3 ms·

> as there are far more out there than these 2. GP listed them as examples, that does not mean that they are the only two companies that did so. So this become

> as there are far more out there than these 2. GP listed them as examples, that does not mean that they are the only two companies that did so. So this becomes a paradox of the heap. At which point does "a few individual companies" turn into "the internet"? Since the internet is a decentralized system there is no clear defined boundary and any of the big, private infrastructure providers finding novel reason (within their own ecosystem) to not provide a service is concerning. What if google refused to resolve some domains via their 8.8.8.8 resolver? Clearly this is trivial to circumvent, at worst you would have to setup your own resolver at home. And yet it could affect millions of unaware users. What if the CEO of a single Tier 1 peering provider suddenly found some content so much in conflict with his values that they refuse to route the whole IP block? Yes, they are private entities, but the internet consists predominantly of private entities providing infrastructure.

Fnoord 9y ago
> GP listed them as examples That wasn't clear at all. As for the rest of what you wrote: It is something we need to keep in the back of our mind, but I am not afraid of that doom-scenario. I've been on the Internet long enough to know that it isn't the end of the world if a few large ISPs stop carrying [certain] information. Even if the whole USA would be forced to do that under this law it wouldn't be the end of the world. If anything, it provides a business opportunity for competitors (akin to the problem of tax evasion). It'd be great for ISPs in the EU, to name an example who'd benefit. OVH in Europe wouldn't mind such a bill. My point is that the Internet will work around it if a large enough group of people support it. A large enough group of people (in relevant positions) support tax evasion as well, so that's gonna stay existent for the time being. There are also documented examples of ISPs as well as darknets which don't or would not censor (you'll find most ISPs operate like that unless it clearly is against the law). Although there's also grey area. It is one of the reasons why a website like TPB existed for so long. The same with 8.8.8.8. Its in Google's interest to handle the vast majority of DNS requests. Why? It allows them to do better profiling. Why would they without a court order actively hamper their business interest? If a company like Google wants to it becomes a cat and mouse game. People swap to a different DNS such as a root-server, or a proper DNS server supporting DNSCurve (a much more secure option than Google DNS). I'm from a country where two large ISPs had to block TPB on DNS layer. Do you think it was effective? Later on, they had to filter certain IPs (also causing other websites to be unreachable). That was slightly more effective, but to this day the darknet, VPNs, and proxies still work both for TPB as well for piracy. BTW, I find the example of Daily Stormer particularly weak. There's far more controversial as well as earlier documented examples related to piracy, terrorism, and CP. The question becomes: where do you draw the line? Because even in darknets, people draw lines. IPFS has a function to blacklist content. What you can observe is that something like CP is difficult (virtually impossible) to obtain because the general public doesn't support it. Whereas piracy, is supported by a vast large group of people. Result: 1) If someone does have a significant amount of it they actively searched for it which severely weakens their legal defense 2) The darknet (and clearnet till some extend) carries piracy, but not so much CP. Supply & demand works even with moderate amounts of censorship because a large enough group of people agree (or disagree) with the cause. And, since I like that CP isn't easily available, it seems the system works, even on the darknet (note I've only verified it on Tor btw). Because CP is where I draw the line regarding freedom of speech; I want the people who produce and knowingly spread that busted. The vast majority of our civilisation as well as the vast majority of people who hold relevant positions at ISPs agree with that. Yet, if freedom of speech was the holy grail, then it'd be available on the Internet. The elephant in the room is that freedom of speech both is not and was not the holy grail to begin with. There's nuances to such extreme ideal. I went into detail about 2 of these examples, but there are more available. > What if the CEO of a single Tier 1 peering provider suddenly found some content so much in conflict with his values that they refuse to route the whole IP block? This could already happen in the case of abuse, or lack of good peering agreement, but it did not happen in the case of spam. Instead we used blacklists like Spamhaus.
- the8472 9y ago
  > Later on, they had to filter certain IPs (also causing other websites to be unreachable). That was slightly more effective, but to this day the darknet, VPNs, and proxies still work both for TPB as well for piracy. But what is the point behind your argument here? Does it make it any less of censorship just because it is not quite effective? That's like saying DRM implementations doesn't exist because DRM fundamentally can't work. Just because something can't work doesn't mean people won't attempt it and thus make life more difficult for everyone. Ultimately censorship is the same, it is very hard to eradicate the information itself, there might always be some underground that preserves it, but it is still censorship if people who do not want the content disseminated succeed in making the content reach fewer people. From a policy perspective, mandating censorship infrastructure to be built will eventually lead for uses of this infrastructure to be expanded, the UK has shown this. First it was CP, then piracy, then regular porn, then politically extreme content.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    The argument seems pretty damn clear throughout my post. The point is made by the difference between CP and piracy. One has support from a significant amount of people and is drawn more and more into the darknet (although clearnet + closed registration also occurs more and more), the other one is both very underground as well as it doesn't have support from a significant amount of people. A large enough group of people who operate the darknet make sure there's no CP to be found and they'd do things like snitch, destroy content, maybe even operate fake sale with BTC address, etc. Yet that very same group supports the notion of piracy. That's why you can find pirated content on the darknet with ease. Its a given that the clearnet will become more regulated. Ever since I've been on the Internet, it has become only more regulated; not less. Its a given that darknets will rise within the clearnet. We can and should oppose this trend, sure, but we should also take action with more anonymity and privacy. Which is possible on the darknet. Its a cat and mouse game with outliers where the cat is massive and the mouse has no movement space versus a cat and mouse game where the mouse gets help from the powers that be. If you're interested in the philosophical side of the matter I invite you to read Hakim Bey's Temporary Autonomous Zone. Another point all my 3 posts make is that even on the darknet there's censorship (ie. even there's no absolute freedom of speech). Why? Because we, the vast majority of people, do not like CP, and do not want to have the darknet as a platform spreading it. A lot of people draw the line there. Maybe you personally don't. There's only so much you can do. For example do you want a CP site to be part of an index? Maybe you do. I certainly don't. And as long as a significant majority of the people who frolic around on the darknet actively hamper CP (such as in the way with the examples I made), it won't be easily found and therefore stays underground instead of being easily spread.

