5 ms·

For the same reasons a shop owner must sell to all customers without discriminating on ethnicity, religion, disability, etc? Would it be acceptable for a websi

by dhx 3y ago

For the same reasons a shop owner must sell to all customers without discriminating on ethnicity, religion, disability, etc? Would it be acceptable for a website owner to block users from Detroit (78% African Americans)[1] or block users from El Paso (82% Hispanic)[2] because the website owner claims that fraudulent ad clicking is more prevalent from those cities? Would it be acceptable to only serve web pages to people without disabilities and without a need for specialist accessibility software because it's not economically viable to consider users with disabilities? Would the poorest 10% of the population be able to access web pages and services delivered over the Internet with old hardware (all they can afford) and with limited computer literacy and limited ability to raise complaints (that are ignored anyway or responded to by an AI algorithm that doesn't care)? A website owner is still discriminating when they hide behind technology such as AI algorithms, Web Integrity APIs, etc and pretend that their use of such technology is non-discriminatory. [1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/detroitcitymichigan,MI/PST045222 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/detroitcitymich... [2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/elpasocitytexas,elpasocountytexas/PST045222 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/elpasocitytexas...

archerx 3y ago
I block China and Turkey from some of my websites to reduce bots and hacking attempts, does this make me a bad person for discriminating or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches? I’m not defending google’s crap but I should be able to block anyone I want from my websites if I choose.
- bundie 3y ago
  > I block China and Turkey from some of my websites to reduce bots and hacking attempts, does this make me a bad person for discriminating or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches? No.
- allarm 3y ago
  > does this make me a bad person for discriminating Yes. And not only for discriminating. You make the web shittier than it already is, and more fragmented. > or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches? This part is unrelated to the first part.
  - archerx 3y ago
    Yes, I am the bad guy for defending my sites from being defaced and my clients private data stolen from the bad actors coming from those two countries specifically. It is totally me making the internet a shittier place. If only I had the strength and energy to unblock those countries to tolerate the unrelenting abuse and attacks so I won't be such a terrible, horrible person.
    - allarm 3y ago
      > Yes, I am the bad guy What's the point of asking a question (...does this make me a bad person for discriminating?) if you're not ready to accept some of the answers? Yes, geoblocking totally makes the internet a shittier place. In the same way as the hackers and scriptkiddies make it the shittier place. It's a chicken and egg situation. You're blocking part of the world because it's dangerous waters. I am blocking part of the world because I disagree with the politics of that particular part. We are together making geo-blocking tolerable and acceptable. We're together making the internet more shitty than it deserves. Congratulations. By the way, I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same thing you did. I guess if I can't properly manage the security of a resource, the easiest way to deal with it would be to eliminate the source of the attack vector. I wouldn't deny that I'm part of the problem though. Because that's exactly what I am.
      - archerx 3y ago
        I wonder if locking my doors as well is discrimination according to you? No geoblocking doesn't make the internet a shittier place, you're blaming the symptoms/victims not the true cause. What is actually making the internet a shittier place is the bad actors, bots, scammers, scrapers, psychopaths and etc. Maybe those countries that get blocked should do more to stop those bad actors in the first place. Has China or Turkey ever contributed or paid for one of my projects/services? Nope, not once. Have they caused me grief and wasted my time dealing with bullshit? Yes, absolutely! So I don't think I am a bad, unless you think preventing myself from getting punched makes me bad guy. Maybe you should change your frame of thought and start pointing the fingers at the actual bad guys who actually ruining the web and stop accusing people of self defense of being "bad guys". Basically if you don't want to be treated like an asshole (geoblocked) don't act like an asshole. I know it's a very hard concept to grasp.
- midasz 3y ago
  Nah it would be bad if the user-agent contained a string describing the users ethnicity and you'd block them based on that though.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  That's the same approach as requesting a valid phone number for a service that absolutely doesn't need a phone number, just to filter out potentially problematic users. Is it within your rights ? totally. Does it make sense from a business perspective ? yes, probably. Is it morally right ? I'd say no. Will most people give you a damn about it ? probably not. Most people won't care if you discriminate against some minority they're not part of and don't interact with. Some will, but I'm not sure how much it matters to you if you're seen as a "bad person" either way ?
flagrant_taco 3y ago
This is a massive leap in assumptions and arguments. For one, blocking users in a geographic region would not be legally considered racial discrimination unless you can prove intent. This is the bullshit loop hole that makes it easy to get away with discrimination, but that's the way it works. If Google really wants to play this game and create a technical gate preventing usage of sites by anyone that uses a browser that may be blocking ads, there's a legitimate business need there and all they have to say is they are no longer willing to serve users that refuse to pay by viewing ads and providing valuable data. In the case of Chrome they can extend this and say they are helping make sure anyone hosting content online can also protect their revenue as well. Is that a shitty practice and will it cripple the internet as it was originally designed? Absolutely. But likening this to systemic racism is an insane argument and really doesn't help get at the underlying problem that we would all rather have an internet that is open, free, and not designed entirely as a corporate ad playground.
- dhx 3y ago
  The grandparent comment asked whether a website owner would ever be unjustified in deciding who can use their website. From a legal viewpoint, the answer is dependent on the complexity of state laws[1]. What a website owner can do with a website in one country obviously differs from what they could do in another country. Most countries have very weak anti-discrimination laws, and if they do exist, they typically only apply for very specific purposes such as employment discrimination based on age. These limited laws tend to be near impossible to enforce short of someone self-incriminating themselves. In some countries however, an example being Norway, laws against discrimination can be very strict and routinely enforced to the level of requiring all website owners to implement WCAG 2.0 at AA level[2]. From an ethical viewpoint, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[3] states in Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." And numerous other articles are relevant, including Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_ac... [2] https://www.uutilsynet.no/english/about-us/903 https://www.uutilsynet.no/english/about-us/903 [3] https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/...

