3 ms·

It all depends on what you're censoring. Is it a bad sign if CSAM, Personal (medical, financial, etc) Records, Snuff, and Malware/Ransomeware are censored? Wha

by kurthr 12d ago

It all depends on what you're censoring. Is it a bad sign if CSAM, Personal (medical, financial, etc) Records, Snuff, and Malware/Ransomeware are censored? What about manufacture of WMDs, terrorism, hate speech? Free software, and copyrighted music? Historical records of genocide?

SV_BubbleTime 12d ago
As an aside… the if there was a real system out there that was trustworthy, it would have all of this and it would be the evidence you actually need to trust it. If someone had a secure system for some of the worst stuff out there and it lasted more than a minute, pay attention because they might have actually solved some real problems.
- fsflover 12d ago
  > if there was a real system out there that was trustworthy, it would have all of this and it would be the evidence you actually need to trust it. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2p https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2p
nottorp 12d ago
Is there any authority in any country in the world that can be trusted to censor just what it's supposed to censor? Doubt it. Besides malice there's also incompetence. See the article that's also on the front page right now about Spain blocking Cloudflare (i.e. half the internet) during football matches.
- owisd 12d ago
  Trusted authority with democratic accountability is the least worst option. Too much censorship is authoritarian, but too little and authoritarianism can flood the public discourse with so much noise that free speech becomes impossible.
  - nottorp 11d ago
    Judges are only elected in a few countries in the world, and that does not include Spain.
mitxela 12d ago
You'd still want that censorship to be documented.
- kurthr 12d ago
  "I was just downloading those videos of children being raped to make sure they were still available in their full un-redacted format!" Let me know how that works out. Arguably, the most significant difference is between "free speech" and commercial/paid speech, or distribution vs viewability, but not distinguishing the two and calling both "internet censorship" creates a phrase without much support or meaning.

by kurthr 12d ago

SV_BubbleTime 12d ago

As an aside… the if there was a real system out there that was trustworthy, it would have all of this and it would be the evidence you actually need to trust it. If someone had a secure system for some of the worst stuff out there and it lasted more than a minute, pay attention because they might have actually solved some real problems.

fsflover 12d ago
> if there was a real system out there that was trustworthy, it would have all of this and it would be the evidence you actually need to trust it. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2p https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2p

nottorp 12d ago

Is there any authority in any country in the world that can be trusted to censor just what it's supposed to censor? Doubt it. Besides malice there's also incompetence. See the article that's also on the front page right now about Spain blocking Cloudflare (i.e. half the internet) during football matches.

owisd 12d ago
Trusted authority with democratic accountability is the least worst option. Too much censorship is authoritarian, but too little and authoritarianism can flood the public discourse with so much noise that free speech becomes impossible.
- nottorp 11d ago
  Judges are only elected in a few countries in the world, and that does not include Spain.

mitxela 12d ago

You'd still want that censorship to be documented.

kurthr 12d ago
"I was just downloading those videos of children being raped to make sure they were still available in their full un-redacted format!" Let me know how that works out. Arguably, the most significant difference is between "free speech" and commercial/paid speech, or distribution vs viewability, but not distinguishing the two and calling both "internet censorship" creates a phrase without much support or meaning.