7 ms·
> "Our company does not believe a [snip] site has the authority to censor what you see [snip]. This is why [snip] we have made this decision to block these two
by BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
> "Our company does not believe a [snip] site has the authority to censor what you see [snip]. This is why [snip] we have made this decision to block these two websites from being accessed"
I can't tell if this announcement is parody.
- chrisacky 6y agoDo you want more parody... Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/idaho-internet-provider-blocks-facebook-and-twitter/293-867cc22b-fb90-4142-a296-8d800d2a03fb http://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/idaho-internet-provide..." on this server. Reference #18.6e8e7b5c.1610406044.d4bc76a
- deno 6y agoThis happens with many US-exclusive websites since GDPR[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17154971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17154971
- sgtfrankieboy 6y agoWhich is pretty dumb because the law doesn't apply to them as they are US-exclusive.
- MattGaiser 6y agoDo they not claim jurisdiction though? I understand a site not wanting to get involved and just deciding to block off the EU.
- jtbayly 6y agoLol. I mean, you’re right. The EU can’t make laws that apply to the entire universe like they wish they could and claim they do, but that was the whole point of GDPR. They claim that any company that has dealings with an EU citizen has to follow their laws. Of course they can’t do that. They could have passed a law forbidding their citizens from interacting with businesses that didn’t follow certain rules, since they have the ability to make rules for their citizens, but for some odd reason they decided not to.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> The EU can’t make laws that apply to the entire universe like they wish they could and claim they do Yes, they can. So can (and does!) the US. Either may have trouble enforcing them in some cases, but that’s true even of laws within their own territorial domain.
- jtbayly 6y agoThey can’t “apply” to me if they don’t apply to me. The whole point of sovereignty is to say where laws apply. Politics and war are the negotiation of those questions.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> The whole point of sovereignty is to say where laws apply. No, the whole point of sovereignty is that if you have it, you are ultimately the arbiter of your laws, including the bounds of where they apply. You may have practical problems getting your hands on people to apply them, of course, but that’s a separate issue.
- jtbayly 6y agoUnder your definition there is no such thing as sovereignty. Each individual decides for himself.
- dragonwriter 6y agoNo, lots of entities (including many at levels far above individuals) have superior authorities that decide how wide the subordinate entities writ runs.
- jtbayly 6y agoNo. All they can do is punish me for disobeying.
- Izkata 6y agoIt does actually, as the important part is if the people accessing the site are in the EU: https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/ https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/ > If your organization uses web tools that allow you to track cookies or the IP addresses of people who visit your website from EU countries, then you fall under the scope of the GDPR. Practically speaking, it’s unclear how strictly this provision will be interpreted or how brazenly it will be enforced. Suppose you run a golf course in Manitoba focused exclusively on your local area, but sometimes people in France stumble across your site. Would you find yourself in the crosshairs of European regulators? It’s not likely. But technically you could be held accountable for tracking these data.
- marcrosoft 6y agoThis is ridiculous. The EU doesn’t have jurisdiction of the world.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- colejohnson66 6y agoWell, neither does the US. Doesn’t stop either from trying.
- effie 6y agoBut it has influence. Since the warning about GDPR is made only in cases which impact data of EU citizens, the EU position seems reasonable.
- mech422 6y agoMore importantly, what would the regulators do - your not in their country, have no company in their jurisdiction to fine, and you don't really care if they fire-wall you out of country (you're us only, right?), your dns registration and infrastructure are all presumably US based.. So, I've always wondered what they would do? yell at you harshly ?
- samizdis 6y agoThe article is accessible from the EU via MSN syndication: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/citing-censorship-concerns-north-idaho-internet-provider-blocks-facebook-twitter/ar-BB1cEPdE https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/citing-censorship-...
- panny 6y agoIt's not hard to understand when you realize it's just the paradox of tolerance. The ISP won't tolerate curated "speech" from those intolerant of free speech.
- kortilla 6y ago“Paradox of tolerance”
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago> I can't tell if this announcement is parody. You have to imagine they realize the nature of it. But it's kind of like "this statement is false." It's a challenge to have somebody stop them. And if that happens, they turn it around the other way.
- Geezus_42 6y agoIn order to fight censorship we must implement censorship...