by dhx 3y ago

archerx 3y ago

I block China and Turkey from some of my websites to reduce bots and hacking attempts, does this make me a bad person for discriminating or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches? I’m not defending google’s crap but I should be able to block anyone I want from my websites if I choose.

bundie 3y ago
> I block China and Turkey from some of my websites to reduce bots and hacking attempts, does this make me a bad person for discriminating or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches? No.
allarm 3y ago
> does this make me a bad person for discriminating Yes. And not only for discriminating. You make the web shittier than it already is, and more fragmented. > or should I have to tolerate the script kiddies, ddosing and exploit searches? This part is unrelated to the first part.
- archerx 3y ago
  Yes, I am the bad guy for defending my sites from being defaced and my clients private data stolen from the bad actors coming from those two countries specifically. It is totally me making the internet a shittier place. If only I had the strength and energy to unblock those countries to tolerate the unrelenting abuse and attacks so I won't be such a terrible, horrible person.
  - allarm 3y ago
    > Yes, I am the bad guy What's the point of asking a question (...does this make me a bad person for discriminating?) if you're not ready to accept some of the answers? Yes, geoblocking totally makes the internet a shittier place. In the same way as the hackers and scriptkiddies make it the shittier place. It's a chicken and egg situation. You're blocking part of the world because it's dangerous waters. I am blocking part of the world because I disagree with the politics of that particular part. We are together making geo-blocking tolerable and acceptable. We're together making the internet more shitty than it deserves. Congratulations. By the way, I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same thing you did. I guess if I can't properly manage the security of a resource, the easiest way to deal with it would be to eliminate the source of the attack vector. I wouldn't deny that I'm part of the problem though. Because that's exactly what I am.
    - archerx 3y ago
      I wonder if locking my doors as well is discrimination according to you? No geoblocking doesn't make the internet a shittier place, you're blaming the symptoms/victims not the true cause. What is actually making the internet a shittier place is the bad actors, bots, scammers, scrapers, psychopaths and etc. Maybe those countries that get blocked should do more to stop those bad actors in the first place. Has China or Turkey ever contributed or paid for one of my projects/services? Nope, not once. Have they caused me grief and wasted my time dealing with bullshit? Yes, absolutely! So I don't think I am a bad, unless you think preventing myself from getting punched makes me bad guy. Maybe you should change your frame of thought and start pointing the fingers at the actual bad guys who actually ruining the web and stop accusing people of self defense of being "bad guys". Basically if you don't want to be treated like an asshole (geoblocked) don't act like an asshole. I know it's a very hard concept to grasp.
midasz 3y ago
Nah it would be bad if the user-agent contained a string describing the users ethnicity and you'd block them based on that though.
makeitdouble 3y ago
That's the same approach as requesting a valid phone number for a service that absolutely doesn't need a phone number, just to filter out potentially problematic users. Is it within your rights ? totally. Does it make sense from a business perspective ? yes, probably. Is it morally right ? I'd say no. Will most people give you a damn about it ? probably not. Most people won't care if you discriminate against some minority they're not part of and don't interact with. Some will, but I'm not sure how much it matters to you if you're seen as a "bad person" either way ?

flagrant_taco 3y ago

This is a massive leap in assumptions and arguments. For one, blocking users in a geographic region would not be legally considered racial discrimination unless you can prove intent. This is the bullshit loop hole that makes it easy to get away with discrimination, but that's the way it works. If Google really wants to play this game and create a technical gate preventing usage of sites by anyone that uses a browser that may be blocking ads, there's a legitimate business need there and all they have to say is they are no longer willing to serve users that refuse to pay by viewing ads and providing valuable data. In the case of Chrome they can extend this and say they are helping make sure anyone hosting content online can also protect their revenue as well. Is that a shitty practice and will it cripple the internet as it was originally designed? Absolutely. But likening this to systemic racism is an insane argument and really doesn't help get at the underlying problem that we would all rather have an internet that is open, free, and not designed entirely as a corporate ad playground.

dhx 3y ago
The grandparent comment asked whether a website owner would ever be unjustified in deciding who can use their website. From a legal viewpoint, the answer is dependent on the complexity of state laws[1]. What a website owner can do with a website in one country obviously differs from what they could do in another country. Most countries have very weak anti-discrimination laws, and if they do exist, they typically only apply for very specific purposes such as employment discrimination based on age. These limited laws tend to be near impossible to enforce short of someone self-incriminating themselves. In some countries however, an example being Norway, laws against discrimination can be very strict and routinely enforced to the level of requiring all website owners to implement WCAG 2.0 at AA level[2]. From an ethical viewpoint, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[3] states in Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." And numerous other articles are relevant, including Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_ac... [2] https://www.uutilsynet.no/english/about-us/903 https://www.uutilsynet.no/english/about-us/903 [3] https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/...