3 ms·

It seems outrageous to consider a national firewall in the United States, but you're absolutely right. That is where this has to go. The saddest part to me, is

It seems outrageous to consider a national firewall in the United States, but you're absolutely right. That is where this has to go. The saddest part to me, is that it's probably going to happen. All they have to do to sell it to the the average person is to say that it's to combat CSAM and it will be palatable. They will start by making it very small, and limiting the scope to only CSAM. Then as new use cases arise, they will slowly expand it. This will get it slowly ingrained in society to where it is just obvious and expected, much like the TSA airport security is now.

soco 3y ago
So the Great Wall of China is bad because it confines China, and the Great Wall of the USA is good because it confines the USA*. Oof, this kind of development is quite unsettling, especially because we see where is China going with it... (* land of the free)
- freedomben 3y ago
  Yep, agreed. I think a big driver behind it is that the culture in the US is one that is much more favoring of safety over security. The reactions to Covid certainly didn't help things as it made "freedom" a partisan issue that is now framed as selfishness rather than a high ideal. (and truthfully, selfish people did often use "freedom" as a banner to enablement, but that doesn't negate the importance of freedom as a principle, nor does it justify it's abolishment or abdication IMHO).
rstuart4133 3y ago
> It seems outrageous to consider a national firewall in the United States, but you're absolutely right. That is where this has to go. Maybe not a "firewall", but the USA (and in fact the entire world) has effectively already banned communicating some types of data. Pictures of naked children is the prime example. You would have to be a brave man to have a picture of your child frollicing in the sea naked for the first time. To put it into perspective, 30 years ago that was perfectly fine where I live in Australia. Everybody understood the photo just captured a step in the child's life; that time when water was new to them but clothes didn't matter. It's a moment a parent might want to share with relatives. That and a lot of other things were innocently posted to the internet in the beginning. Then a collective "internet consensus on morality" seemed to take hold and they quietly vanished. No firewalls were needed. It's been fascinating to watch in real time how a group of humans develop a common morality, despite being separated by distance, cultures, and ages. I think the power of it is underappreciated. After all, it has effectively banned what had been perfectly acceptable behaviour in Australia for decades. This was driven home when someone in Australia was jailed for having cartoons in their possession, parodies of the Simpsons. Just a couple of decades ago that was unthinkable. But back to firewalls - so when are they needed? It seems only when a minority was to change the majorities moral stance on some issue, but can't convince them to just "do it" of their own accord. So they force it on them with a firewall. I doubt that's going to work too well over the long term in a democracy.

soco 3y ago

So the Great Wall of China is bad because it confines China, and the Great Wall of the USA is good because it confines the USA*. Oof, this kind of development is quite unsettling, especially because we see where is China going with it... (* land of the free)

freedomben 3y ago
Yep, agreed. I think a big driver behind it is that the culture in the US is one that is much more favoring of safety over security. The reactions to Covid certainly didn't help things as it made "freedom" a partisan issue that is now framed as selfishness rather than a high ideal. (and truthfully, selfish people did often use "freedom" as a banner to enablement, but that doesn't negate the importance of freedom as a principle, nor does it justify it's abolishment or abdication IMHO).

rstuart4133 3y ago

> It seems outrageous to consider a national firewall in the United States, but you're absolutely right. That is where this has to go. Maybe not a "firewall", but the USA (and in fact the entire world) has effectively already banned communicating some types of data. Pictures of naked children is the prime example. You would have to be a brave man to have a picture of your child frollicing in the sea naked for the first time. To put it into perspective, 30 years ago that was perfectly fine where I live in Australia. Everybody understood the photo just captured a step in the child's life; that time when water was new to them but clothes didn't matter. It's a moment a parent might want to share with relatives. That and a lot of other things were innocently posted to the internet in the beginning. Then a collective "internet consensus on morality" seemed to take hold and they quietly vanished. No firewalls were needed. It's been fascinating to watch in real time how a group of humans develop a common morality, despite being separated by distance, cultures, and ages. I think the power of it is underappreciated. After all, it has effectively banned what had been perfectly acceptable behaviour in Australia for decades. This was driven home when someone in Australia was jailed for having cartoons in their possession, parodies of the Simpsons. Just a couple of decades ago that was unthinkable. But back to firewalls - so when are they needed? It seems only when a minority was to change the majorities moral stance on some issue, but can't convince them to just "do it" of their own accord. So they force it on them with a firewall. I doubt that's going to work too well over the long term in a democracy.