9 ms·

Thanks for sharing. I had heard of Handshake before but forgot about it. After the events of the past few days by so-called "big tech", I will be looking into t

Thanks for sharing. I had heard of Handshake before but forgot about it. After the events of the past few days by so-called "big tech", I will be looking into this more seriously.

marvin 6y ago
We're inching closer to realizing the "reductio ad absurdum" of censorship. Someone actually got censored, and took "well, if you don't like how the DNS does things, you can just make your own!" as a literal challenge. Wonder if this will eventually lead to further fragmentation. Hopefully encryption will keep it out of the lowest levels of infrastructure, I'd hate to see separate fiber lines put down to share controversial communications.
- eli 6y ago
  "alternative" DNS is hardly a new idea, it's just kinda hard to get it to stick.
  - marvin 6y ago
    I'm almost certain that a sufficient requirement for making it stick would be the existence of in-demand, legal/gray area (and objectionable) web content that is excluded from "legacy DNS", as the article's author poetically describes it.
- jquery 6y ago
  I wonder if the author of xkcd is ever going to apologize for his comic on free speech.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    Why would he? I think he's even more convinced of it today. "Free speech" is a pretty right-wing issue nowadays and people assume it's a dog whistle for hate speech. If you want to be a progressive leftist like Randall Munroe, you can't advocate for free speech without hurting your reputation in the current environment.
    - the_af 6y ago
      If this [1] is the xkcd strip we're talking about, and don't see how Randall Munroe isn't advocating for free speech, nor how it is a left vs right issue. He's simply saying "free speech means the government cannot arrest you for what you say", nothing more, nothing less. He furthermore argues that the right to free speech doesn't mean everyone else can't criticize you, have your shows/books/whatever canceled, shout you down, etc. He says "[free speech] doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences". Now, you may or may not agree with his position (I certainly don't agree with some key aspects of it) but Randall is explaining what free speech is, not arguing for censorship. The alt text is pretty thought provoking, too. [1] https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
      - baggy_trough 6y ago
        You are confusing the 1st Amendment with 'free speech'. Free speech is a value that is broadly applicable to society, far larger in scope than prohibition from the government.
        jsonne 6y ago
        I have no idea why you're being downvoted because you're completely right. The petty legalism around the issue does nothing to further the conversation. The 1st amendment is about the US government censoring people. It doesn't own the concept of free speech as a whole in the same way the constitution doesn't own the idea of God given rights, or democracy, or republic, or numerous other concepts mentioned.
        anonunivgrad 6y ago
        The petty legalism is just a technique for people to stop thinking about their flagrant hypocrisy. As if the people screaming "they're a private business, they can do what they want" have ever entertained that as a serious argument for any other issue.
        Karunamon 6y ago
        A comic response to the original comic: https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
  - samb1729 6y ago
    Can you please elaborate on what about that comic warrants an apology? I assume it is this comic[0] you are on about. [0]: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - ajkjk 6y ago
    It seems more correct than ever, no?
    - jquery 6y ago
      No. It conflates the principle free speech with a narrow legal reading of the first amendment. Whether on purpose, or accident, I cannot say. The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. In publishing the comic and leaving it up, Munroe has done more to damage the principle of free speech in the West than any opinion article I can think of, because it chains together several fallacies in a clever and funny way. A comic response to xkcd - https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in... A legal rebuttal to anybody thinking AWS’s actions were legal (they were not, and hopefully a judge will agree soon) - https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Parler_LLC_v_Amazon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0001.0.pdf https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Par...
      - ajkjk 6y ago
        Hm, that fails to land as a criticism. Depends whether you're talking about (a) "free speech, the legally-protected institution" or (b) "free speech, your right to be awful and not suffer consequences". The xkcd is saying that people saying "but my free speech!" are defending (b) by describing it as (a), which it's not. That's basically true. Afaik the part xkcd definitely gets wrong is the part about "can't arrest you for what you say", which isn't really how it works (for instance https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... discusses the case of how it enters into civil suits). Of course _philosophically_, yeah, the people who included (a) in the constitution were interested in (b). Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here. But at some point if someone is yelling Nazi stuff, I'm gonna punch them for it. It's not a legal question at all; my actions aren't governed by laws, just what I feel is right to do. That is the same point xkcd was making. I don't know enough to say whether AWS or whoever has the same right because they are operating in a legal system. But as a _person_, yeah, I can do whatever I want to you, including 'show you the door', if you're awful.
- metiscus 6y ago
  I am coming to support the notion that ISPs and Internet Backbone providers should be treated as first class utilities like electrical companies and not be able to deny access except for things like non-payment. Otherwise we do run the risk of a physically balkanized internet.
  - metiscus 6y ago
    Stupid question, is this the issue that was at the core of net neutrality? I may have misunderstood the entire thing if so.
    - woodrowbarlow 6y ago
      it's related. ISPs and telecom in the US do not invest adequately in infrastructure, and the existing infrastructure is overloaded. net neutrality was all about how that infrastructure can be utilized; ISPs want to profit off the scarcity by allowing big companies to pay for priority so that their website would load faster at the expense of everyone else (big companies want this too, and they want it to be expensive, because that increases barrier for entry in a competitive space where they already have an upper hand), but the net neutrality laws used to prevent this sort of bidding for priority. some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list.
      - skynet-9000 6y ago
        > some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list. In the U.S.? I thought this was only in India with Facebook's non-internet Internet.
        morlockabove 6y ago
        You think they don't want to implement it in the US?