- adnzzzzZ 6y agoThis is nothing but the Paradox of Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance in action. Intolerant websites shouldn't be tolerated in our society.
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y agoWhich company does that refer to?
- coryrc 6y agoParadox of intolerance claims a society must be intolerant of intolerance. Should that apply for censorship as well?
- effie 6y agoBut society is tolerant of intolerance and I believe it has to be tolerant, if we are to be a free society, as opposed to engineered society controlled by elites. For example, Western society tolerates to some extent (and it should) bigots, racists, jingoists, people who take religious texts as literal manuals to life, antivaxxers, antimilitary activists, anti police activists, anti globalist activists, environmental activists, etc. These groups are known to be intolerant of some things and some classes of people. And society should tolerate them and allow them the same guarantees of free speech as to other people. There may be exceptions like neonazi/supremacist propaganda in Europe etc. but each exception should be carefully introduced and accepted in the population.
- happytoexplain 6y agoNot tolerating intolerance theoretically reduces, isolates, or rejects the intolerant element, stopping it from committing intolerances and therefore (again, theoretically) reducing net intolerance. Censoring a censoring element only serves as petty retaliation, since it is necessarily a net increase in censorship (if the censoring element is the host of the information, as in this case).
- optimiz3 6y agoDepends if the censorship is against attempts at overthrowing the society. A society has to be fundamentally intolerant of this or it will cease to exist.
- adamredwoods 6y agoI wonder how their customers will react, including finding a new service.
- cogman10 6y agoLoL, like that's an option! For north Idaho I'm sure that's the only option in town for high speed internet.
- flukus 6y agoI wonder how many people use facebook as a single sign on? Half their regular web may have been blocked.
- option 6y agowhich should serve them as a huge wake up call
- saurik 6y agoI look at this--with the caveat of casually accepting the frame of "censor" to include "stuff done by private companies" (which isn't, of course, how it is technically defined)--as "you shouldn't be allowed to censor people... but, since Facebook/Twitter think that's somehow OK, we are going to make an exception to our rule about this and censor them to show them how it feels (though of course, if you would prefer to not take part in this, contact us and we will happily turn this off for you, as we're only willing to take this demonstration so far)". FWIW, I consider this frame to be not only consistent but even acceptable, and it is similar to essentially all attempts to ensure freedom: "we believe in the freedom of all people... and so if you attempt to harm someone else's freedom we punish you (and only you) by taking away your freedom".
- xoa 6y ago>FWIW, I consider this entirely acceptable of a frame to take No, it's a total bullshit false equivalency. Basic physical infrastructure, using public rights of way and subsidies, that is for most people going to be their sole and exclusive choice, is not in any fucking way the same as social media. Stop it.
- saurik 6y agoSetting aside for a moment the false dichotomy you are putting forward that somehow this company's business should be treated differently than any other company's business--which, FWIW, to me is a pretty ridiculous assertion--your frame here is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether there's irony to be had from censoring someone over censorship: as many others have pointed out in this thread, is nothing more than the well-known "paradox of tolerance".
- xoa 6y ago>that somehow this company's business should be treated differently than any other company's business--which, FWIW, to me is a pretty ridiculous assertion This is such a ludicrous statement I honestly am having trouble thinking out to respond. Companies in different industries being treated differently is the universal rule throughout the world and human history. Airliners aren't accountants aren't computer hardware manufacturers aren't electrical companies aren't sports operations aren't restaurants aren't railways aren't... etc etc. A physical infrastructure company isn't an internet platform, and shouldn't be. Seriously what!? >your frame here is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether there's irony to be had from censoring someone over censorship No, it's not remotely irrelevant precisely because different areas of society have different rules. However much you hate Free Speech saurik, at least in America it is the law, and the humans that make up, own, and direct the entities of Twitter or Facebook have the exact same 1st Amendment rights that the rest of us do. It's not "censorship" for you, me, or any other regular private entity to refuse to actively provide help for others' speech. You aren't entitled to my money or property to spread your message, nor am I to yours, unless we are making use of certain public resources. And that last bit brings us back to ISPs, or USPS/FedEx/UPS for that matter. A physical infrastructure company using public money and rights of way and escaping liability for providing carriage via Common Carrier does not have those same rights, anymore than a public university has the same rights as a private one.