4 ms·

Seeing how search results are being censored in “free countries” due to things like the DMCA and The Right To Be Forgotten, maybe we shouldn’t look to private c

Seeing how search results are being censored in “free countries” due to things like the DMCA and The Right To Be Forgotten, maybe we shouldn’t look to private companies to fix this issue.

gnode 8y ago
As far as I know, there is no law in Western countries prohibiting domain fronting, so it's not really comparable. What's probably more relevant is Google changing its mind, and deciding it wants to run a censored mainland Chinese service.
exabrial 8y ago
This is such a great point. Plenty of censorship here and there laws were written all they could be really abused with impunity (ex: DMCA takedown notices in the court cases facing Cox/Comcast).
IshKebab 8y ago
That is a totally different issue. This is about ISPs and governments snooping on your browsing, not taking sites down or removing them from search results.
- thomasfoster96 8y ago
  Correct me if I’m misreading, but the link is to a blog post entitled “...an Opportunity ... to End Censorship”. ISPs and governments snooping on your browsing is surveillance, not censorship. Taking down sites and removing them from search results certainly is censorship.
  - IshKebab 8y ago
    It is talking about a particular type of censorship where connections are blocked. Think the Great Firewall of China. It is nothing to do with censorship where the actual source is removed, as with the right to be forgotten and DMCA takedowns.
    - thomasfoster96 8y ago
      That’s what I meant, it’s (a type of) censorship, not surveillance.
tialaramex 8y ago
Technology does have implications for whether a country can effectively control something. Consider this for example: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/673425/Guidance_from_the_Secretary_of_State_for_Digital__Culture__Media_and_Sport_to_the_Age-Verification_Regulator_for_Online_Pornography_-_January_2018.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... That's the UK government explaining how it's going to enforce a worldwide requirement for Age Verification on all sites with (what it considers to be) pornographic material. Now regardless of whether you think this policy goal makes any actual sense, or whether a potential regulator would even try to do more than clamp down on UK porn companies that don't do age verification, the mechanism described has two halves to it: 1. UK ISPs voluntarily block non-complaint sites in DNS 2. Hopefully everybody uses their ISP's DNS servers Why doesn't it say the UK government will make every ISP run all connections through a government-owned proxy to enforce these rules regardless of DNS? Because that would cost an eye-watering amount of money and "We had to raise taxes by 10% for our anti-pornography law" is a guaranteed vote loser. It would also be ineffective but let's see them spend that money first.
- nickik 8y ago
  It has nothing to do with money. Setting up a DNS like that would not even require raising of taxes by 0.1%. The reason is that the law is only a political battle. Once the battle and the marketing are over non of this law or how it is or is not implemented. At best you get a bunch of bureaucrats in place that monitor these things and write a report every so often. Those will be ignored until some politician is again interested in fighting this battle.

Seeing how search results are being censored in “free countries” due to things like the DMCA and The Right To Be Forgotten, maybe we shouldn’t look to private companies to fix this issue.

gnode 8y ago

As far as I know, there is no law in Western countries prohibiting domain fronting, so it's not really comparable. What's probably more relevant is Google changing its mind, and deciding it wants to run a censored mainland Chinese service.

exabrial 8y ago

This is such a great point. Plenty of censorship here and there laws were written all they could be really abused with impunity (ex: DMCA takedown notices in the court cases facing Cox/Comcast).

IshKebab 8y ago

That is a totally different issue. This is about ISPs and governments snooping on your browsing, not taking sites down or removing them from search results.

thomasfoster96 8y ago
Correct me if I’m misreading, but the link is to a blog post entitled “...an Opportunity ... to End Censorship”. ISPs and governments snooping on your browsing is surveillance, not censorship. Taking down sites and removing them from search results certainly is censorship.
- IshKebab 8y ago
  It is talking about a particular type of censorship where connections are blocked. Think the Great Firewall of China. It is nothing to do with censorship where the actual source is removed, as with the right to be forgotten and DMCA takedowns.
  - thomasfoster96 8y ago
    That’s what I meant, it’s (a type of) censorship, not surveillance.

tialaramex 8y ago

Technology does have implications for whether a country can effectively control something. Consider this for example: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/673425/Guidance_from_the_Secretary_of_State_for_Digital__Culture__Media_and_Sport_to_the_Age-Verification_Regulator_for_Online_Pornography_-_January_2018.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... That's the UK government explaining how it's going to enforce a worldwide requirement for Age Verification on all sites with (what it considers to be) pornographic material. Now regardless of whether you think this policy goal makes any actual sense, or whether a potential regulator would even try to do more than clamp down on UK porn companies that don't do age verification, the mechanism described has two halves to it: 1. UK ISPs voluntarily block non-complaint sites in DNS 2. Hopefully everybody uses their ISP's DNS servers Why doesn't it say the UK government will make every ISP run all connections through a government-owned proxy to enforce these rules regardless of DNS? Because that would cost an eye-watering amount of money and "We had to raise taxes by 10% for our anti-pornography law" is a guaranteed vote loser. It would also be ineffective but let's see them spend that money first.

nickik 8y ago
It has nothing to do with money. Setting up a DNS like that would not even require raising of taxes by 0.1%. The reason is that the law is only a political battle. Once the battle and the marketing are over non of this law or how it is or is not implemented. At best you get a bunch of bureaucrats in place that monitor these things and write a report every so often. Those will be ignored until some politician is again interested in fighting this battle.