Fnoord 9y ago

> GP listed them as examples That wasn't clear at all. As for the rest of what you wrote: It is something we need to keep in the back of our mind, but I am not afraid of that doom-scenario. I've been on the Internet long enough to know that it isn't the end of the world if a few large ISPs stop carrying [certain] information. Even if the whole USA would be forced to do that under this law it wouldn't be the end of the world. If anything, it provides a business opportunity for competitors (akin to the problem of tax evasion). It'd be great for ISPs in the EU, to name an example who'd benefit. OVH in Europe wouldn't mind such a bill. My point is that the Internet will work around it if a large enough group of people support it. A large enough group of people (in relevant positions) support tax evasion as well, so that's gonna stay existent for the time being. There are also documented examples of ISPs as well as darknets which don't or would not censor (you'll find most ISPs operate like that unless it clearly is against the law). Although there's also grey area. It is one of the reasons why a website like TPB existed for so long. The same with 8.8.8.8. Its in Google's interest to handle the vast majority of DNS requests. Why? It allows them to do better profiling. Why would they without a court order actively hamper their business interest? If a company like Google wants to it becomes a cat and mouse game. People swap to a different DNS such as a root-server, or a proper DNS server supporting DNSCurve (a much more secure option than Google DNS). I'm from a country where two large ISPs had to block TPB on DNS layer. Do you think it was effective? Later on, they had to filter certain IPs (also causing other websites to be unreachable). That was slightly more effective, but to this day the darknet, VPNs, and proxies still work both for TPB as well for piracy. BTW, I find the example of Daily Stormer particularly weak. There's far more controversial as well as earlier documented examples related to piracy, terrorism, and CP. The question becomes: where do you draw the line? Because even in darknets, people draw lines. IPFS has a function to blacklist content. What you can observe is that something like CP is difficult (virtually impossible) to obtain because the general public doesn't support it. Whereas piracy, is supported by a vast large group of people. Result: 1) If someone does have a significant amount of it they actively searched for it which severely weakens their legal defense 2) The darknet (and clearnet till some extend) carries piracy, but not so much CP. Supply & demand works even with moderate amounts of censorship because a large enough group of people agree (or disagree) with the cause. And, since I like that CP isn't easily available, it seems the system works, even on the darknet (note I've only verified it on Tor btw). Because CP is where I draw the line regarding freedom of speech; I want the people who produce and knowingly spread that busted. The vast majority of our civilisation as well as the vast majority of people who hold relevant positions at ISPs agree with that. Yet, if freedom of speech was the holy grail, then it'd be available on the Internet. The elephant in the room is that freedom of speech both is not and was not the holy grail to begin with. There's nuances to such extreme ideal. I went into detail about 2 of these examples, but there are more available. > What if the CEO of a single Tier 1 peering provider suddenly found some content so much in conflict with his values that they refuse to route the whole IP block? This could already happen in the case of abuse, or lack of good peering agreement, but it did not happen in the case of spam. Instead we used blacklists like Spamhaus.

the8472 9y ago
> Later on, they had to filter certain IPs (also causing other websites to be unreachable). That was slightly more effective, but to this day the darknet, VPNs, and proxies still work both for TPB as well for piracy. But what is the point behind your argument here? Does it make it any less of censorship just because it is not quite effective? That's like saying DRM implementations doesn't exist because DRM fundamentally can't work. Just because something can't work doesn't mean people won't attempt it and thus make life more difficult for everyone. Ultimately censorship is the same, it is very hard to eradicate the information itself, there might always be some underground that preserves it, but it is still censorship if people who do not want the content disseminated succeed in making the content reach fewer people. From a policy perspective, mandating censorship infrastructure to be built will eventually lead for uses of this infrastructure to be expanded, the UK has shown this. First it was CP, then piracy, then regular porn, then politically extreme content.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  The argument seems pretty damn clear throughout my post. The point is made by the difference between CP and piracy. One has support from a significant amount of people and is drawn more and more into the darknet (although clearnet + closed registration also occurs more and more), the other one is both very underground as well as it doesn't have support from a significant amount of people. A large enough group of people who operate the darknet make sure there's no CP to be found and they'd do things like snitch, destroy content, maybe even operate fake sale with BTC address, etc. Yet that very same group supports the notion of piracy. That's why you can find pirated content on the darknet with ease. Its a given that the clearnet will become more regulated. Ever since I've been on the Internet, it has become only more regulated; not less. Its a given that darknets will rise within the clearnet. We can and should oppose this trend, sure, but we should also take action with more anonymity and privacy. Which is possible on the darknet. Its a cat and mouse game with outliers where the cat is massive and the mouse has no movement space versus a cat and mouse game where the mouse gets help from the powers that be. If you're interested in the philosophical side of the matter I invite you to read Hakim Bey's Temporary Autonomous Zone. Another point all my 3 posts make is that even on the darknet there's censorship (ie. even there's no absolute freedom of speech). Why? Because we, the vast majority of people, do not like CP, and do not want to have the darknet as a platform spreading it. A lot of people draw the line there. Maybe you personally don't. There's only so much you can do. For example do you want a CP site to be part of an index? Maybe you do. I certainly don't. And as long as a significant majority of the people who frolic around on the darknet actively hamper CP (such as in the way with the examples I made), it won't be easily found and therefore stays underground instead of being easily spread.