this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
40 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

68824 readers
471 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not true, ordering companies to block DNS when they don't "operate" (hosting servers) in France, it'll likely do nothing. Just like the US going after non-US companies. They don't have to comply. Quad9 I would especially think wouldn't comply since they push for an open and private internet. Google will probably comply because they're Google and still want everyone's data they can get.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 3 points 1 week ago

So that's not actually true with DNS exactly.

State actors can and have compelled ISPs to redirect DNS traffic. The most notable case I can remember is Turkey assuming control over Google's anycast address (8.8.8.8) via BGP hijacking to enforce Twitter bans (that was in 2014).

If we are talking DoT/DoH, then BGP hijacking has a more limited impact as there is encryption involved there, but it still requires IP routing the same as anything else, so modifying BGP routes would be effective if the goal was to break non-compliant DNS providers.