3 ms·

Scary how an ISP can just up and decide to block a website for hosting what they think is offensive. I guess it's the norm for China and Russia. What's scarier

Scary how an ISP can just up and decide to block a website for hosting what they think is offensive. I guess it's the norm for China and Russia. What's scarier are the people cheering this as if it's a win.

Jerry2 8y ago
>I guess it's the norm for China and Russia. I guess it's the norm in Australia and New Zealand now as well. And let's not forget that Sci-Hub has been blocked in a bunch of countries (including the US) and their domains have been taken away [1]. It looks to me that Australia, in particular, is the testing ground for FIVE EYES censorship efforts. Australia recently passed a draconian anti-encryption law [2] which will impact a number of multi-national companies. Other members of FIVE EYES are gauging the fallout from this and are probably waiting for some tragedy to strike before they can enact similar laws. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub#Legal_situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub#Legal_situation [2] https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/7/18130391/encryption-law-australia-global-impact https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/7/18130391/encryption-law-a...
- plugger 8y ago
  > It looks to me that Australia, in particular, is the testing ground for FIVE EYES censorship efforts. Australia recently passed a draconian anti-encryption law [2] which will impact a number of multi-national companies. Other members of FIVE EYES are gauging the fallout from this and are probably waiting for some tragedy to strike before they can enact similar laws. Australia doesn't have free speech in so far as the US does with the first amendment. Australia doesn't have a citizen Bill of Rights either. This combined with Australian's penchant for not taking risks does bode well for using it as a Five Eyes testing ground to remove what some would consider basic rights.
fourier_mode 8y ago
> what they think is offensive. This is not a a daily instance of "he says", "she says" offensiveness. This is an act of terror, and these platform served as a propaganda media which ought to stopped.
- post_break 8y ago
  So who determines that I can't see this video? Who determines what ISIS videos I should watch from live leak, twitter, etc? Should I be able to see the atrocities that are happening in Brazil? Who watches the watchmen?
- aeternus 8y ago
  Is the manifesto also considered propaganda media? What about analysis of that manifesto, or discussions about how to prevent attacks like this based on the contents of the manifesto, especially if they contain excerpts? Should we ban security companies from using the video for training purposes or to design better security or anti-terror measures? Should we ban people from sharing the attacker's name? Should we ban news agencies from even reporting on attacks like this? Keep in mind that news-coverage especially has been shown to incite copy-cat attacks.

Jerry2 8y ago

>I guess it's the norm for China and Russia. I guess it's the norm in Australia and New Zealand now as well. And let's not forget that Sci-Hub has been blocked in a bunch of countries (including the US) and their domains have been taken away [1]. It looks to me that Australia, in particular, is the testing ground for FIVE EYES censorship efforts. Australia recently passed a draconian anti-encryption law [2] which will impact a number of multi-national companies. Other members of FIVE EYES are gauging the fallout from this and are probably waiting for some tragedy to strike before they can enact similar laws. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub#Legal_situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub#Legal_situation [2] https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/7/18130391/encryption-law-australia-global-impact https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/7/18130391/encryption-law-a...

plugger 8y ago
> It looks to me that Australia, in particular, is the testing ground for FIVE EYES censorship efforts. Australia recently passed a draconian anti-encryption law [2] which will impact a number of multi-national companies. Other members of FIVE EYES are gauging the fallout from this and are probably waiting for some tragedy to strike before they can enact similar laws. Australia doesn't have free speech in so far as the US does with the first amendment. Australia doesn't have a citizen Bill of Rights either. This combined with Australian's penchant for not taking risks does bode well for using it as a Five Eyes testing ground to remove what some would consider basic rights.

fourier_mode 8y ago

> what they think is offensive. This is not a a daily instance of "he says", "she says" offensiveness. This is an act of terror, and these platform served as a propaganda media which ought to stopped.

post_break 8y ago
So who determines that I can't see this video? Who determines what ISIS videos I should watch from live leak, twitter, etc? Should I be able to see the atrocities that are happening in Brazil? Who watches the watchmen?
aeternus 8y ago
Is the manifesto also considered propaganda media? What about analysis of that manifesto, or discussions about how to prevent attacks like this based on the contents of the manifesto, especially if they contain excerpts? Should we ban security companies from using the video for training purposes or to design better security or anti-terror measures? Should we ban people from sharing the attacker's name? Should we ban news agencies from even reporting on attacks like this? Keep in mind that news-coverage especially has been shown to incite copy-cat attacks.