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

  • pqdinfo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    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.

    • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The question here comes down to 3 choices

      Do you want a corporation to be able to decide what you can’t look at?

      Do you want your government to decide what you can’t look at?

      Do you want to decide what you don’t look at?

      And, like most things, people are going to want a little from each column. Figuring out the proper lines is the tricky part. The EFF stance is the net neutrality stance. Your stance is the Section 230 stance. Both are good things in different situations.

      In this case, because there is most often no consumer choice in ISPs, net neutrality is the EFF-preferred position when dealing with them. This leaves it to the government (and society at large) to craft and/or enforce specific laws to control the undesired behavior, which is often a mistake, too. But it’s generally a better societal moderator than a single monpolistic corporation is.