3 ms·

Is this the first time that Hurricane Electric has censored a website on their network? From what I viewed on Kiwi Farms a while back out of curiosity, I came

Is this the first time that Hurricane Electric has censored a website on their network? From what I viewed on Kiwi Farms a while back out of curiosity, I came off with the opinion that it was paparazzi for internet celebrities ran by the worst of the 4chan users - cyberstalking, incredibly dicey jokes/senses of humor. Even if the website is abhorrent, I wouldn't want it filtered from the internet, especially by such a large company like Hurricane Electric. Maybe a group of people hated the site so much they've been badgering anyone and everyone possibly connected to it to block it and they've finally found an "in"? Not sure I agree with the blocking of the website since traffic should be free-flowing irrespective of it's content in my opinion...

bediger4000 3y ago
Irrespective of content? What about just flat out defamation? What about CSAM? How about organizing a general strike? What about ISIS propaganda? Or bomb making instructions?
- dmatech 3y ago
  There is certain content that isn't protected by Section 230 or DMCA safe harbor, but it is pretty limited. 1. People post defamatory stuff on social media sites all the time. That's a civil matter. People can sue the poster over such things, but not the site. See "Zeran v. America Online, Inc." 2. CSAM is illegal, but people have posted it on Twitter, and they're still around. 3. I'd imagine that calling for a general strike is protected by 1A. 4. Terrorist propaganda can be posted by a US citizen, as "incitement to terrorism" is protected by 1A. You just can't provide material assistance to a foreign terrorist organization. 5. There's actually a law on the books supposedly banning this, but I don't see how it's enforceable.
y-curious 3y ago
The final straw was their stalking/bullying some teen(s?) into suicide, IIRC. That said, I disagree with an ISP making that decision for users, even if it was a hate-filled pit on the internet. Anyone in support of this action should by extension support the removal of their favorite politician's/religion's/hobby's website by an ISP at a future date.

bediger4000 3y ago

Irrespective of content? What about just flat out defamation? What about CSAM? How about organizing a general strike? What about ISIS propaganda? Or bomb making instructions?

dmatech 3y ago
There is certain content that isn't protected by Section 230 or DMCA safe harbor, but it is pretty limited. 1. People post defamatory stuff on social media sites all the time. That's a civil matter. People can sue the poster over such things, but not the site. See "Zeran v. America Online, Inc." 2. CSAM is illegal, but people have posted it on Twitter, and they're still around. 3. I'd imagine that calling for a general strike is protected by 1A. 4. Terrorist propaganda can be posted by a US citizen, as "incitement to terrorism" is protected by 1A. You just can't provide material assistance to a foreign terrorist organization. 5. There's actually a law on the books supposedly banning this, but I don't see how it's enforceable.

y-curious 3y ago

The final straw was their stalking/bullying some teen(s?) into suicide, IIRC. That said, I disagree with an ISP making that decision for users, even if it was a hate-filled pit on the internet. Anyone in support of this action should by extension support the removal of their favorite politician's/religion's/hobby's website by an ISP at a future date.