Mastodawn

We're big supporters of the EFF, but I can't get on board with the idea that somehow it's wrong or a slippery slope for Tier 1 ISPs to be blocking Kiwifarms.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no-matter-how-awful-it

ISPs Should Not Police Online Speech—No Matter How Awful It Is.

Entrusting our speech to multiple different corporate actors is always risky. Yet given how most of the internet is currently structured, our online expression largely depends on a set of private companies ranging from our direct Internet service providers and platforms, to upstream ISPs (sometimes...

Electronic Frontier Foundation

BrianKrebs Aug 30, 2023

BTW there is a lively debate about this article on the Hacker News front right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37313349

ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is | Hacker News

Stryker Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs Oooh, this is a neat conversation! Thanks for sharing!!

What are your thoughts?

Personally (and before reading through everything), I think there's a balance to be struck.

In a perfect world, if the ISP doesn't want to be associated with certain groups or ideologies -- whether that's gay rights and global warming, to election conspiracies and -- I think they should be allowed to say what is and isn't allowed on their service.

Capitalism would imply that a new ISP would rise up to service those folks... Though the capital required to create that network may be prohibitive, and the effective monopolies in certain areas would be an enormous issue.

In the end, I feel stuck. Personally and morally, I'd like to ban certain types of content and speech -- as would my political opponents -- because I think I am "right." But, since it would be "wrong" for the other side to do it to me, do either of us have the ethical right to dictate or otherwise police speech?

And if neither of us have that right, then does it mean we *must* submit to a free-for-all, laissez-faire Internet that has things we all agree are heinous, like murder for hire or child porn?

... Though perhaps that's a step too far, since those are already illegal, but I'm thinking of the furry crackdown on Tumblr that decimated the community for the sake of legality.

*Sigh* Complicated topic for a Wednesday. Still, thanks for sharing! Looking forward to reading through the full thread.

<Diving in...>

@StrykerNoStriking @briankrebs There’s this idea you seem to have that in order for something to be ok in one direction, it has to be ok in the other. As it turns out, you don’t have to be ok with ISPs policing minority content in order to be ok with ISPs policing violent hate speech.

Stryker Aug 30, 2023

@swrdghcnqstdr @briankrebs ... That does make me feel a little better, actually, and I'm not sure why I didn't think of it sooner. Thank you!!

@briankrebs I can’t think of a forum I’d less like to have that discussion on

Alfred M. Szmidt Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs EFFs argument is that the legal frame work should handle it (and it might be the case that it isn't good enough ...). "Instead, we go after the bad guys themselves and hold them accountable.". I fully support that argument. ISPs censoring isn't the solution to getting rid of evils.

@amszmidt @briankrebs But it doesn't. The authorities are absolutely aware of KF, they simply ignore it. Pressure campaigns on ISPs and hosting companies have been the only effective means to slow the proliferation of hate-speech from organizations like this. It takes a large amount or privileged to say "nah the cops should handle it" and walk away. While the cops do nothing, KF continues to harass people into suicide.

Alfred M. Szmidt Aug 30, 2023

@GrayGooGirl @briankrebs it is still the wrong solution to the problem, doesn’t matter that it works. One should pressure the democratic system to create better protections instead of resorting to vigilantism which is just a slippery slope.

@amszmidt @briankrebs Protests and shaming are vigilantism? That's a fun new take.

Alfred M. Szmidt Aug 30, 2023

@GrayGooGirl That wasn't the discussion now was it. So maybe find another strawman...

@amszmidt You're the one that claimed pressure tactics were vigilantism. You did that.

Alfred M. Szmidt Aug 30, 2023

@GrayGooGirl And you're still barking up the wrong tree.

vy Aug 31, 2023

@amszmidt @GrayGooGirl your argument is wrong and you appear to be unable ro defend it

Alfred M. Szmidt Aug 31, 2023

@vy @GrayGooGirl I don’t need to make an argument, the EFF did. So far I’ve gotten threats and other nonsense from you lot. I suppose that is your argument… threaten and bully until you get your way.

