I’m with HE on this one. KF is absolutely against their ToS, and if the various middle providers between HE and KF aren’t going to step in, they’re within their rights to drop that traffic.
At this level the Internet is still somewhat decentralized. KF can continue to find other hosts and ISPs that condone their horror, and said providers and peers have the right to drop them for being terrible. They could register their own ASN, broadcast routes, and other providers could still refuse to peer with them. I think this is good, actually.
but what about The Slippery Slope? next conservatives will be making ISPs take down vulnerable minorities! shouldn’t legislation be handling this?
The conservative folks are already attacking LGBTQ+ and any other minorities they want via legislation. Why would you think this is a good argument?
Hey this is a great contribution, just wanted to request that in the future you try to have a more descriptive title. Totally understand that it might have slipped your mind on this one, this is a charged topic to say the least, just a note for the future. Thanks!
If we do allow this type of net neutrality violations
We already allow it and it is normal practice. We don’t have laws which protect net neutrality, in fact, we have laws which do the opposite in the USA and in nearly every country. Saying that every LGBT+ website will be taken down because we aren’t choosing to jump to the defense of KF which has always had zero protections is absurd.
I’ve read an awful lot of comments yelling at EFF for supporting very bad people. I think you all do not understand the point being made.
It is not the isp’s job to police the network. The proper route is to raise the complaint to the proper authorities and let them police the problem. Specifically, So they can do it in a transparent auditable and citizen visible fashion.
What happens when the ISP decides to block a person or organization because they think what they’re doing is unacceptable, but they’re wrong? How do we police that?
Nobody sees anything because they’re blocked before anything can be shown. That is instant hidden censorship that nobody can stop because nobody knows about it.
Even the ACLU went to bat for a Nazi organization on a free speech topic because letting it pass would set a precident that would not be reversed, and thus eventually would be used to silence just causes.
Edit: if that’s still too complex to parse, replace the target with the sermons of Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
Free speech absolutism is civics 101 stuff, anyone that spent 3 minutes thinking about it after that realizes that the Paradox of Tolerance means it’s a self defeating naive proposition, and that consequently true free speech can’t include hate speech or even anti-democratic speech.
Nobody is advocating tolerance, at least I didn’t see it. This is about ensuring free speech cannot be subverted silently.
Note I pointed out that the issue is the arbiter of “tolerable”. Citizens need to make that decision with accurate information. In our case, that would be done through some department of the justice system combined with awareness and involvement by civil rights organizations.
Also, if you saw The Blues Brothers, you saw that Skokie Nazi march from the ACLU case, and the derision of them portrayed. Counter protests were equally allowed. This airs the issues in the light, where the unacceptable ideas can be countered.
The alternative is that those ideas spread quietly like a virus, unimpeded by facts that expose the flaws in those beliefs. Once people identify with the movement, it is very difficult to change their minds.
It’s garnering popular hate just as EFF themselves predicted, but the case they made in their original article is absolutely valid.
It’s unfortunate that the “victim” in this case turned out to be KF that everyone would rightfully be glad to be rid of; their despicable nature and the hostility they have cultivated buries away the main concern the article was trying to highlight - ISPs should not be the ones passing judgement on which website gets to live. That power should only reside with government authorities, and that too with strong checks and balances. This is setting a horrible precedent that will come to bite you back in the ass, I wish people would look past the banned site just this once and notice what the hell they are booing against.
Net neutrality has been debated for decades and, as the EFF apparently still has to remind people, the entire thing conceptually goes out the window once it becomes acceptable for ISPs to start blocking content on their own volition, even if you happen to completely agree with the block. After some time building blocklists of generally understood to be nasty sites, ISPs with large entertainment interests will block piracy sites. Internet archive? Blocked. Blog which writes something nasty about them? Block. Anarchist Fedi community? Etc. That’s what the EFF is warning about.
