EFF launching campaign against content policing by ISPs

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
I don't like to pile on with negativity when it isn't deserved, but I am extremely skeptical of any organization or person purporting that the Farms should remain around after the backstabbing Matthew Prince did.

Actions speak louder than words, so we will see what they do. (I'm sure we are viewed as one of the exceptions they mention)
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: byuuWasTaken, Athena Loves Kiwis, ExsanguinateHorizon and 6 others
Rent Tin said:
Actions speak louder than words, so we will see what they do. (I'm sure we are viewed as one of the exceptions they mention)
Click to expand...
Null posted the article where they specifically brought up kiwifarms and cloudflare. I wouldn't call it the most dramatic defense of free expression but they didn't have to say anything at all. It would seem that they're at least becoming increasingly worried by the deplatforming, even if it is currently kiwifarms.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Athena Loves Kiwis and Pee Cola
For those of you who apparently have pinned such high hopes on the EFF helping KF, I submit the following excerpt from a January 1st 2020 MATI podcast I listened to for the first time today, wherein Joshua Moon talks about receiving a Grand Jury subpoena in 2019, so he contacts the EFF about it:


Um, the Federal Grand Jury subpoena... I didn't know what to do about this. And I tried contacting a ton of people to try and figure out what to do about this, and I if could not surrender information, and it just didn't happen. I contacted everything I could think of, and nobody got back to me in time for it. So I ended up basically getting them what they asked for. I had reduced records, but for the time, I had an archive of the site, for the day they were asking. So I had the IP [address] that they were asking for. I really didn't want to give it to them. I was hoping I could contest it, cos I was thinking that the archive wasn't a record kept in the usual business. It was a strange back-up, just in case. But I didn't wanna fuck around with the court system, I didn't wanna withold information that was subpoenaed. So I ended up having to give it to them. I am a snitch. It sucks. It really sucked, it was very stressful. It was extremely stressful. This, I wanna say, that this was more stressful than the Christchurch stuff. Cos the CH stuff, it was a foreign government, they didn't really have that much power, and I didn't have anything to worry about besides keeping the site up. With this, it was my government, and it seemed unconstitutional. The post they were asking information about is this: [shows post, Oct 8, 2019] because it was about the shooting in Germany, and the guy reposted the manifesto and stuff. And they wanted his IP address, associated with it. And it's like, there's nothing illegal about reposting a .pdf file or a picture, you know? So the whole thing seemed completely unfair to me. I contacted a couple of attorneys. I contacted the EFF, asking for help. They gave me... they sent an e-mail out to their list of lawyers asking if anyone would look into it. None of them got back to me, which is disheartening. And I just gave them what they wanted, to fuck off. But I told them, I would post it, if it didn't... actually, I e-mailed the guy - here's my audacity - I e-mailed him and I said - cos he very explicitly asked that I don't publish the subpoena, publicly without contacting him first (which is just a request, not a demand) - but I obliged it, cos I didn't have representation, I wasn't gonna get it.
Click to expand...

The EFF wouldn't even help him with a Grand Jury subpoena in 2019, so what makes you think they'd be more willing to help now?
 
  • Horrifying
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: byuuWasTaken, Orange Rhymer, Nekoi.Inukuma.00 and 13 others
ForTheHoard said:
I dont get the impression that the EFF is our friend or that I should have any faith in them to stand up to bullies. We will be one of those exceptions theyre talking about.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I think they're going to grift long enough to gain relevance and then shit all over places like the farms.

Furthermore, I think if you simply jewgle "goldman v. breitbart" you'll get an idea of what sort of organization the (((eff))) is.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: byuuWasTaken, A Proud Black Woman, ExsanguinateHorizon and 3 others
Fatniggo1488 said:
Frankly, I think they're going to grift long enough to gain relevance and then shit all over places like the farms.

Furthermore, I think if you simply jewgle "goldman v. breitbart" you'll get an idea of what sort of organization the (((eff))) is.
Click to expand...
I found their amicus brief and they seem to be defending Breitbart. They argue that the "server test" (links are ok) should be applied instead of the "incorporation test" (which is what Goldman wants). They bring up some pretty good points about if someone embeds a link, then the person hosting the server starts serving up copyright infringing content without the linker's knowledge, then it fucks them over even if they didn't do anything wrong.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
  • Dumb
Reactions: byuuWasTaken, Joe Cool, Athena Loves Kiwis and 2 others
Xiphias said:
I found their amicus brief and they seem to be defending Breitbart. They argue that the "server test" (links are ok) should be applied instead of the "incorporation test" (which is what Goldman wants). They bring up some pretty good points about if someone embeds a link, then the person hosting the server starts serving up copyright infringing content without the linker's knowledge, then it fucks them over even if they didn't do anything wrong.
Click to expand...
(Bit of a powerlevel, I apologize frens)
Due to being involved in the hosting market at that time the company I was employed by was following this case pretty well, and I believe the EFF did a good job here. Ofcourse they won't say "we love Breitbart uWu" but their amicus brief and other correspondence with the court was fair and not too colored in favor of Goldman. They just plainly stated facts as far as I know, and they were indeed as Xiphias said defending Breitbarts rights pretty well.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Athena Loves Kiwis, Pee Cola and Xiphias
New drop by the EFF where they reiterate stuff: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no-matter-how-awful-it

I didn't see it on their twitter account but lmao at the double talk.
1693340968858.png1693340983442.png
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: A Hot Potato, ロボ﹏§¤r﹏h¶rœ, Neo-Nazi Rich Evans and 10 others
robobobo said:
Yeah, I couldn't help but notice that they didn't publicize that take on twitter this time, I wonder why? And if they're so very incensed about randos on the farms gravedancing when a cow dies, I wonder what they have to say about all the people doing the exact same things on twitter and reddit.
Click to expand...
It's cause those grave dancers are dancing about an "le ebil transphobic fascist".
Since kiwifarms has a kill count of like 3 people (all of which were caused by Twitter, reddit, and their own hugboxes turning on them) It doesn't count according to EFF.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: A Hot Potato, Kees H, Doctor Neo Cortex and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back