Great read and props to the activists for their hard work. I get why the top-level ISPs are hesitant about certain types of content-moderation. The fear is that enforcing bans on some ideas,...
Exemplary
Great read and props to the activists for their hard work.
I get why the top-level ISPs are hesitant about certain types of content-moderation. The fear is that enforcing bans on some ideas, abhorrent as they may be, opens the door to enforcing bans on other types of content. I understand that and I think ISPs should be free to host racist, sexist, anti-whatever garbage if they want to, even if I find the content reprehensible.
What I don't understand is why these ISPs are so hesitant to enforce bans on these sites when they go far beyond "idea-sharing" and start breaking actual laws. They're stalking, harassing, and doxxing these poor people.
As an aside, this article quotes the EFF as being against the taking the down of these sites. This lead me to do some light rabbit-hole diving and I found an interesting article about the EFF which makes the case that they may be a little sketchier than many would have you believe.
Thank you for sharing this article. It was an interesting read. One thing that gives me pause is that the article is anti... everything. It has negative comments on the EFF (obviously), but also...
an interesting article about the EFF which effectively champions the idea that they're a little sketchier than many would have you believe.
Thank you for sharing this article. It was an interesting read.
One thing that gives me pause is that the article is anti... everything. It has negative comments on the EFF (obviously), but also derides the "odious surveillance machine" of the US government, but also criticizes Apple for not helping the FBI break into the San Bernardino shooters' phone because it says apple isn't anti surveillance anyway. It also criticizes, of all things, the ACLU, which it says is an ally of intelligence agencies and right-wing political interests.
I'm not saying there are no good points in there, but it makes me skeptical of the article's criticism if it can't find anything good to say about anybody, you know?
Yeah, I actually edited my post to say that the EFF may be a little sketchier than they'd have you believe because I think you're right. Perhaps the writer of the article is totally and completely...
Yeah, I actually edited my post to say that the EFF may be a little sketchier than they'd have you believe because I think you're right.
Perhaps the writer of the article is totally and completely biased. Perhaps the EFF is full of honest-to-goodness privacy advocates with no ulterior motives. But my takeaway from the article is that we should be skeptical of an organization started by millionaires/billionaires, funded by other wealthy folks, and supported by the big tech corporations. It does sound like they care about privacy, but there's at least a chance it's the "I hate big government and taxes, but love big corporations" kind of privacy.
It may or may not be like the oil companies lobbying for "environmental regulations." You know, where they lobby for it so they can pass toothless PR bills that make them look good. Or when they pass bills that make them rich by mandating some proprietary technology they invented which reduces emissions by 2% or whatever.
Totally! What's very clear is that their motives are not as pure as many think. In retrospect that's not terribly surprising, but it's something I had never thought to consider before.
But my takeaway from the article is that we should be skeptical of an organization started by millionaires/billionaires, funded by other wealthy folks, and supported by the big tech corporations.
Totally! What's very clear is that their motives are not as pure as many think. In retrospect that's not terribly surprising, but it's something I had never thought to consider before.
That link deserves a post of its own in ~tech. I had seen the EFF shared around reddit as a possible way to change policy. That goes beyond sketchy, if all of that information is accurate they're...
That link deserves a post of its own in ~tech. I had seen the EFF shared around reddit as a possible way to change policy. That goes beyond sketchy, if all of that information is accurate they're the exact people the public needs to lobby against.
Edit: whoops I checked and there is a discussion of kiwi farms and EFF there. Not sure if this exact point has been made clear though.
Great read and props to the activists for their hard work.
I get why the top-level ISPs are hesitant about certain types of content-moderation. The fear is that enforcing bans on some ideas, abhorrent as they may be, opens the door to enforcing bans on other types of content. I understand that and I think ISPs should be free to host racist, sexist, anti-whatever garbage if they want to, even if I find the content reprehensible.
What I don't understand is why these ISPs are so hesitant to enforce bans on these sites when they go far beyond "idea-sharing" and start breaking actual laws. They're stalking, harassing, and doxxing these poor people.
As an aside, this article quotes the EFF as being against the taking the down of these sites. This lead me to do some light rabbit-hole diving and I found an interesting article about the EFF which makes the case that they may be a little sketchier than many would have you believe.
Thank you for sharing this article. It was an interesting read.
One thing that gives me pause is that the article is anti... everything. It has negative comments on the EFF (obviously), but also derides the "odious surveillance machine" of the US government, but also criticizes Apple for not helping the FBI break into the San Bernardino shooters' phone because it says apple isn't anti surveillance anyway. It also criticizes, of all things, the ACLU, which it says is an ally of intelligence agencies and right-wing political interests.
I'm not saying there are no good points in there, but it makes me skeptical of the article's criticism if it can't find anything good to say about anybody, you know?
Yeah, I actually edited my post to say that the EFF may be a little sketchier than they'd have you believe because I think you're right.
Perhaps the writer of the article is totally and completely biased. Perhaps the EFF is full of honest-to-goodness privacy advocates with no ulterior motives. But my takeaway from the article is that we should be skeptical of an organization started by millionaires/billionaires, funded by other wealthy folks, and supported by the big tech corporations. It does sound like they care about privacy, but there's at least a chance it's the "I hate big government and taxes, but love big corporations" kind of privacy.
It may or may not be like the oil companies lobbying for "environmental regulations." You know, where they lobby for it so they can pass toothless PR bills that make them look good. Or when they pass bills that make them rich by mandating some proprietary technology they invented which reduces emissions by 2% or whatever.
Totally! What's very clear is that their motives are not as pure as many think. In retrospect that's not terribly surprising, but it's something I had never thought to consider before.
That link deserves a post of its own in ~tech. I had seen the EFF shared around reddit as a possible way to change policy. That goes beyond sketchy, if all of that information is accurate they're the exact people the public needs to lobby against.
Edit: whoops I checked and there is a discussion of kiwi farms and EFF there. Not sure if this exact point has been made clear though.
An article covering their shadiness is so long my poor adhd brain could only handle half of it today.
That's not a good sign
I love the baffler. I read This Is Not A Blip at least yearly. Giving this article a go now, excited to see what it's about.
Mirror for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.ph/HJaaz
Previous discussion here.
https://tildes.net/~tech/19wo/the_electronic_frontier_foundation_kiwifarms_death_harassment_a_critique