Thanks for sharing. I had heard of Handshake before but forgot about it. After the events of the past few days by so-called "big tech", I will be looking into this more seriously.

marvin 6y ago

We're inching closer to realizing the "reductio ad absurdum" of censorship. Someone actually got censored, and took "well, if you don't like how the DNS does things, you can just make your own!" as a literal challenge. Wonder if this will eventually lead to further fragmentation. Hopefully encryption will keep it out of the lowest levels of infrastructure, I'd hate to see separate fiber lines put down to share controversial communications.

eli 6y ago
"alternative" DNS is hardly a new idea, it's just kinda hard to get it to stick.
- marvin 6y ago
  I'm almost certain that a sufficient requirement for making it stick would be the existence of in-demand, legal/gray area (and objectionable) web content that is excluded from "legacy DNS", as the article's author poetically describes it.
jquery 6y ago
I wonder if the author of xkcd is ever going to apologize for his comic on free speech.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  Why would he? I think he's even more convinced of it today. "Free speech" is a pretty right-wing issue nowadays and people assume it's a dog whistle for hate speech. If you want to be a progressive leftist like Randall Munroe, you can't advocate for free speech without hurting your reputation in the current environment.
  - the_af 6y ago
    If this [1] is the xkcd strip we're talking about, and don't see how Randall Munroe isn't advocating for free speech, nor how it is a left vs right issue. He's simply saying "free speech means the government cannot arrest you for what you say", nothing more, nothing less. He furthermore argues that the right to free speech doesn't mean everyone else can't criticize you, have your shows/books/whatever canceled, shout you down, etc. He says "[free speech] doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences". Now, you may or may not agree with his position (I certainly don't agree with some key aspects of it) but Randall is explaining what free speech is, not arguing for censorship. The alt text is pretty thought provoking, too. [1] https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
    - baggy_trough 6y ago
      You are confusing the 1st Amendment with 'free speech'. Free speech is a value that is broadly applicable to society, far larger in scope than prohibition from the government.
      - jsonne 6y ago
        I have no idea why you're being downvoted because you're completely right. The petty legalism around the issue does nothing to further the conversation. The 1st amendment is about the US government censoring people. It doesn't own the concept of free speech as a whole in the same way the constitution doesn't own the idea of God given rights, or democracy, or republic, or numerous other concepts mentioned.
        anonunivgrad 6y ago
        The petty legalism is just a technique for people to stop thinking about their flagrant hypocrisy. As if the people screaming "they're a private business, they can do what they want" have ever entertained that as a serious argument for any other issue.
      - Karunamon 6y ago
        A comic response to the original comic: https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
- samb1729 6y ago
  Can you please elaborate on what about that comic warrants an apology? I assume it is this comic[0] you are on about. [0]: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- ajkjk 6y ago
  It seems more correct than ever, no?
  - jquery 6y ago
    No. It conflates the principle free speech with a narrow legal reading of the first amendment. Whether on purpose, or accident, I cannot say. The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. In publishing the comic and leaving it up, Munroe has done more to damage the principle of free speech in the West than any opinion article I can think of, because it chains together several fallacies in a clever and funny way. A comic response to xkcd - https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in... A legal rebuttal to anybody thinking AWS’s actions were legal (they were not, and hopefully a judge will agree soon) - https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Parler_LLC_v_Amazon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0001.0.pdf https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Par...
    - ajkjk 6y ago
      Hm, that fails to land as a criticism. Depends whether you're talking about (a) "free speech, the legally-protected institution" or (b) "free speech, your right to be awful and not suffer consequences". The xkcd is saying that people saying "but my free speech!" are defending (b) by describing it as (a), which it's not. That's basically true. Afaik the part xkcd definitely gets wrong is the part about "can't arrest you for what you say", which isn't really how it works (for instance https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... discusses the case of how it enters into civil suits). Of course _philosophically_, yeah, the people who included (a) in the constitution were interested in (b). Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here. But at some point if someone is yelling Nazi stuff, I'm gonna punch them for it. It's not a legal question at all; my actions aren't governed by laws, just what I feel is right to do. That is the same point xkcd was making. I don't know enough to say whether AWS or whoever has the same right because they are operating in a legal system. But as a _person_, yeah, I can do whatever I want to you, including 'show you the door', if you're awful.
metiscus 6y ago
I am coming to support the notion that ISPs and Internet Backbone providers should be treated as first class utilities like electrical companies and not be able to deny access except for things like non-payment. Otherwise we do run the risk of a physically balkanized internet.
- metiscus 6y ago
  Stupid question, is this the issue that was at the core of net neutrality? I may have misunderstood the entire thing if so.
  - woodrowbarlow 6y ago
    it's related. ISPs and telecom in the US do not invest adequately in infrastructure, and the existing infrastructure is overloaded. net neutrality was all about how that infrastructure can be utilized; ISPs want to profit off the scarcity by allowing big companies to pay for priority so that their website would load faster at the expense of everyone else (big companies want this too, and they want it to be expensive, because that increases barrier for entry in a competitive space where they already have an upper hand), but the net neutrality laws used to prevent this sort of bidding for priority. some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list.
    - skynet-9000 6y ago
      > some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list. In the U.S.? I thought this was only in India with Facebook's non-internet Internet.
      - morlockabove 6y ago
        You think they don't want to implement it in the US?