Takel Aug 30, 2023

@amszmidt @GrayGooGirl @briankrebs not sounding any less privileged with that take, bucko

FlyingMana Aug 30, 2023

@amszmidt it might not be the desired, or the best solution.
But after years of trying it should be obvious how the democratic system and government entities are not a working solution.

In other circumstances pointing to broken processes as a solution would be described as malicious compliance.
Which usually has either a good reason(protest) or is a sign for what some might call a lack of character

Alfred M. Szmidt Aug 30, 2023

@Flyingmana It should be obvious that the _US_ _LEGAL_ system is broken, that you label every other countries system as broken and non-working is just silly. Maybe you should travel more.🤔

✧✦Catherine✦✧Aug 30, 2023

@amszmidt @GrayGooGirl @briankrebs So, you don't like the solution being presented. Why don't you go pressure the democratic system to make sure your preferred solution is implemented instead?

Passenger Aug 30, 2023

@GrayGooGirl @amszmidt @briankrebs

People who say "the authorities should handle it" in full knowledge that the authorities will not, do not intend to, and have never handled it are the sort of people who think that "tomato is a fruit actually" counts as serious biology research.

Alfred M. Szmidt Aug 30, 2023

@passenger @GrayGooGirl @briankrebs The authorise _do_ handle it, in countries with a sensible legal system -- the US being one that does not have that. This nonsense of tossing every single country into the same box of problems is getting quite pathetic...

Passenger Aug 30, 2023

@amszmidt @GrayGooGirl @briankrebs

Can you give me an example of a country which has shut kiwifarms down? Not merely blocked them in that country, but shut them down?

Alfred M. Szmidt Aug 30, 2023

@passenger @GrayGooGirl @briankrebs Can you show me an example of a country which has shut nazis down? ... this is such a stupid game, and straw man.

Passenger Aug 30, 2023

@amszmidt @GrayGooGirl @briankrebs

South Africa, 17 June 1991. Afrikaner white supremacism was, despite Viljoen's best efforts, basically gone and never returned to power.

Your turn.

Alfred M. Szmidt Aug 30, 2023

@passenger @GrayGooGirl @briankrebs Yet .. it still exists in South Africa today. So I guess that is a fail.

Alfred M. Szmidt Aug 30, 2023

@passenger @GrayGooGirl @briankrebs Not even German has eradicated it, which is the whole problem with your line of logic. (plus what you mentioned, is not what I mentioned -- so maybe stick to the same discussion). Now .. *plonk*

Kristian Aug 30, 2023

@amszmidt @briankrebs Well, that doesn't happen. However, HE could refuse to peer with whoever is the down stream ISP, thus pressure them to drop KF entirely, not just filter the traffic, which lets the downstream ISP get away with serving KF, as long as they use a different transit for just that one customer. Refusing service is not censorship, but filtering traffic is.

vy Aug 31, 2023

@amszmidt @briankrebs “should” but doesn’t. Similarly, the law should have integrated Montgomery busses, boycotting the bus company is wrong. Same incorrect argument.

WandreCanada Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs Is Jack Dorsey on the board? 🤔

@briankrebs Seem more effective than hunting their servers. They likely do something illegal egnouth to be shutdown anyway.

Mick Pyro Official

@briankrebs ISPs should just deliver Internet access.
Hosting services should be the one who could/should do part of the blocking. (within law limit)

התנועה לזכויות דיגיטליות Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs they explain it very clearly on that article. Weaponizing a piece of infrastructure will always have repercussions. It's a tool that once installed and used can also be abused. They even include examples.

admiralteal Aug 30, 2023

@digirights It's a nice theoretical argument, but it's totally impractical.

ISPs already have these tools. It's out of the box. Too late to prevent it from ever being opened and it is very unlikely you'll get it put away and sealed up again. "Once installed" already happened -- so what next?

