EFF launching campaign against content policing by ISPs

[Overly Serious]

Keffals had a soul?

So @teriyakiburns was referencing A Man For All Seasons. Near the end of the film when Sir Thomas Moore has been betrayed by one of his associates and said associate is leaving the court room after lying under oath, Sir Thomas Moore notices a chain of office around his betrayer's neck. He stops him and asks what it is and is told that his betrayer has been made "Attorney General of Wales" (iirc). He comments dryly that "it profiteth a man not to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales...!"

It's one of the most snarky lines in movie history.

 

[Dambusters' Dog II]

He comments dryly that "it profiteth a man not to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales...!"

It's one of the most snarky lines in movie history.

I thought you were talking directly about Matthew 16:26 or Mark 8:36 (or the slightly different version in Luke 9:25).

 

[GenericEdgelordSupreme]

Cindy Cohn - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EFF's (((Executive Director)))

tell me again how our civil liberties are in good hands.
(Also served on several United Nations boards).

I'm pretty sure she's just an ugly woman, not a troon. No male secondary sex characteristics and I learned from an anti-NSA video presentation she did that her voice sounds like that of a real woman. Never heard of her before today so I can't say with confidence our civil liberties are in *good* hands, but the situation could certainly be worse.

 

[Slap47]

I'm pretty sure she's just an ugly woman, not a troon. No male secondary sex characteristics and I learned from an anti-NSA video presentation she did that her voice sounds like that of a real woman. Never heard of her before today so I can't say with confidence our civil liberties are in *good* hands, but the situation could certainly be worse.

They have issue with her being Jewish.

 

[GenericEdgelordSupreme]

They have issue with her being Jewish.

Hate the kikery, not the kike.

...okay, sometimes hate the kike too. It depends on the individual. It would be a mitzvah if she can be a mensch and save our tuchuses from the possible end of the First Amendment.

 

[Karen]

It's a Christmas Miracle.

 

[Jaimas]

Keffals had a soul?

One bound for hell, yes.

 

[Foxxo]

Word the blurb better, please. Until I noticed the "from", I thought this was us getting EFFed.

 

[Involuntary Celebrity]

Word the blurb better, please. Until I noticed the "from", I thought this was us getting EFFed.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a 32-year-old American non-profit living in his mother's basement, has launched a campaign to confuse people who ain't read good.

 

[Glowie]

Electronic Faggot Foundation

It's freedom for all or none, once you allow government and ISP to censor sites for disagreeable content, you're getting closer and closer to Iran or China tier censorship.

Road to hell is paved with troon intentions

 

[Nykysnottrans]

If we're not a hivemind it'd be weird to treat the EFF as one.
Their track record is mostly pretty based. But I'm sure they know better than anyone how easily their legitimacy and hard work could be undermined if they get branded an enemy of the jews. Give em some latitude for tact in this shitty era.
Maybe they should have stayed loud this whole time like they used to but I bet there are a lot of zoomers and twitter retards who don't even know what the EFF is now, so that's the current situation for them to navigate if they want to get their mojo back.

My theory is that they know this but if they say "Kiwifarms isn't bad actually" then people will ignore every other point of their argument and accuse them of being associated with the evil murdering transphobes. Ergo it's good to pretend to pretend to be allied to the popular opinion.

It sucks, but with internet discourse being how it is that's what it's come to.

I wonder if the EPF saw the recent campaigns by No Dong and his dumb puppet Keffals as a sign to stop this. More likely they saw WHO exactly was waging these campaigns and now try to put a lid on it. After all these faggots are not exacxtly the harbinger of moral and if they can do it who is stop stop Nazi's and other scum to do exactly the same?

The EFF's argument about sites like KF that are targeted via backbones boils down to: don't deal with the KFs of this world internally through the abuse reporting process or other informal means. Instead, go ahead and criminalize the discussion of any public figure under the guise of "fighting online harassment" or "protecting minorities against hate speech", so that you can forego the backbones and instead easily and readily prosecute these "cyberterrorists" directly over their free speech and allow foreign governments to continue to chip away at the 1A above the board and legally. The EFF is not asking for an end to the crackdown but an escalation and formalization of the crackdown through the criminalization of "speech acts". As others in this thread pointed out, it isn't exactly something new for backbones to be targeted with censorship requests, it goes all the way back to the 1990s with the Nuremberg Files. The EFF had 25 years to actually do something about this problem which they are long aware of. They had ample opportunity to do something substantial other than just claiming they're pro Net Neutrality on paper.

