4 ms·
I'm in favour of A) a restricted internet with an encryption scheme based on state controlled hardware devices, like Estonia has, that's accessible by default f
by strken 1y ago
I'm in favour of A) a restricted internet with an encryption scheme based on state controlled hardware devices, like Estonia has, that's accessible by default from browsers, and B) an unrestricted internet that's available to anyone who clicks through a few scary browser warnings, but is generally regarded as weird, dangerous, and not commercially viable except for weird or dangerous stuff.
- xandrius 1y agoAnd then wait for when the well-funded and publicly supported A decides that B is evil and needs to be taken down.
- int_19h 1y agoRealistically, the moment the two are decoupled, B) is going to be banned and blocked outright - and the more they are decoupled, the easier it would be to ban. By and large, the only reason why it's still possible to access "dark" content online is because it's so intermeshed with the more mundane stuff on infrastructure level that the most efficient blocking methods have unacceptably high levels of collateral damage.
- strken 1y agoI don't see how you'd decouple one from the other, given that it's essentially just giving the user their own encryption certificate. Have the EU pass legislation saying that you can't request that the user sign anything unless they're in the process of making an account.