4 ms·

Also, the country (france) is ordering the "poisoning", these american companies just comply with local regulations. Heavily biased article. Remember that dns

Also, the country (france) is ordering the "poisoning", these american companies just comply with local regulations. Heavily biased article. Remember that dns/ip systems are decentralized at the national precisely so that countries have sovereignity. The editorial line would have us believe that france is committing a free speech crime or overturning internet infrastructure, while in actuality they are exherting their national rights.

sealeck 2y ago
This is literally just a framing issue. Note first that people generally believe in universal human rights, e.g. states shouldn't be allowed to do horrible things (e.g. genocide) just because they would be asserting their national rights. Further the action of a single state often influences other states, as is especially true when it comes to the internet which is global by nature.
- TZubiri 2y ago
  If you are comparing genocide with blocking pirating websites, I'm out
  - csomar 2y ago
    It’s a slippery slope. Once you start losing rights, how low can you go? Historically, governments will go very low. A bad election (which is a real risk now in France) and there you have a facist state.
    - TZubiri 2y ago
      I understand, I was being a bit too punishing. That said genocide is categorically different than blocking websites. Slippery slope is well regarded as a fallacy. I did mention that states can choose to go to war though. It is within reasonable realm that the US may overturn the orders of a French court when operating in their country, but it is an act of war. It is something you would do to prevent genocide, but not to allow frenchies to watch sports without paying.
  - sealeck 2y ago
    The example is there to establish the principle – once you accept that sovereignty has limitations it's then just a question of which limitations you think are legitimate and which aren't. I think censoring pirate websites kind of isn't.

sealeck 2y ago

This is literally just a framing issue. Note first that people generally believe in universal human rights, e.g. states shouldn't be allowed to do horrible things (e.g. genocide) just because they would be asserting their national rights. Further the action of a single state often influences other states, as is especially true when it comes to the internet which is global by nature.

TZubiri 2y ago
If you are comparing genocide with blocking pirating websites, I'm out
- csomar 2y ago
  It’s a slippery slope. Once you start losing rights, how low can you go? Historically, governments will go very low. A bad election (which is a real risk now in France) and there you have a facist state.
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    I understand, I was being a bit too punishing. That said genocide is categorically different than blocking websites. Slippery slope is well regarded as a fallacy. I did mention that states can choose to go to war though. It is within reasonable realm that the US may overturn the orders of a French court when operating in their country, but it is an act of war. It is something you would do to prevent genocide, but not to allow frenchies to watch sports without paying.
- sealeck 2y ago
  The example is there to establish the principle – once you accept that sovereignty has limitations it's then just a question of which limitations you think are legitimate and which aren't. I think censoring pirate websites kind of isn't.