I wish people would actually pay close attention to what the EFF are saying rather than assuming that the EFF is supposedly doing our bidding. They're really not. This new EFF site was launched right after Elon Musk banned prominent far-left accounts like CrimeThINC. It's about protecting CrimeThINC's right to post things like Molotov cocktail tutorials - which tutorials were literally being tweeted out by mainstream journalists even at the start of the Ukraine war - on their website and still avoid getting blocked by backbones over "cyberterrorism".

 

[pikachudidnothingwrong]

It's about time someone did because once you get past pure political wankery, nobody else is really even pretending that they think network level censorship is the end of the internet and free speech as a (functional) whole, let alone that it needs to be completely off the table! Hell, most media, politicians and companies speak and treat censorship like a needed public good now.

As for the EEF themselves.. I always read their "legal exception" arguments as a smart read of the room... We are in an era and climate where there is almost no room to argue against certain things, at least not overtly. I saw the legal argument as more of a cover than any kind of argument in favor of actual laws. Basically "if these things are illegal or need to be, then lets deal with them legally, if not, then it shouldn't be up to private companies to censor things." Not simply an argument for actual laws. (which they themselves know perfectly well are unconstitutional) It's a cleaver dodge of an already loaded emotional fallacy argument for censorship. That's just my opinion. Mostly born out of the fact that if you are a "true believer" or a virtue signaling pussy, there is no room for any argument, logical or otherwise, for not using any and every means to censor sites like the farms. In fact one only needs to take a look at the twitter or reddit discussions of their articles over this to see that they are being painted as "pro-nazis" "pro-hate" and "pro-death of letter people" over simply just pointing out the danger in network level censorship.


On somewhat of a side note.. It doesn't get talked about much but it should.. This whole mess and the crap we've went through in the last months should be a wake up call to anyone who still never grasped why "hate" and other wrongthink language inserted "harmlessly" into just about every single ToS was such a dangerous thing from the beginning. It may have seemed like mere virtue signaling to most, and likely the companies themselves, but as we've seen in the past months... much like with all such progressive dogma and talking points, it was always a means to an end. In the future. A weak spot to exploit, but only if you are loud and well connected (media/politics/business) enough. Otherwise it's business as usual. Think about how many companies in the last few months, were forced to exercise their "wrongthink" terms for the first time, and how that cat is likely not going back in the bag easily going forward now.

Stupid little trivialities DO in fact matter... Not everyone bitching about stuff is doing it out of some sort of petty political crusade or tinfoil hat bullshit! Give people like the current gen of progressives an inch and they will always plan to take that mile and more later with it!

 

[Orange Rhymer]

The EFF's argument about sites like KF that are targeted via backbones boils down to: don't deal with the KFs of this world internally through the abuse reporting process or other informal means. Instead, go ahead and criminalize the discussion of any public figure under the guise of "fighting online harassment" or "protecting minorities against hate speech", so that you can forego the backbones and instead easily and readily prosecute these "cyberterrorists" directly over their free speech and allow foreign governments to continue to chip away at the 1A above the board and legally. The EFF is not asking for an end to the crackdown but an escalation and formalization of the crackdown through the criminalization of "speech acts". As others in this thread pointed out, it isn't exactly something new for backbones to be targeted with censorship requests, it goes all the way back to the 1990s with the Nuremberg Files. The EFF had 25 years to actually do something about this problem which they are long aware of. They had ample opportunity to do something substantial other than just claiming they're pro Net Neutrality on paper.

I wish people would actually pay close attention to what the EFF are saying rather than assuming that the EFF is supposedly doing our bidding. They're really not. This new EFF site was launched right after Elon Musk banned prominent far-left accounts like CrimeThINC. It's about protecting CrimeThINC's right to post things like Molotov cocktail tutorials - which tutorials were literally being tweeted out by mainstream journalists even at the start of the Ukraine war - on their website and still avoid getting blocked by backbones over "cyberterrorism".

