Via @eff
🔗 https://mastodon.social/users/eff/statuses/111037536346956562
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/uk-online-safety-bill-will-mandate-dangerous-age-verification-much-web

Les nouvelles règles qui imposent la vérification de l'âge dans le projet de loi britannique sur la sécurité en ligne imposent à toutes les plateformes accessibles au R.U d'empêcher les mineurs d'accéder au contenu. Cela va provoquer un énorme changement dans l'info disponible en ligne et représente une grave menace pour la vie privée des internautes britanniques.

Et pour la liberté d'expression !

#libertes
#vieprivee
#internet
#eff

Via @eff
🔗 https://mastodon.social/users/eff/statuses/111037536346956562
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/uk-online-safety-bill-will-mandate-dangerous-age-verification-much-web

Les nouvelles règles qui imposent la vérification de l'âge dans le projet de loi britannique sur la sécurité en ligne imposent à toutes les plateformes accessibles au R.U. d'empêcher les mineurs d'accéder au contenu. Cela va provoquer un énorme changement dans l'information disponible en ligne et représente une grave menace pour la vie privée des internautes britanniques.

#libertes
#vieprivee
#internet
#eff

Via @eff
🔗 https://mastodon.social/users/eff/statuses/111037536346956562
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/uk-online-safety-bill-will-mandate-dangerous-age-verification-much-web

Les nouvelles règles qui imposent la vérification de l'âge dans le projet de loi britannique sur la sécurité en ligne obligent toutes les plateformes accessibles au R.U. d'empêcher les mineurs d'accéder au contenu. Cela va provoquer un énorme changement dans l'information disponible en ligne et représente une grave menace pour la vie privée des internautes britanniques.

#libertes
#vieprivee
#internet
#eff

Via @eff
🔗 https://mastodon.social/users/eff/statuses/111037536346956562
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/uk-online-safety-bill-will-mandate-dangerous-age-verification-much-web

Les nouvelles règles qui imposent la vérification de l'âge dans le projet de loi britannique sur la sécurité en ligne oblige toutes les plateformes accessibles au R.U. d'empêcher les mineurs d'accéder au contenu. Cela va provoquer un énorme changement dans l'information disponible en ligne et représente une grave menace pour la vie privée des internautes britanniques.

#libertes
#vieprivee
#internet
#eff

#EFF: The #UK Government Knows How Extreme The Online Safety Bill Is

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/uk-government-knows-how-extreme-online-safety-bill

@garthk @eff #eff is such garbage.

I enjoyed all these Seanan McGuire books in the #EFF humble bundle as they came out, & recommend them to you. https://mastodon.social/@eff/111020594982780316#. #bookimreading

#PlaneAlert ICAO: #A7C80B Tail: #N600JD
Owner: #JohnDeere_Company
Aircraft: #Gulfstream G550
2023/09/05 11:43:36
#GLF5 #TractorDRMSucks #EFF #MorallyBankrupt https://w.wiki/3r6a
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=A7C80B&showTrace=2023-09-05&zoom=7&lat=38.156387&lon=-77.867821&timestamp=1693928616

I am not a technical person so I want to know what I have got wrong about @eff's position. They seem right to me.

As I understand it, they think that the internet is built on a network of cables. To ensure that those cables do anything we have ISPs. Those ISPs route traffic over those cables. At the sending and receiving ends there are lots of computers providing a variety of services.

The #EFF think that the ISP should do no more and no less than send data from and to endpoints. This is #NetNeutrality.

Some people send horrible stuff over the net. The EFF think that they should be able to send it, but don't have a right to have it hosted anywhere. Mastodon, substack, Hetzner can all chose, and in the EFF's view should chose, to refuse to house your murderous troll farm.