התנועה לזכויות דיגיטליות Aug 30, 2023

@admiralteal @briankrebs
First, tier 1is not tier 3.
Second, this affects people outside the USA, should some block due to us rules be enforced on other countries? How about vice versa?
3rd, which jurisdiction decides and supervises on this list of blocks and how do you get out of the list? If it blocks IP address ranges, who can release them if the offender goes away or pops up elsewhere and the host wants to reclaim the IP range for other clients?

Some much could go wrong and break.

Jake Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs I agree. Anyone that intentionally facilitates harm shouldn’t be online.

John Francis Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs can't really say without knowing how HE is blocking. If govts aren't openly behind it blocking, then the failure is on govts.

mvario Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs
I see it as very similar to the efforts by intellectual property industry who would like to stop pirate sites via DNS. I'm on the side of leaving neutral infrastructure alone. There are other ways of pursuing villains without taking these kinds of shortcuts.

mae · moved to eightpoint Aug 31, 2023

@mvario @briankrebs there are ways, sure, ways that don't work. this isn't a hypothetical, people have died.

Zalasur 🐸🇺🇦Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs This has been s major sticking point for me and why I've withheld from supporting them directly. At best, it's very naive of them to take this position. At worse, it's tacit support for Kiwifarm's online harassment activities.

They seem to forget that people's rights end where other people's noses begin, as the old saying goes.

Dial Tone, Busy Signal *biiip*Aug 30, 2023

@zalasur @briankrebs it would only be naive if important factors were left unconsidered, and shouldn't be considered support of terrible people due to the details included in their statement.

There are good reasons to take this position, and they have presented them, with evidence. This isn't just an ISP thing. Apple, for example, claiming to be able to censor things in people's phones (in this case, CSAM) was going to be a huge mistake, and I'm glad people shouted that down.

Zalasur 🐸🇺🇦Aug 30, 2023

@simSalabim So, you think it's ok for a platform to actively engage in targeting and harassing minority groups, and putting people's lives in real, tangible danger with no repercussions whatsoever? That they should be able to engage in such activities without restriction?

Because that's what kiwifarms did. All this fact-based evidence that the EFF presented seems to gloss over those difficult-to-ignore realities. That's why it's naive (at best).

Zimmie Aug 31, 2023

@simSalabim @zalasur @briankrebs Apple’s system was explicitly not designed to look at data at rest. It would only have kicked in when the data was sent from a device specifically into iCloud. Use some other backup/sync service or no such service at all? The scanning wouldn’t ever be attempted.

Even with the scanning in place, it would have been an unequivocal win for privacy. At the time, they did not have end-to-end encryption on images (so Apple employees could potentially look at your photos), and they were convinced they would need this scanning to enable it. Fortunately, everything seems to have worked out in the end, because we got end-to-end encryption of images without the scanning.

For this situation, I think we need more information. Is Hurricane Electric filtering traffic? Is it entirely declining to service a given middleman based on that middleman’s customers? At this point, it doesn’t look like anyone outside HE knows.

Zalasur 🐸🇺🇦Aug 31, 2023

@briankrebs I think you might be replying to another post in error. 🙂

Dial Tone, Busy Signal *biiip*Aug 31, 2023

@zalasur @briankrebs I want to follow this up myself, for the record, to add that the above was a considered opinion that admittedly wasn't fully formed.

I do think the EFF's stance is important, but I also agree that the upstream layers of accountability have failed. As said in another thread, cops, lawmakers, tier 2+ providers have failed repeatedly, if they even bothered.

We do need exceptions to the things we "should never do" when it is called for, which it likely was, in this case.

guenther Aug 30, 2023

What's special about kiwifarms though? The fact that they are promoting violence in *your* country? For example, Myanmar and Ethiopia had Facebook-based genocides within the last 24 months. Should Facebook be cut off from the internet too? Would kiwifarms be acceptable if they started hosting an unrelated, benign forum for normal people on the same server? I agree with the EFF's slippery slope argument.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/25/business/ethiopia-violence-facebook-papers-cmd-intl/index.html

Myanmar: Facebook’s systems promoted violence against Rohingya; Meta owes reparations – new report

Amnesty International

ApisNecros Aug 30, 2023

@guenther "Should Facebook be cut off from the internet too?"