It would be cool if we had net neutrality, but we have a bunch of laws which already fly in the face of that. Maybe work on dismantling those? Maybe make your blog posts about the minorities which are having their voices already removed by the existing system? Maybe talk about how police fail to follow-through? It’s weird to be focusing on defending a website which proliferates hate and causes real harm, when you could instead be using your limited resources to help out people who deserve it. KF isn’t suing. No one is suing the tier 1 ISP. Why make the stand here? It reads as completely tone deaf to me.
I’m not saying that they can’t point this out as an issue and I’m aware that it’s in line with their absolutist beliefs on the internet being a public utility, but they spend an awfully small amount of time discussing the real and tangible harm that KF has brought to this world. They could also have spent more of their words on these other issues when bringing up KF. As I stated it’s about how tone deaf this seems to me that’s so off-putting about it.
I agree that the internet should be a public utility, but it’s not, and if I’m gonna be spending efforts focused on trying to make it a public utility I want those efforts to go towards instances which are worth the time. If it was already a public utility and this was a real threat to it continuing to be a public utility, that would be a very different situation.
they spend an awfully small amount of time discussing the real and tangible harm that KF has brought to this world.
As callous as it may sound, it isn’t their job to talk about that. I’m sure there’s plenty of charities who’s job it is to do that you can support, not to mention the police who should investigating if they caused real harm.
Real tangible harm was caused by KF - the burden of education is on everyone who chooses to open their mouth about this issue in the same way that we expect people to be reasonably knowledgeable about minorities before talking about them. We chastise companies and people for taking tone deaf stances on all sorts of issues all the time, because they should know better. They chose to open their mouth about a group which caused a lot of violence in the world, it’s their responsibility to be educated on how to approach the subject tactfully.
They could have fairly trivially provided links to charities which exist to offset this harm. They could have trivially talked about how the police system is currently failing to protect minorities and others disenfranchised by the existing system that has no net neutrality. They didn’t do these things. For such a large company and a non-profit with the reach that they have, they need to be better than this.
I mean even if it was a public utility, there’s still laws around those in regards to what you can and can’t do with it. So depending on how the framework around it is set up, and if there was a proper system in place to enforce it, I don’t think it would necessarily even be a threat to it becoming or continuing to be a public utility.
That‘s what they‘ve been doing for years, decades even. Just because it hit the „right“ website this time doesn’t mean this particular net neutrality violation should be ignored. On the contrary, it would be hypocritical for them to argue for net neutrality for years and then be like „oh well, those KF people suck so this time we‘re fine with it“. And why does it matter if anyone is suing? Is net neutrality only for those who have the motivation and/or means to sue?
There’s a big difference between explicitly endorsing something and not making a blog post about it. Hell there’s even a big difference between making a better blog post about this and this nonsense they put up. As I just stated in a reply to someone else right above you, despite all the issues the link in this post addresses, my other issue with the EFF post is how tone deaf it is.
I think the reactions to their article actually demonstrate very well why this blog post needed to be made. If we‘re willing to immediately give up on net neutrality because in this case it would have benefited a bad actor, we might as well not argue for net neutrality at all. Pointing this out is important and I don‘t think it‘s tone deaf.
I‘m not saying you did, but many people in the linked thread do so by endorsing the actions of the ISP. And in my opinion, those reactions demonstrate why this article is not pointless or tone deaf. Because many people just don’t realise that net neutrality with exceptions doesn‘t exist.
Ideas don’t have to exist in absolution. Many people oppose murder, but are also okay with murdering convicted criminals. It’s also possible to believe in laws yet allow them to be violated when a system isn’t perfect. One can believe in net neutrality and wish deeply for it, but also recognize that it does not currently exist and to be okay with (or even endorse) people using the system to disenfranchise bad actors because they believe it is the best solution currently available.
By this logic, any untrained citizen who interrupts a robbery by shooting the robber in the head from behind should not only be absolved of the crime but should be lauded for it.
You‘re missing the point. They want the police to act in these instances, that’s what they‘re there for. They don‘t want infrastructure providers to play the role of the police, as that sets a precedent that providers can just decide which websites they want to provide to you. It’s step one to a future where the internet you get will only be facebook, youtube and twitter.
Add comment