I hate the Internet and the people who own it

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Lawfare is incredibly expensive, hence the term. Many people and organizations have seen all their hard-earned money (or money solicited from donors) drained away in almost no time, with no result. This is especially the case when suing a large and powerful corporation. The law may be on the side of the Farms, but increasingly courts today will say, "Yes, the law does say that, but we don't like you." It'd be like asking the FBI to hunt down the trannies who are DDoSing us.

For comparison, even an almost normie site like Parler couldn't get a fair shake.

So, in general, if anyone is planning to start a legal battle, it needs to be chosen carefully.

Also worth noting that in the American legal system, there are infinite ways to draw out a case (typically by requesting more information), so whoever has the most money wins automatically in most cases. One of my favorite examples is Creative Labs suing their competition, Aureal. Aureal won the suit, but Creative managed to drag out the suit for so long that Aureal went bankrupt, and Creative bought all their assets.
 
230 is a shield from prosecution from hosting illegal content. Doesn't prevent compelled service through quasi utilification. In fact, it helps net neutrality because they don't have a fear of prosecution for hosted content thanks to 230.
 
I don't think 230's "moderation" provisions apply to infrastructure providers, just proprietors of public sites like big social.
The 5th circuit seems to agree the "reasonable moderation" provisions do not preclude Texas from enforcing neutrality laws, even to the surface website/big social level.

Clearance Thomas is probably chomping at the bit to take this, and we have a circuit split with the 11th already over a similar FL law so it WILL be argued and soon.

(TBH, the 11th circuit's repeated folding to corrupt fed overreach no matter how ridiculous their arguments should be a sub-section of Trump's lolcow thread. He appointed the majority of them)
 
Last edited:
That decision was stayed by SCOTUS pending the appeal to SCOTUS

The legislation enacted by Texas follows the approach set out in detail by Justice Thomas on the last case involving censorship.
A stay favoring the status quo is normal pending case resolution.
(It's my understanding Thomas is pissed at the over-broad interpretations of 230 and is looking for the case to "Bruen" it)
 
Is the Hurricane Electric thing over? .pl is working for me on both my home and mobile networks after being gone all this week, not sure if I missed an update or anything (still torposting, I just randomly checked on my phone to see if it was working and lo and behold it was)
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Procrastinhater
Interestingly, this isn't the first time an Internet backbone provider has censored speech they don't like. There was a similar case in the late 1990s, targeting an anti-abortion website:

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1998-99/nuremberg-files/censorship.html

The Nuremberg Files quickly reappeared, however, under the domain of Plebeian Systems, a small Cincinnati ISP. Nevertheless, a few weeks later, the site was shut down again, but not because Plebeian Systems took issue with the site. Instead, the T-1 provider to Plebeian systems, OneNet Communications, threatened to cut off Internet access to the smaller company if it did not remove the site. An employee of Plebeian was quoted as saying, “Our upstream provider forced us to take it down. They were getting too much heat and email. It kind of sounds like they were blackmailed into it.” Interestingly enough, however, OneNet’s usage policy doesn’t state anything about threats specifically, and contains an indemnification policy which frees it from liability for content placed on its system. Nevertheless, OneNet asserts that “the language is part of OneNet’s agreement with its T-1 clients.” In an ominous follow-up report, OneNet systems wrote the following message to Plebeian systems explaining its decision:

“It is only a matter of time until we get pressure from above regarding you--they have done it many times in the past with spammers and pornographers that were downstream from us...None of those businesses are around today. These people will go after each link of the chain until one of the links break.”

The identity of those “from above” is unclear, but makes it appear that OneNet can pick and choose to whom it resells Internet access based on the content they host. This situation seems to be a chilling and possibly unprecedented case of a large or top-tier ISP filtering content not directly controlled or even related to its operation. Without any sort of regulation or recourse, it seems that cases like this could only increase with time.
 
One of those overconfident computer fondlers on Hacker News thinks complaining to the Attorney General's Office won't work 'cause of the legal definition of "broadband internet access service":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37060597
(https://archive.li/2rhhP)

ILEC telco service mandates are due to the regional monopolies that tend to form around them. IP transit providers are not in a similar situation; you can typically find several of them competing for your business in any carrier-neutral datacenter. The Washington net neutrality law being referenced in relation to the AGO complaint was developed in the context of residential Internet service and applies only to broadband providers, which is a term defined in the law, and which Hurricane and most other IP transit providers do not qualify as.

Guess we'll find out soon enough if he's bullshitting or not.

An even better reply from this rude little man:
Ahuh. Cry some more, your little band of losers isn't getting any sympathy here.

Every time you people try to paint your hate and vitriol as "free speech", it's like watching a clown try to fuck a chicken and tell you it's "a show".
He'd fit right in here lol
 
One of those overconfident computer fondlers on Hacker News thinks complaining to the Attorney General's Office won't work 'cause of the legal definition of "broadband internet access service":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37060597
(https://archive.li/2rhhP)



Guess we'll find out soon enough if he's bullshitting or not.
Sounds kinda more like he's just retarded and is confusing "broadband internet access service" with "edge provider."

1691675233877.png


There is the question of whether it's a "mass-market retail service," but when you tack on "including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communication service," that seems like it's a pretty fucking broad definition, if you ask me. The ability to make all digital communications between two internet endpoints cease pretty clearly means that you're providing some type of service that enables the operation of it. I think your local broadband ISP providers would fall under the "edge provider" definition, although I think there can definitely be overlap.
 
ICYMI Jersh posted something in the Total Retard War thread
Hurricane Electric has responded. In summary, their points are two-fold:

1. The Kiwi Farms is criminal harassment and thus they may legally block it.
2. They didn't actually block it, they just refuse to provide it transit.

My response is three-fold.

1. An Internet forum cannot be guilty of criminal harassment. These ISP clauses about harassment concern end-users using outbound Internet connection to harm a single person, perhaps across multiple sites. The Kiwi Farms does not make unsolicited outbound connections and thereby cannot offend anyone who does not deliberately seek out and connect to the Kiwi Farms to read the material of their own volition.

2. The verb used by the Hurricane Electric routers to block the Kiwi Farms subnet is literally "deny". They have blocked my network and a lawful Internet service. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest and they know it.

3. The Washington State law does not even need HE to block the Kiwi Farms. Section 1 (2)(b) says:
"[ISPs] may not: Impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a nonharmful device, subject to reasonable network management"

So they don't even need to "block" the Kiwi Farms. Connectivity to my network has been "impaired or degraded" by 100%. They are in the wrong regardless.



There is no legitimate reason for the largest ISP in the world to act as a government censorship body. Just restore the network and the madness will be over. You know it is objectively the only correct, legal, and moral action to take.
Pardon my retardation but what happens now? Does Dear Sneeder need to file another complaint?
 
Back