![[HN] Will Browsers Be Required by Law to Stop You from Visiting Infringing Sites?](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/0d542d2e-2515-4843-aec2-a9567f396d6c.png){kind=link}
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 ]
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.
Yep, the other go to is calling people right wing extremists.
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.’
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.
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.
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 ( @Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com ) English3•1 year ago
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?
When they actually do have far right beliefs sure. But I think they were referring to people using the “right wing extremist” tag as a bludgeon for any views right of their own, or things that may not even be right at all.
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.
Could you give an example of a situation where people who are against such a law are unfairly dismissed by being falsely accused of being right wing extremists? I think this might be a valid comparison but not sure how often this really happens.
Should cars be required by law not to let you drive to drug deals? Should glasses be required by law not to let you read banned books? Should testicles be required by law not to produce government-unsanctioned sperm?
I have an even simpler example: should cars be required not go over the speed limit?
No because they’d lose the ticket revenue
this is already a thing for cargo trucks
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.
The laws already require you to not infringe copyright. This is a new front in the same old war.
Yes definitely, but currently the onus is on the user to not infringe. The French proposal is putting at least some of the onus on the developer of the browser which is a new front, I agree.
I feel like we would be less forgiving of this happening in other mediums.
Imagine this: car manufacturers are required by law to prevent their vehicles from driving to locations where crime might happen.
Every lesson we had to learn about legislating the use of stuff, we are having to re-learn in each country for cases on a computer or on the internet. This is so stupid and clichè I suspect it’s the bugbear of some plutocrat lobbying the French government, rather than someone brainstorming ideas without a staffer there to tell them the public would just ignore the law and get more computer literate.
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.
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.
The biggest rings of pedophilia are all made up of rich businessmen and politicians, (I’ll keep churches separate since they are not people) is that really what you’re saying?
Pretty sure the biggest rings of pedophilia are probably just randoms shooting shit with their own kids or child prostitutes in poor countries, otherwise we would’ve heard about new politicians and businessmen getting identified everytime someone gets caught with x00GB of videos and pictures
It’s astonishing how much liberty they are being able to remove from us in sake of “security”.
Browsers are open source
Just comment out the “download list of sites to block” part and recompile
There’s literally no way to enforce this.
If google implements is drm technology they are actively implementing already now, the answer is an absolute yes.
Download firefox now.
Firefox and Mozilla have been struggling mightily lately. Downloading Firefox won’t help when Mozilla goes out of business. The best thing you can do is donate to Mozilla IMO.
Mozilla gets the vast majority of their revenue from having Google be the default search provider for Firefox.
Is firefox the only way to protest against this? i have gotten so used to chromium based browsers
I switched recently and it was an incredibly smooth transition. I was also worried, having been on Chrome for so long, but I don’t regret switching at all.
France and dystopian copyright laws, name a more typical duo.
The UK and… in fact, no. I’m glad it’s not us this time. Lets roast France some more.
Service providers in many countries are required by law to do this through DNS for years. The UK, Italy, Germany and Brazil are just a few that I’ve had personal experience with. Moving this to the browser really isn’t necessary since there will always be easy ways around these types of blocks.
“The internet treats censorship as a fault and reroutes around it.”
yeah but those usaully are bypassable if you have vpns or custom dns or whatnot. even for neewbies that just use vpn client sw.
if they force it at browser level, in theoty, that would even override vpn / custom dns unless you have a modifyied browser that removes the block or otherwise doesnot comply. which most novices wont know how ot do.
another good reason to use ff / foss browsers if you aren’y already. kinbda hope they do it, just to drive up marketshare of foss bowsers lol
I don’t disagree at all, especially about the need for FOSS browsers.
Finland also had this for years but the ISPs started quietly to stop the blocking at some point. And you could bypass the blocking by using another DNS server anyways.
How would this even be enforced?
Eh, it’s unenforceable. Just theater from a bunch of politicians that don’t understand the technology. I wouldn’t worry about it.
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.
And what happens when I remove that & compile my browser from source?
you’re a terrorist :’|
Terrorist has been so misused in the last 20+ years that we should reclaim it again as cool. Pretty much every single human on the planet who has stood up against government impropriety has been called a terrorist.
Beware large prime numbers!! NP-complete problems are banned!!! No more math! Lattices are outlawed! You wouldn’t download a public key!!!