this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
229 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):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In a well-intentioned yet dangerous move to fight online fraud, France is on the verge of forcing browsers to create a dystopian technical capability. Article 6 (para II and III) of the SREN Bill would force browser providers to create the means to mandatorily block websites present on a government provided list.

I don't agree that it's "well-intentioned" at all but the article goes on to point out the potential for abuse by copyright holders.

cross-posted from: https://radiation.party/post/64123

[ comments | sourced from HackerNews ]

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is absolutely no need to bring left vs right identity politics into the discussion, please stick to the topic of piracy. Same goes for the replies below. Thanks.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why should we give up on trying to listen to each other's point of view?

It's never too late to learn how to participate in a community.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] IAccidentallyCame@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] roofuskit@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Despite all the problems we have in the United States, this would be struck down in court SO fast due to the first amendment to our constitution. The government making a list of speech you are not allowed to hear is pretty much the most cut and dry violation of that.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's literally no way to enforce this.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's not actually working, but VPN sales are going up.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] Pulp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The main sites yes. Others are ignoring it

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

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.