[HN] Will Browsers Be Required by Law to Stop You from Visiting Infringing Sites? angielski

Silverseren, rok temu

If the reason for this is to prevent pedophilia content, then this will do nothing. People who access that sort of thing on the dark web aren't going to be affected by this whatsoever.

JustEnoughDucks, rok temu

When pedophilia prevention is used as an excuse, 100% of the time it is a move to restrict peoples’ rights and/or freedoms. 100% of the time.

The US has the playbook down easy. Every single law that they want to pass that is solidly against the citizens best interests they say “oh… pedophilia!”

You can’t argue against it because they will say “oh, so you think pedophilia is good and shouldn’t be stopped?” When in reality, the biggest rings of pedophilia aren’t perpetrated by online websites but by rich businessmen, polititians, and churches. Their friends, corporate masters, and partners.

ThetaDev, rok temu

The most stupid part of this idea is that is requires a list of banned sites to be served to every user.

Even if they would use hashing to obfuscate the banned domains, you can download a list of all registered domains and just test every one of them.

So the average internet user will lose freedom while a cheese pizza enjoyer with some computer knowledge will gain a list of every banned CP site.

acastcandream, rok temu

Please tell me this is a joke and you aren’t actually a pizzagate nutter

ThetaDev, rok temu

No, I thought “Cheese Pizza” ist just an acronym for inappropriate pictures and videos of children. Tell me if I’m mistaken (English is not my first language).

Jck2905, rok temu

Nah you are good. Cheese pizza as an acronym for you know what has been around longer than pizza gate.

acastcandream, rok temu

Just because it’s older doesn’t mean it hasn’t taken on new meaning as well though.

“LFG” means “let’s fucking go” and/or “looking for group” even within gaming circles. It’s all about who you’re talking to.

BastingChemina, rok temu

ainsi mieux protéger nos enfants

This is to protect our children of course.

As usual, so anyone who is against this law can be depicted as someone who is supporting pedopornography.

IAccidentallyCame, rok temu

Yep, the other go to is calling people right wing extremists.

figaro, rok temu

I don’t like the idea of conflating falsely accusing people of being a pedophile with calling someone out for holding harmful right-wing beliefs.

The first (saying someone is supporting pedophiles) is oftentimes used as a method to support bans on anti-encryption technology. It is a bad-faith justification for harmful and 1984 type legislation.

The second, however, is an argument used by right wing extremists to justify hate speech.

To be clear - I’m not saying the government should mandate a ban on conservative media. I’m just saying that as a normal citizen, it is a justified, non-harmful act to call people with harmful right-wing beliefs ‘right wing extremists.’

uriel238, rok temu

I don’t like the idea of conflating falsely accusing people of being a pedophile with calling someone out for holding harmful right-wing beliefs.

Here in the states, among common harmful right-wing beliefs is the assertion of calling LGBT+ folk groomers, especially when protesting trans folk existing.

The use of bad-faith child safety and child victimization rhetoric to push questionable legislation, especially targeting general privacy or the rights of marginalized groups is so prevalent that it dwarfs by order of magnitude actual child welfare interests (like healthcare access, free school lunches and bullying in schools)

So I’d be skeptical of any rhetoric that asserts a policy might protect children.

I’d also be skeptical of IAccidentallyCame’s good faith regarding right wing rhetoric. As the world’s plutocratic elite runs out of lies to justify the hierarchies that keep them in power, right-wing rhetoric, including hate speech, is on the rise as a last defense against general unrest. They would rather the world literally burn than give up their wealth and power.

Oh, and the world is literally burning.

figaro, rok temu

Yeah I intentionally didn’t go through their post history. Don’t have time for that lol. I mostly wrote that out for anyone who read his post and thought maybe there wasn’t a counter argument to what he said.

acastcandream, rok temu

His comparison is the definition of a bad faith, shoehorned argument, and exactly the kind of trash i was hoping to not see much of on beehaw.

IAccidentallyCame, rok temu

It was a good faith comment, I’m merely pointing out another tactic that the powers that be try to use to discredit people. I’m not comparing pedophilia allegations against being called a far right extremist. I’m just pointing out it’s a separate tactic.

I guess I wasn’t too clear on that, wasn’t expecting these sorts of replies.

Valmond, 11 miesięcy temu

Do you have an example though?

I mean I know about using being a murderer, terrorist apologist, pedophile being used in bad faith, when was someone touting “if you are against this law, you’re a rightwing extremist” in bad faith?

acastcandream, rok temu

I guarantee you being called a pedophile vs “too far right“ or even a “right wing extremist” will yield incredibly different results in a crowded room. This is an absurd comparison.

IAccidentallyCame, rok temu

Yes, I agree. My point was left v. Right or anything like that. I was just pointing out that it’s another label I’ve seen thrown out label I’ve seen thrown out there in the last few years when trying to discredit people.

I guess my point didn’t come off they way I meant it looking at all of these replies.

acastcandream, rok temu

Because you compared being called a pedophile to being called too conservative.