3 ms·

There is no law against going to pornhub.com, the law is only concerned with dns blocking.

alhadrad 3y ago
[flagged]
godelski 3y ago
Supposing this was 100% accurate, I'm sure that you could understand that going to pornhub.com or definitelynotgayporn.net would arouse suspicion in a government that is banning such behavior and could cause a person to be under higher scrutiny. So even if you're right that the DNS bypass isn't what would technically get them in trouble, I think you can understand the motivation to encrypt your DNS traffic to ensure that you don't get a target painted on your back. And given this, I hope how you can understand that your comment does very little to contribute to the actual conversation and can even potentially mislead others. A lot of communication is implicit (otherwise it'd be incredibly cumbersome)
- nurettin 3y ago
  Misleading and disinformation also comes in the form of FUD, does it not?
  - godelski 3y ago
    You're going to have to clarify what the misleading/disinformation/FUD is. Because I don't see it.
    - nurettin 3y ago
      Just read Every Single Suggestion in your reply. > going to pornhub.com or definitelynotgayporn.net would arouse suspicion in a government that is banning such behavior dns blocking doesn't mean adults are banned from visiting porn sites. You start by contradicting your initial concession of assuming this is 100% accurate. > and could cause a person to be under higher scrutiny. So even if you're right that the DNS bypass isn't what would technically get them in trouble, I think you can understand the motivation to encrypt your DNS traffic to ensure that you don't get a target painted on your back. This is a prime example of Fear and uncertainty. > And given this, I hope how you can understand that your comment does very little to contribute to the actual conversation and can even potentially mislead others. A lot of communication is implicit (otherwise it'd be incredibly cumbersome) And this is doubt. Never fails to accompany the other two.
      - godelski 3y ago
        One of us is very very VERY confused here
        nurettin 3y ago
        Yes, and they should stop patronizing.
bawolff 3y ago
I feel like the type of places with heavy handed censorship are also not the type of places you want to go "well, actually..." to the government.
- nurettin 3y ago
  That approach is way too apprehensive. Those idiots tried to block google docs once. It didn't go well as you might imagine. ERs, research institutes and several government facilities responded with cordial letters about the court's mental state. Then it was unblocked. The reason they get to keep the porn bans is because it isn't enforced upon adults, and it does serve as a thin layer of protection against minors.
- tawai 3y ago
  [flagged]

[flagged]

Supposing this was 100% accurate, I'm sure that you could understand that going to pornhub.com or definitelynotgayporn.net would arouse suspicion in a government that is banning such behavior and could cause a person to be under higher scrutiny. So even if you're right that the DNS bypass isn't what would technically get them in trouble, I think you can understand the motivation to encrypt your DNS traffic to ensure that you don't get a target painted on your back. And given this, I hope how you can understand that your comment does very little to contribute to the actual conversation and can even potentially mislead others. A lot of communication is implicit (otherwise it'd be incredibly cumbersome)

nurettin 3y ago
Misleading and disinformation also comes in the form of FUD, does it not?
- godelski 3y ago
  You're going to have to clarify what the misleading/disinformation/FUD is. Because I don't see it.
  - nurettin 3y ago
    Just read Every Single Suggestion in your reply. > going to pornhub.com or definitelynotgayporn.net would arouse suspicion in a government that is banning such behavior dns blocking doesn't mean adults are banned from visiting porn sites. You start by contradicting your initial concession of assuming this is 100% accurate. > and could cause a person to be under higher scrutiny. So even if you're right that the DNS bypass isn't what would technically get them in trouble, I think you can understand the motivation to encrypt your DNS traffic to ensure that you don't get a target painted on your back. This is a prime example of Fear and uncertainty. > And given this, I hope how you can understand that your comment does very little to contribute to the actual conversation and can even potentially mislead others. A lot of communication is implicit (otherwise it'd be incredibly cumbersome) And this is doubt. Never fails to accompany the other two.
    - godelski 3y ago
      One of us is very very VERY confused here
      - nurettin 3y ago
        Yes, and they should stop patronizing.

bawolff 3y ago

I feel like the type of places with heavy handed censorship are also not the type of places you want to go "well, actually..." to the government.

nurettin 3y ago
That approach is way too apprehensive. Those idiots tried to block google docs once. It didn't go well as you might imagine. ERs, research institutes and several government facilities responded with cordial letters about the court's mental state. Then it was unblocked. The reason they get to keep the porn bans is because it isn't enforced upon adults, and it does serve as a thin layer of protection against minors.
tawai 3y ago
[flagged]