3 ms·

Independent of the current case (and Hamburg rulings in gernal), I haven't made up my mind yet about DNS blocking. The countless analogies don't really help me

by ketzu 5y ago

Independent of the current case (and Hamburg rulings in gernal), I haven't made up my mind yet about DNS blocking. The countless analogies don't really help me to find the right approach to handle these kinds of things. First, the "it only increases friction" argument: Basically everything is like that. Barely anything is absolute in the regard. If locked doors are effective at stopping most get-ins, it doesn't matter that they can easily be opened with a bit of skill. Second, should every country have to accept everything that is legal to host in any other country, i.e., should countries be allowed to make and uphold their own laws? I mostly think so, but am not sure how to achieve this. Violations can easily be outside of the reach of the country but there is still a desire to prevent the influence. Is DNS resolution an appropriate point to attack this problem? I am not sure, neither from an effectiveness nor an sensibility point of view, but I find the point of view to pursue everyone in their home jurisdiction (if it can be determined at all) convincing either.

wolverine876 5y ago
> should countries be allowed to make and uphold their own laws? I mostly think so Isn't that backward? The question is, should people be free to make their own choices and live their own lives? I don't care about countries, I care about people.
- ketzu 5y ago
  I think the answer to that depends heavily of ones own philosophical point of view - we may not even agree on what makes people free. I do care about countries as a governing body for the society that creates it, as I think societies should be allowed to self govern. Further, as I am not an anarchist, I believe that laws and governments are a valid way to do so. It is, however, debatable (even for me) which laws are "okay" for a society to implement on itself. There are laws I would consider fundamentally unacceptable. A mostly uncontroversial example would be slavery.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > I think the answer to that depends heavily of ones own philosophical point of view - we may not even agree on what makes people free. I think that's a philosophical debate, but mostly nonsense in practicality. It's not a matter of belief or opinion, for the most part; it's not hard to understand. It's just trendy for authoritarians to attack human rights as some subjective matter of relativistic ideas - that would be convenient for them. > societies should be allowed to self govern People have a right to self-govern, and to protect that right and others, 'governments are instituted among humans'. The word 'society' is often a construct used by the powerful to justify their control of the weak - the powerful are 'society', they assert, kind of like old-fashioned divine appointment.

by ketzu 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago

> should countries be allowed to make and uphold their own laws? I mostly think so Isn't that backward? The question is, should people be free to make their own choices and live their own lives? I don't care about countries, I care about people.

ketzu 5y ago
I think the answer to that depends heavily of ones own philosophical point of view - we may not even agree on what makes people free. I do care about countries as a governing body for the society that creates it, as I think societies should be allowed to self govern. Further, as I am not an anarchist, I believe that laws and governments are a valid way to do so. It is, however, debatable (even for me) which laws are "okay" for a society to implement on itself. There are laws I would consider fundamentally unacceptable. A mostly uncontroversial example would be slavery.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > I think the answer to that depends heavily of ones own philosophical point of view - we may not even agree on what makes people free. I think that's a philosophical debate, but mostly nonsense in practicality. It's not a matter of belief or opinion, for the most part; it's not hard to understand. It's just trendy for authoritarians to attack human rights as some subjective matter of relativistic ideas - that would be convenient for them. > societies should be allowed to self govern People have a right to self-govern, and to protect that right and others, 'governments are instituted among humans'. The word 'society' is often a construct used by the powerful to justify their control of the weak - the powerful are 'society', they assert, kind of like old-fashioned divine appointment.