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 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.

@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 @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.