3 ms·

I'm not sure it'll be great. Right now censors can selectively block offending websites. With ECH they'd just block entire CDNs so large chunks of Internet will

I'm not sure it'll be great. Right now censors can selectively block offending websites. With ECH they'd just block entire CDNs so large chunks of Internet will become inaccessible. At this point it's obvious that censorship in the Internet is inevitable. So I'd prefer to reduce blast radius.

sedatk 3y ago
> ith ECH they'd just block entire CDNs so large chunks of Internet will become inaccessible They would've effectively made Internet inaccessible. That has political consequences, and they would have to live with that, or revise their policies around content censorship such as finding a common ground with content providers so there would be no need to block the web site.
hiatus 3y ago
If right now censors can already block entire CDNs, how would things change?
- vbezhenar 3y ago
  They don’t do that. They have a list of URLs to block. HTTPS and HSTS already turns that list into a list of domains, so instead of single article, entire Wikipedia would have been blocked. Encrypting domain would turn that list into a list of IP addresses.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    The increase in cost of blocking is exactly one of the reasons it’s useful. Blocking the web isn’t an economical choice and shitty countries know that.
    - vbezhenar 3y ago
      I used to think this way, but at this point I think they don't care. Bureaucracy trumps over anything. Court decided to block some URL and internet providers will block everything they have, otherwise they'll be fined for not executing court decision. And nobody cares about economic choices. Law is law and that's about it.
      - aaomidi 3y ago
        I mean - yes they do. Iran would keep the internet blocked to the level they had during the height of the protests if no one cared about economics. They don’t because it actually costs everyone. During times of tension (e.g the protests) the cost becomes worth it.

sedatk 3y ago

> ith ECH they'd just block entire CDNs so large chunks of Internet will become inaccessible They would've effectively made Internet inaccessible. That has political consequences, and they would have to live with that, or revise their policies around content censorship such as finding a common ground with content providers so there would be no need to block the web site.

hiatus 3y ago

If right now censors can already block entire CDNs, how would things change?

vbezhenar 3y ago
They don’t do that. They have a list of URLs to block. HTTPS and HSTS already turns that list into a list of domains, so instead of single article, entire Wikipedia would have been blocked. Encrypting domain would turn that list into a list of IP addresses.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  The increase in cost of blocking is exactly one of the reasons it’s useful. Blocking the web isn’t an economical choice and shitty countries know that.
  - vbezhenar 3y ago
    I used to think this way, but at this point I think they don't care. Bureaucracy trumps over anything. Court decided to block some URL and internet providers will block everything they have, otherwise they'll be fined for not executing court decision. And nobody cares about economic choices. Law is law and that's about it.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      I mean - yes they do. Iran would keep the internet blocked to the level they had during the height of the protests if no one cared about economics. They don’t because it actually costs everyone. During times of tension (e.g the protests) the cost becomes worth it.