Net neutrality has been debated for decades and, as the EFF apparently still has to remind people, the entire thing conceptually goes out the window once it becomes acceptable for to ISPs start blocking content on their own volition, even if you happen to completely agree with the block. After some time building blocklists of generally understood to be nasty sites, ISPs with large entertainment interests will block piracy sites. Internet archive? Blocked. Blog which writes something nasty about them? Block. Anarchist Fedi community? Etc. That’s what the EFF is warning about.
It would be cool if we had net neutrality, but we have a bunch of laws which already fly in the face of that. Maybe work on dismantling those? Maybe make your blog posts about the minorities which are having their voices already removed by the existing system? Maybe talk about how police fail to follow-through? It’s weird to be focusing on defending a website which proliferates hate and causes real harm, when you could instead be using your limited resources to help out people who deserve it. KF isn’t suing. No one is suing the tier 1 ISP. Why make the stand here? It reads as completely tone deaf to me.
That‘s what they‘ve been doing for years, decades even. Just because it hit the „right“ website this time doesn’t mean this particular net neutrality violation should be ignored. On the contrary, it would be hypocritical for them to argue for net neutrality for years and then be like „oh well, those KF people suck so this time we‘re fine with it“. And why does it matter if anyone is suing? Is net neutrality only for those who have the motivation and/or means to sue?
There’s a big difference between explicitly endorsing something and not making a blog post about it. Hell there’s even a big difference between making a better blog post about this and this nonsense they put up. As I just stated in a reply to someone else right above you, despite all the issues the link in this post addresses, my other issue with the EFF post is how tone deaf it is.
I think the reactions to their article actually demonstrate very well why this blog post needed to be made. If we‘re willing to immediately give up on net neutrality because in this case it would have benefited a bad actor, we might as well not argue for net neutrality at all. Pointing this out is important and I don‘t think it‘s tone deaf.
I‘m not saying you did, but many people in the linked thread do so by endorsing the actions of the ISP. And in my opinion, those reactions demonstrate why this article is not pointless or tone deaf. Because many people just don’t realise that net neutrality with exceptions doesn‘t exist.
Ideas don’t have to exist in absolution. Many people oppose murder, but are also okay with murdering convicted criminals. It’s also possible to believe in laws yet allow them to be violated when a system isn’t perfect. One can believe in net neutrality and wish deeply for it, but also recognize that it does not currently exist and to be okay with (or even endorse) people using the system to disenfranchise bad actors because they believe it is the best solution currently available.
By this logic, any untrained citizen who interrupts a robbery by shooting the robber in the head from behind should not only be absolved of the crime but should be lauded for it.
I’m not saying that they can’t point this out as an issue and I’m aware that it’s in line with their absolutist beliefs on the internet being a public utility, but they spend an awfully small amount of time discussing the real and tangible harm that KF has brought to this world. They could also have spent more of their words on these other issues when bringing up KF. As I stated it’s about how tone deaf this seems to me that’s so off-putting about it.
I agree that the internet should be a public utility, but it’s not, and if I’m gonna be spending efforts focused on trying to make it a public utility I want those efforts to go towards instances which are worth the time. If it was already a public utility and this was a real threat to it continuing to be a public utility, that would be a very different situation.
they spend an awfully small amount of time discussing the real and tangible harm that KF has brought to this world.
As callous as it may sound, it isn’t their job to talk about that. I’m sure there’s plenty of charities who’s job it is to do that you can support, not to mention the police who should investigating if they caused real harm.
Real tangible harm was caused by KF - the burden of education is on everyone who chooses to open their mouth about this issue in the same way that we expect people to be reasonably knowledgeable about minorities before talking about them. We chastise companies and people for taking tone deaf stances on all sorts of issues all the time, because they should know better. They chose to open their mouth about a group which caused a lot of violence in the world, it’s their responsibility to be educated on how to approach the subject tactfully.
They could have fairly trivially provided links to charities which exist to offset this harm. They could have trivially talked about how the police system is currently failing to protect minorities and others disenfranchised by the existing system that has no net neutrality. They didn’t do these things. For such a large company and a non-profit with the reach that they have, they need to be better than this.
I mean even if it was a public utility, there’s still laws around those in regards to what you can and can’t do with it. So depending on how the framework around it is set up, and if there was a proper system in place to enforce it, I don’t think it would necessarily even be a threat to it becoming or continuing to be a public utility.