This all seems right to me. A capitalist state will support rent seeking corporations and look to crush dissent. We need net neutrality to prevent Google et al from throttling access to their competitors, especially non commercial alternatives, and the state from censoring dissent. Sure protecting Nazis and murderous trolls right to route their packets doesn't guarantee either of those outcomes. The bastards will censor us and enshitify anyway. But cheering on the destruction of net neutrality only makes it easier for them to achieve their goals.

Tell me what I have got wrong

Yeah, I can't get over how the #EFF, an org that exists _literally_ do to the overreach of both courts and policing, has decided that "ISPs shouldn't take initiative protect lives unless ordered to do so by the courts and/or police."

@gugurumbe Or, put another way:

'Comcast can, and does, actually block IP infringing content, so I guess a better question might be "If Comcast can block IP infringing content, why can't HE block attempts to kill transgender people?"' (https://old.lemmy.world/post/4423523)

It's certainly a look to worry about the slippery slope from protecting people's lives to blocking copyright infringement. Especially when the parties in question _already block copyright infringement_ in many cases. #EFF

The #Lemmy discussion about blocking KF is depressingly Frozen Peachy and pro- #EFF: https://old.lemmy.world/post/4423523

The #EFF barely ever talks about policing harassers to make things safer. The only time it seems to do so is in the context of saying why someone else shouldn't act to stop harassment.

In these cases—and only these cases—the EFF calls for more police involvement… to protect one of the groups that police have a long history of violently suppressing.

Do they not have a single person who has studied queer history?

Yeah, the police are going to be _great_ at this role. I can already tell.

The #EFF is happy to declare that "police should enforce existing laws" never minding that those laws are rarely if ever enforced and are a _mess_, especially across state lines.

Even a cursory analysis would show the problems here with thinking of this as a "speech" issue and not a "conduct, enabled by speech" issue.

But they are basically saying that ISPs should do _nothing_ absent a court order. A deeply weird position for the group that came out of the raid of Steve Jackson Games to take.

It's telling to me that the #EFF's response to ISPs blocking hate sites is "the police should enforce anti-harassment laws, ISPs should not block vile sites under any circumstances" and not "ISPs monopoly powers should be put into check."

They are essentially advocating for _no one_ to prevent hateful _conduct_.

The EFF has lost their way somewhere in the last 30 years—probably sometime before the Tunnel Rats incident—and they seem to be getting worse, not better, over time.

Okay, I admit, I was wrong about the #EFF stance on kiwi farms.

@muskanity cue the #eff to screech about how terms of service are a freeze peach violation

The #EFF sure knows how to make their case. Choosing to defend literal Nazis to force a conversation about Net Neutrality and carrier bias is…well it’s daring.

For the record, I’m on the side of the EFF here. Tier 1 carriers should not snoop into content, nor police who can talk to whom; that’s not their job, because they are a monopoly by design, and any power they have to cut off communication will be abused, eventually, guaranteed, if they were given the chance.

I just wish they’d picked a less horrible group of human scum to prove their point.

My main take is about the #eff and KF thing is this:

- Preventing KF from being around is a good thing, they should not exist. Nazis are better dead.

- A private company has the right (currently) to police it's own speech, at least here in the States, where EFF currently is.

- The EFF does more good than harm, they are wrong here in saying all speech is good.

- The EFF is right that allowing an ISP to block and censor websites for one reason enables to block and censor for other reasons.

My main thing is: Yes, blocking it is good. Yes the EFF is by default wrong about the current state thinking that police will do it.

But let's not have corporations who care about their bottom line more than *anyone's* free speech. They care about who would give them more money than who has more speech.

Trusting a company to censor bad actors also is to put their trust to never censor you or your friends.

Sex worker? Activist for queer/BIPOC/disability rights? Commenting on a fascist regime? Post about a bad company?

Unless you can donate millions to the ISP, they aren't going to listen to your speech or allow it.

We can't expect the state to fix this, nor capitalism. The EFF is wrong here, but the ISP in question is not our friend either.

@ekuber this is definitely not a subtoot of #eff