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

    • dystop@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Banning abortion information is not the same thing as banning a harassment network that’s causing deaths.

      This sentence alone shows how short-sighted your point is.

      “Abortion is the killing of fetuses. Providing women with access to information about abortion will lead to more deaths in just one year than Kiwifarms has brought about in its entire existence. ISPs have shown that they are able to block such sites. Given the higher level of harm abortion sites pose as compared to Kiwifarms, the Texas Court of Appeals moves that ISPs have to block all access to abortion information.”

      You don’t have to agree with the paragraph above (I certainly don’t), but that’s exactly the point - if it can be used to block things you want blocked, there will be a way to justify blocking things you do NOT want blocked.

    • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Could you please read the whole article before commenting?

      It’s incredibly easy for an ISP to point out that they’re not going to block a network for a different reason by pointing out it’s… not the same reason.

      No offense, but don’t pursue a law degree, that’s not how things work in the real world. The EFF has a long history of fighting these sorts of things in court, they have enough experienced people to know what they are talking about.

      A state has enough leverage to push around an ISP to comply, and the ISP gains nothing in opposing.

      The EFF deserves to be roundly condemned for this, especially as it has no obvious alternative.

      There is. People can be prosecuted individually. This has happened in the past without ISPs blocking whole websites.

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

      Speaking of fallacies…

        • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No offense, but keep your patronizing “Anyone who disagrees with me could only have just heard of this article I just skimmed, and not been discussing it in depth for the last week” bullshit out of my replies.

          So, the EFF has 33 years of experience fighting in courts on matters of digital rights, and somehow you feel like you know both the current law and the legal consequences of court precedents better than them?

          Based on how composed you’ve been in this comment section, I’m going to assume the EFF has been around longer than you have.

            • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I have written nothing implying that, no.

              From the very first reply, you implied that the argument that the EFF made was wrong, and that this precedent could not be used to block women’s access to abortion: “It’s incredibly easy for an ISP to point out that they’re not going to block a network for a different reason by pointing out it’s… not the same reason. Banning abortion information is not the same thing as banning a harassment network that’s causing deaths.”

              I’ve said the EFF’s argument is bullshit because the US government cannot enforce the laws the EFF says could be used. Not that they don’t exist, but that this is an international network that heavily uses anonymity. The US government likely cannot at all, and if it can can only do expensively and slowly, too slowly to prevent deaths, ban this website.

              If that’s the case, how did they get Ross Ulbricht? He ran a darkweb marketplace, in theory, harder to pin down than something on the clearnet like Kiwi Farms.

              The same precedent that bans Kiwi Farms at the ISP level, could be used to block women’s access to safe abortion, causing deaths as well. And no, I’m not gonna take your word for it that it can be avoided in court in the future. You’re just some rando on the internet with no legal expertise, unlike the EFF.

              I’m all in favor in prosecuting people responsible for peoples’ deaths and shutting down that website, but not by using something that could cause harm to others in the future.

            • alienanimals@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “Why won’t anyone engage with my fallacious bullshit?” - pqdinfo

              “Well, this is why” - orizuru

              “BLOCKED” - pqdinfo

                • Blu@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Quit embarrassing yourself and follow up on deleting your comments already. You’re a master class in how not to argue. If I still taught debate, I’d be using your comments to demonstrate fallacies.

    • usernotfound@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Removed as a protest against the community’s support for campaigns to bring about the deaths of members of marginalized groups, and opposition to private entities working to prevent such campaigns, together with it’s mindless flaming and downvoting of anyone who disagrees.

      As a postscript for this discussion only, be aware that virtually all the replies to my comments quote me out of context, or claim I’ve made arguments I haven’t. It’s safe to disregard them.

      Quoted verbatim here, just in case you choose to edit it again.

      The only reason you got downvoted to hell in this thread is because you want to paint everyone who opposes corporate censorship as transgender murder supporters, in, what the article itself describes as a futile, neverending effort.

      And now that you are time and time confronted with the fallacies you employ, you decide to edit all your comments “in protest”. Stopping only to call everyone who opposed you even in the slightest an accomplice to murder. Very mature.


      Edit: Ah cute. They delivered another show of their good intent in my DM;

      Fuck off and die you harassing, lying, piece of shit.

      Everyone who disagrees with you must be pro-kiwi huh? I rest my case.