Eat My Wings To Keep Me Tame Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs dude if theyre willing to block kiwifarms itll be a great excuse to start blocking any sort of revolutionary leftwing organizations websites. If theyve kept stormfront for over a decade unblocked why tf would they start now with a relatively less harmful website?

FirefighterGeek

@briankrebs I read that just to understand the term "kiwifarm" --

I agree though, EFF should concentrate on removing barriers. There is a need for a standard for reputational feedback and filtering though, maybe with a similar mechanism to dns but with a feedback loop.

Grumpy Gramp Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs Tier 1 ISPs are in a unique position where they can block entire swaths of the internet. You wouldn't want your site to go dark just because your hoster gets blocked for hosting 1 malicious domain next to yours. Taking garbage like KiwiFarms off the net is a job for law enforcement armed with properly issued warrants.

Nelson Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs You know, they say "bad facts make bad law". KF is a dangerous website that we all want to drive off the Internet. But making policy based on that particularly awful website can result in bad long-term systemic outcomes.

I still think net neutrality is and was a good idea, and if Gigi Sohn had been confirmed to the FCC, I wonder if we would have seen a Renaissance in US Internet policy, the way that Jennifer Abruzzo has made the NLRB relevant and exciting again.

klausfiend has moved Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs It's a tough call, granted, but what HE is doing is a little too "Great Firewall of China" for me.

wezeldog Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs Shades of the ACLU enabling United the Right.

Canadian Curmudgeon Aug 30, 2023

Seems like they're saying no one should take responsibility for moderating or monitoring hate speech. But then who will stem the tide of extremist-fascist-rightwing hatred? It's already polluting social media and infecting democracies worldwide.

David Penington Aug 30, 2023

@CdnCurmudgeon
Monitoring or moderating heat speech in a time when action on CO2 & other greenhouse emissions is vital serms a good idea, but I wonder if you were thinking of hate speech?

Canadian Curmudgeon Aug 31, 2023

@DavidPenington Apparently, my fingers and my brain don't chug along in harmony all the time. *sigh*
I find it difficult to see text in the tiny Mastodon writing/post box on this website, so I miss things. Maybe I missed some setting to expand it.
Thanks...

actualeyes Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs A slippery slope argument would be saying that if we let them block KF, then soon they will be blocking everyone else. In this case, it's about whether or not ISPs should have the power to make these judgment calls at all.

It wouldn't make sense for the water dept. to cut off customers who use water to murder innocent people. If they were a pro life water dept. should they be allowed to cut off Planned Parenthood?

Bret Carmichael Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs I agree. As Clayton Christiansen said, “It's easier to hold to your principles 100 percent of the time than it is to hold to them 98 percent of the time.”

Dan Sugalski Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs I will admit my first thought whenever I see one of these allegedly principled "oh no you shouldn't block <some loathsome people or bit of the internet>" is... "they're your pals, right? Or you're doing the thing that would be blocked?"

Not always, to be sure. Sometimes it really *is* a principled defense, and occasionally even well argued. Just... that reflex is there.

Feoh Aug 30, 2023

@briankrebs You honestly can't see the slippery slope? Not wrong? Totally agree. I'd love to see that site curb stomped out of existence.

The problem I see is that in a case like this where just about all of us can understand the content they offer and say "Holy crap that's just WRONG. Nuke it" it's far, *far* harder to systematize the rules that would make said curb stomping clear as crystal.

BrianKrebs Aug 30, 2023

@feoh No, I don't see the problem. Every ISP has an acceptable use policy or Terms of Service that customers have to acknowledge when signing up. So, in business terms, ISPs are well within their rights to terminate any customer, and for almost any reason.