Net neutrality has been debated for decades and, as the EFF apparently still has to remind people, the entire thing conceptually goes out the window once it becomes acceptable for to ISPs start blocking content on their own volition, even if you happen to completely agree with the block. After some time building blocklists of generally understood to be nasty sites, ISPs with large entertainment interests will block piracy sites. Internet archive? Blocked. Blog which writes something nasty about them? Block. Anarchist Fedi community? Etc. That’s what the EFF is warning about.
It would be cool if we had net neutrality, but we have a bunch of laws which already fly in the face of that. Maybe work on dismantling those? Maybe make your blog posts about the minorities which are having their voices already removed by the existing system? Maybe talk about how police fail to follow-through? It’s weird to be focusing on defending a website which proliferates hate and causes real harm, when you could instead be using your limited resources to help out people who deserve it. KF isn’t suing. No one is suing the tier 1 ISP. Why make the stand here? It reads as completely tone deaf to me.
That‘s what they‘ve been doing for years, decades even. Just because it hit the „right“ website this time doesn’t mean this particular net neutrality violation should be ignored. On the contrary, it would be hypocritical for them to argue for net neutrality for years and then be like „oh well, those KF people suck so this time we‘re fine with it“. And why does it matter if anyone is suing? Is net neutrality only for those who have the motivation and/or means to sue?
There’s a big difference between explicitly endorsing something and not making a blog post about it. Hell there’s even a big difference between making a better blog post about this and this nonsense they put up. As I just stated in a reply to someone else right above you, despite all the issues the link in this post addresses, my other issue with the EFF post is how tone deaf it is.
I think the reactions to their article actually demonstrate very well why this blog post needed to be made. If we‘re willing to immediately give up on net neutrality because in this case it would have benefited a bad actor, we might as well not argue for net neutrality at all. Pointing this out is important and I don‘t think it‘s tone deaf.
At what point did I say or even imply that we should give up on net neutrality?
I‘m not saying you did, but many people in the linked thread do so by endorsing the actions of the ISP. And in my opinion, those reactions demonstrate why this article is not pointless or tone deaf. Because many people just don’t realise that net neutrality with exceptions doesn‘t exist.
Ideas don’t have to exist in absolution. Many people oppose murder, but are also okay with murdering convicted criminals. It’s also possible to believe in laws yet allow them to be violated when a system isn’t perfect. One can believe in net neutrality and wish deeply for it, but also recognize that it does not currently exist and to be okay with (or even endorse) people using the system to disenfranchise bad actors because they believe it is the best solution currently available.
By this logic, any untrained citizen who interrupts a robbery by shooting the robber in the head from behind should not only be absolved of the crime but should be lauded for it.
The EFF is working on all that. And have been for decades. They are allies.
They’re making a stand on blocking because they have a bigger perspective on the issues. Which I thought was quite well articulated in their article.
I’m not saying that they can’t point this out as an issue and I’m aware that it’s in line with their absolutist beliefs on the internet being a public utility, but they spend an awfully small amount of time discussing the real and tangible harm that KF has brought to this world. They could also have spent more of their words on these other issues when bringing up KF. As I stated it’s about how tone deaf this seems to me that’s so off-putting about it.
I agree that the internet should be a public utility, but it’s not, and if I’m gonna be spending efforts focused on trying to make it a public utility I want those efforts to go towards instances which are worth the time. If it was already a public utility and this was a real threat to it continuing to be a public utility, that would be a very different situation.
As callous as it may sound, it isn’t their job to talk about that. I’m sure there’s plenty of charities who’s job it is to do that you can support, not to mention the police who should investigating if they caused real harm.
Real tangible harm was caused by KF - the burden of education is on everyone who chooses to open their mouth about this issue in the same way that we expect people to be reasonably knowledgeable about minorities before talking about them. We chastise companies and people for taking tone deaf stances on all sorts of issues all the time, because they should know better. They chose to open their mouth about a group which caused a lot of violence in the world, it’s their responsibility to be educated on how to approach the subject tactfully.
They could have fairly trivially provided links to charities which exist to offset this harm. They could have trivially talked about how the police system is currently failing to protect minorities and others disenfranchised by the existing system that has no net neutrality. They didn’t do these things. For such a large company and a non-profit with the reach that they have, they need to be better than this.
I mean even if it was a public utility, there’s still laws around those in regards to what you can and can’t do with it. So depending on how the framework around it is set up, and if there was a proper system in place to enforce it, I don’t think it would necessarily even be a threat to it becoming or continuing to be a public utility.