2 ms·

So we shouldn't have mechanisms to combat child pornography and drug sales because it could be used for censorship?

cebert 1y ago
I’d rather have a free Internet than a restricted one to a small number of individuals using it for unethical behavior. It’s a small price to pay for freedom.
ipaddr 1y ago
The key is what mechanisms. Dropping 1,000 nukes that would destroy humanity would be a mechanism to stop drugs and pornography. But it would be the wrong tool.
dragonwriter 1y ago
What do you mean “could be”? Those are both examples of censorship, not non-censorship things thar can be acheived by tools that can also be used for censorship. But, no, some censorship is acceptable and necessary. But we have to be aware of—and appropriately guard against—the other kind, and sometimes that means having less capacity for the kind that would be acceptable than you would want if there was downside attached to it.
roughly 1y ago
Yes, that’s it on the nose. The number of things which have been laundered under “prevent child porn” is absurd. No, it is not a problem which warrants a global panopticon state. As for drug sales, I’m not sure what to say if you think that’s the pitch that’s gonna land here.
abeindoria 1y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
ok123456 1y ago
Yes. Giving up civil rights for the perennial boogiemen like terrorism or CSAM never results in less terrorism or CSAM, but does erode the rights of individuals. The goal is to establish an undemocratic method of control over and coercion of individuals and the means of communication. This has been borne out time and time again.
- TZubiri 1y ago
  Lots of antivaxxers that were born in a world without smallpox in HN
nullc 1y ago
Requiring a government run cellmodem camera in every residence's home and bathroom would presumably help combat child abuse-- probably vastly better than DNS blocking as well. Am I correct in assuming you'd be all for it?

I’d rather have a free Internet than a restricted one to a small number of individuals using it for unethical behavior. It’s a small price to pay for freedom.

ipaddr 1y ago

The key is what mechanisms. Dropping 1,000 nukes that would destroy humanity would be a mechanism to stop drugs and pornography. But it would be the wrong tool.

dragonwriter 1y ago

What do you mean “could be”? Those are both examples of censorship, not non-censorship things thar can be acheived by tools that can also be used for censorship. But, no, some censorship is acceptable and necessary. But we have to be aware of—and appropriately guard against—the other kind, and sometimes that means having less capacity for the kind that would be acceptable than you would want if there was downside attached to it.

roughly 1y ago

Yes, that’s it on the nose. The number of things which have been laundered under “prevent child porn” is absurd. No, it is not a problem which warrants a global panopticon state. As for drug sales, I’m not sure what to say if you think that’s the pitch that’s gonna land here.

abeindoria 1y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

ok123456 1y ago

Yes. Giving up civil rights for the perennial boogiemen like terrorism or CSAM never results in less terrorism or CSAM, but does erode the rights of individuals. The goal is to establish an undemocratic method of control over and coercion of individuals and the means of communication. This has been borne out time and time again.

TZubiri 1y ago
Lots of antivaxxers that were born in a world without smallpox in HN

nullc 1y ago

Requiring a government run cellmodem camera in every residence's home and bathroom would presumably help combat child abuse-- probably vastly better than DNS blocking as well. Am I correct in assuming you'd be all for it?