Bingo.
The new political order has nothing to do with protecting our civil liberties. Those left the building as far back as The War On Drugs.
The Patriot Act sealed it further. The ACLU did nothing then, the EFF does nothing now.
Want to seize property and imprison someone without a trial? Call them a terrorist.
Want to censor a political rival? Pay (bribe) a social media 'moderator(s)'.
The EFF realizes this, now they just want to become the Gatekeepers.
Unfortunately, they have been sleeping. The social media giants became the defacto Gatekeepers.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[Kyuss]

Is it 2012 again?
Time really is a circle.

 

[nya002]

"to persuade ISPs ----away---- from censoring" or better

"to dissuade ISPs from"

the Grammar Autism Police never sleeps
thank you citizen for your cooperation

 

[George Floyd]

(((except in rare cases)))

Had to include an escape hatch.

 

[GenericEdgelordSupreme]

The EFF's argument about sites like KF that are targeted via backbones boils down to: don't deal with the KFs of this world internally through the abuse reporting process or other informal means. Instead, go ahead and criminalize the discussion of any public figure under the guise of "fighting online harassment" or "protecting minorities against hate speech", so that you can forego the backbones and instead easily and readily prosecute these "cyberterrorists" directly over their free speech and allow foreign governments to continue to chip away at the 1A above the board and legally. The EFF is not asking for an end to the crackdown but an escalation and formalization of the crackdown through the criminalization of "speech acts". As others in this thread pointed out, it isn't exactly something new for backbones to be targeted with censorship requests, it goes all the way back to the 1990s with the Nuremberg Files. The EFF had 25 years to actually do something about this problem which they are long aware of. They had ample opportunity to do something substantial other than just claiming they're pro Net Neutrality on paper.

I wish people would actually pay close attention to what the EFF are saying rather than assuming that the EFF is supposedly doing our bidding. They're really not. This new EFF site was launched right after Elon Musk banned prominent far-left accounts like CrimeThINC. It's about protecting CrimeThINC's right to post things like Molotov cocktail tutorials - which tutorials were literally being tweeted out by mainstream journalists even at the start of the Ukraine war - on their website and still avoid getting blocked by backbones over "cyberterrorism".

Neither should be criminalized or censored. What if you just like blowing shit up or setting things on fire in your back yard for fun? That isn't terrorizing anyone. Freedom of speech works both ways. In order to preserve our right to say niggerfaggot, we need to also allow obnoxious antifa lefties to learn how to make improvised weapons by stealing from mommy and daddy's liquor cabinet.

 

[Nykysnottrans]

In order to preserve our right to say niggerfaggot, we need to also allow obnoxious antifa lefties to learn how to make improvised weapons by stealing from mommy and daddy's liquor cabinet.

The point of my example wasn't to make an argument the likes of "why can the one side get away with saying X but then then other side can't even Y which less worse than saying X". My point is that the EFF and other supposedly progressive organizations have completely rejected the idea of everyone having the same rights. The EFF does not believe that anyone has a right to post a molotov cocktail tutorial. They think that a journalist - ie, someone who has been already been anointed by the system - has a right to post a molotov cocktail tutorial, because they are supposedly doing so in favour of a war that has been given the imprimatur of legitimacy by the system. But you the slave citizen can rightly be criminalized for doing the same. And the EFF is OK with an such "exception" being made for the majority for the sake of preserving the free speech of an anointed minority (journalists). The EFF don't want to protect the speech of the average person, they want to protect those whose interests align with their own, which is fellow anointed ones.

 

[GenericEdgelordSupreme]

The point of my example wasn't to make an argument the likes of "why can the one side get away with saying X but then then other side can't even Y which less worse than saying X". My point is that the EFF and other supposedly progressive organizations have completely rejected the idea of everyone having the same rights. The EFF does not believe that anyone has a right to post a molotov cocktail tutorial. They think that a journalist - ie, someone who has been already been anointed by the system - has a right to post a molotov cocktail tutorial, because they are supposedly doing so in favour of a war that has been given the imprimatur of legitimacy by the system. But you the slave citizen can rightly be criminalized for doing the same. And the EFF is OK with an such "exception" being made for the majority for the sake of preserving the free speech of an anointed minority (journalists). The EFF don't want to protect the speech of the average person, they want to protect those whose interests align with their own, which is fellow anointed ones.

That is certainly harder to defend. I didn't get that impression from the one article I read, but I did only read the one article. If that's their stance, fuck 'em all to death. Journoscum deserve less rights than the average person, not more. (However, for the sake of fairness, I could live with them having exactly the same amount of rights as me.)