In a well-intentioned yet dangerous move to fight online fraud, France is on the verge of forcing browsers to create a dystopian technical capability. Article 6 (para II and III) of the SREN Bill would force browser providers to create the means to mandatorily block websites present on a government provided list.
I don’t agree that it’s “well-intentioned” at all but the article goes on to point out the potential for abuse by copyright holders.
cross-posted from: https://radiation.party/post/64123
[ comments | sourced from HackerNews ]
ainsi mieux protéger nos enfants
This is to protect our children of course.
As usual, so anyone who is against this law can be depicted as someone who is supporting pedopornography.
Yep, the other go to is calling people right wing extremists.
There is absolutely no need to bring left vs right identity politics into the discussion, please stick to the topic of piracy. Same goes for the replies below. Thanks.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
Why should we give up on trying to listen to each other’s point of view?
It’s never too late to learn how to participate in a community.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
I don’t like the idea of conflating falsely accusing people of being a pedophile with calling someone out for holding harmful right-wing beliefs.
The first (saying someone is supporting pedophiles) is oftentimes used as a method to support bans on anti-encryption technology. It is a bad-faith justification for harmful and 1984 type legislation.
The second, however, is an argument used by right wing extremists to justify hate speech.
To be clear - I’m not saying the government should mandate a ban on conservative media. I’m just saying that as a normal citizen, it is a justified, non-harmful act to call people with harmful right-wing beliefs ‘right wing extremists.’
I don’t like the idea of conflating falsely accusing people of being a pedophile with calling someone out for holding harmful right-wing beliefs.
Here in the states, among common harmful right-wing beliefs is the assertion of calling LGBT+ folk groomers, especially when protesting trans folk existing.
The use of bad-faith child safety and child victimization rhetoric to push questionable legislation, especially targeting general privacy or the rights of marginalized groups is so prevalent that it dwarfs by order of magnitude actual child welfare interests (like healthcare access, free school lunches and bullying in schools)
So I’d be skeptical of any rhetoric that asserts a policy might protect children.
I’d also be skeptical of IAccidentallyCame’s good faith regarding right wing rhetoric. As the world’s plutocratic elite runs out of lies to justify the hierarchies that keep them in power, right-wing rhetoric, including hate speech, is on the rise as a last defense against general unrest. They would rather the world literally burn than give up their wealth and power.
Oh, and the world is literally burning.
Yeah I intentionally didn’t go through their post history. Don’t have time for that lol. I mostly wrote that out for anyone who read his post and thought maybe there wasn’t a counter argument to what he said.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
It was a good faith comment, I’m merely pointing out another tactic that the powers that be try to use to discredit people. I’m not comparing pedophilia allegations against being called a far right extremist. I’m just pointing out it’s a separate tactic.
I guess I wasn’t too clear on that, wasn’t expecting these sorts of replies.
Do you have an example though?
I mean I know about using being a murderer, terrorist apologist, pedophile being used in bad faith, when was someone touting “if you are against this law, you’re a rightwing extremist” in bad faith?
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
Yes, I agree. My point was left v. Right or anything like that. I was just pointing out that it’s another label I’ve seen thrown out label I’ve seen thrown out there in the last few years when trying to discredit people.
I guess my point didn’t come off they way I meant it looking at all of these replies.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
The most stupid part of this idea is that is requires a list of banned sites to be served to every user.
Even if they would use hashing to obfuscate the banned domains, you can download a list of all registered domains and just test every one of them.
So the average internet user will lose freedom while a cheese pizza enjoyer with some computer knowledge will gain a list of every banned CP site.
Please tell me this is a joke and you aren’t actually a pizzagate nutter
No, I thought “Cheese Pizza” ist just an acronym for inappropriate pictures and videos of children. Tell me if I’m mistaken (English is not my first language).
Nah you are good. Cheese pizza as an acronym for you know what has been around longer than pizza gate.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
Maybe you weren’t around long enough to appreciate the war on terror during which the George W. Bush administration and the very right wing Congress and SCOTUS all had fantasies about locking down the internet and making sure no one could think terror thoughts without the DHS knowing.
And while we’re at it, kill that porn bugbear, for the children, of course.
Then they realized qucikly enough that the only thing netizens love more than porn is cat pics (seriously. We measured.) and all we’d do by criminalizing unregulated internet traffic is make criminals of everyone in the US.
And who would be right there to teach everyone about net privacy and how to keep all your transactions hidden? Terrorists. Child porn enthusiasts. Communists. Also the whole black market where you can buy children and bomb parts. Also thr encryption / privacy community that occupies every LUG across the world.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
There’s literally no way to enforce this.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
Yeah, that’s not actually working, but VPN sales are going up.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
The main sites yes. Others are ignoring it
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
Despite all the problems we have in the United States, this would be struck down in court SO fast due to the first amendment to our constitution. The government making a list of speech you are not allowed to hear is pretty much the most cut and dry violation of that.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
If the reason for this is to prevent pedophilia content, then this will do nothing. People who access that sort of thing on the dark web aren’t going to be affected by this whatsoever.
When pedophilia prevention is used as an excuse, 100% of the time it is a move to restrict peoples’ rights and/or freedoms. 100% of the time.
The US has the playbook down easy. Every single law that they want to pass that is solidly against the citizens best interests they say “oh… pedophilia!”
You can’t argue against it because they will say “oh, so you think pedophilia is good and shouldn’t be stopped?” When in reality, the biggest rings of pedophilia aren’t perpetrated by online websites but by rich businessmen, polititians, and churches. Their friends, corporate masters, and partners.
And what happens when I remove that & compile my browser from source?
![[HN] Will Browsers Be Required by Law to Stop You from Visiting Infringing Sites?](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/0d542d2e-2515-4843-aec2-a9567f396d6c.png){kind=link}