my mouth, sure.”
I have not flamed you, I have not insulted you, I have not misquoted you. As the person your responding to, I’m sorry you have found yourself in this position.
Honestly, rereading all the posts here, no-one has insulted you at all, everyone has been more-or-less civil, with no name calling, or ad hominim attacks.
If your going to be upset with me, please at least be upset with me for things I’ve actually done.
deleted by creator
From the very first reply, you implied that the argument that the EFF made was wrong, and that this precedent could not be used to block women’s access to abortion: “It’s incredibly easy for an ISP to point out that they’re not going to block a network for a different reason by pointing out it’s… not the same reason. Banning abortion information is not the same thing as banning a harassment network that’s causing deaths.”
If that’s the case, how did they get Ross Ulbricht? He ran a darkweb marketplace, in theory, harder to pin down than something on the clearnet like Kiwi Farms.
The same precedent that bans Kiwi Farms at the ISP level, could be used to block women’s access to safe abortion, causing deaths as well. And no, I’m not gonna take your word for it that it can be avoided in court in the future. You’re just some rando on the internet with no legal expertise, unlike the EFF.
I’m all in favor in prosecuting people responsible for peoples’ deaths and shutting down that website, but not by using something that could cause harm to others in the future.