The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website::undefined

  • @pqdinfo
    link
    English
    -17
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • @sab
      link
      English
      20
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, the whole point is that an isp should not be forced to do anything, unless ordered to do so by a court.

      As the title mentions, this an endless chase if you approach it like this. Vigilante mobs aren’t going to solve this, it’s going to take specialist agencies with mandates to request data civilians can’t. Crimes are being committed there (not murders, but a good way to get the scare votes, I suppose), and there are laws in place to deal with that.

      As mentioned several times in this thread, shifting the responsibility for what is allowed to be said on the Internet from governments to corporate entities is a terrible precedent.


      Edit: Nevermind. I see you’re also responsible for this wonderful gem:

      The position is intellectually dishonest unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people.

      There’s no point in arguing with you.

      • @pqdinfo
        link
        English
        -15
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          Everyone here, including the EFF, has explicitly said the state should take action against people plotting to murder.

          • @pqdinfo
            link
            English
            -2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            deleted by creator

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              Sure. Court gets together says hey this content’s illegal, you backbone provider terminate their access. As long as there’s a court and due process I’m okay with it.

              Letting a corporation do an arbitrarily is the problem

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      161 year ago

      “We should allow companies that provide what is almost a necessity in the modern world the power to decide who gets to use it and who doesn’t” is a hell of a take.

      While we’re at it, I don’t think thieves deserve clean water. Utilities companies should shut off the water supply to households where thieves live.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        To households where they suspect thieves live, but without any legal determination of such

      • @pqdinfo
        link
        English
        -17
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          121 year ago

          If you don’t nip it in the bud, it’s going to be really hard to close that Pandora’s box.

          Once we allow utilities, power, water, telephone, internet. To have opinions about who they can service, then you’re going to have a very dystopian civilization. Poor credit score? Can’t get on the internet. You voted for the wrong political candidate? No Comcast for you. Don’t believe in Scientology? Sorry we only offer dial-up in your area

          Allowing discretion by utility providers, public services, is not only a bad precedent, it’s a clear and present danger for everyone who has enemies which is everyone.

          • @pqdinfo
            link
            English
            -4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            deleted by creator

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      The levels of exaggeration about kiwifarms is getting a bit much, of course everyone uses emotive language but this is just getting wild.

      How many websites do you think should be blocked, all the ones that are as bad or worse than kiwifarms? Because there are a lot, so you want sweeping measures to restrict the internet and you don’t see that having any problems or negative affects?