Mastodawn

Cloudflare defies Italy’s Piracy Shield, won’t block websites on 1.1.1.1 DNS

https://lemmy.zip/post/56719488

Cloudflare defies Italy’s Piracy Shield, won’t block websites on 1.1.1.1 DNS - Lemmy.zip

cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/56719476 [https://lemmy.zip/post/56719476] > Italy fined Cloudflare 14.2 million euros for refusing to block access to pirate sites on its 1.1.1.1 DNS service, the country’s communications regulatory agency, AGCOM, announced yesterday. Cloudflare said it will fight the penalty and threatened to remove all of its servers from Italian cities.

Show thread

SW42 Jan 10

Based. Censorship no bueno

Show thread

nialv7 Jan 10

What about censoring neo Nazis? What about banning Trump from Twitter?

Show thread

PlantJam Jan 10

What government entity does Twitter represent?

Show thread

nialv7 Jan 10

People seems to be fine with corporate censorship, but government censorship is somehow a no-no. I don’t get it. Corporate censorship is still censorship, but it’s now worse. Because you have now given up democratic control of what to censor, and let the tech billionaires have free reign over it. Twitter could ban Trump today, and promote fascism tomorrow and you’d have no say. (oh waiiit, that actually happened?!?!). If you think twitter banning Trump in 2021 is a good thing, why won’t you want the power to vote to ban Trump?

I could be wrong, I am open to change my mind, but please give me a good counter-argument.

Show thread

deliriousdreams Jan 10

Corporate censorship is not illegal. If you come to my house spouting Nazi rhetoric I have ever right to call you out on it and kick you out of my house.

There are laws deliberately protecting the people's right to free speech that is not infringed by the government.

Now if you want to talk about how we should remove companies/corps rights as entities, we can have the conversation.

Trump was banned from Twitter and it was a good thing because it was them enforcing their TOS/EULA rules in a reasonable manner that doesn't play favorites. Because the average person like you or me couldn't say a lot of what Trump said on the platform and not get banned.

That doesn't mean Twitter is a good company. There are no good companies. Corporations are not your friend. But they also aren't government entities and they shouldn't be. So if the state wants to sponsor the internet as a utility it can create its own cloudflare-like service for the purpose of DNS blocking and block whatever it wants. But cloudflare isn't a state sponsored utility. It's a corp. It has every right (whether you agree it should have rights or not) to not operate in countries it doesn't want to operate in.

Show thread

nialv7 Jan 10

Your thinking is so calcified by the specific laws of the united states of America it is frustrating. Laws are written by mere mortals like you and me. When those bunch of dudes wrote the Constitution more than two hundred years ago, they couldn’t have imagined the internet in theirs wildest dreams. And that’s without pointing out that the reason they valued absolute freedom of speech so much can be largely attributed to the historical backdrop at the time.

A long time has passed, something better is possible. It’s time to think again from first principles.

Show thread

deliriousdreams

Corporations have rights. Quite literally. They are legal entities. We aren't required to use their services. They aren't required to provide said services.

"In the UK, Article 10 of the 1998 Human Rights Act protects our right to freedom of expression:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

In this case public authority is the government.

Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. These are dangerous. Restrictions can also be justified if they protect specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others.
People imposing the restrictions (whether they are governments, employers or anyone else) must be able to demonstrate the need for them, and they must be proportionate.

The choice for Cloudflare or any company that operates in the jurisdiction of the government enacting the law is to obey the law or not do business in that governments jurisdiction. It seems like that's exactly what Cloudflare is suggesting they will do if the government tries to force them to adhere to said law. That's their right as a company.

I'm not saying cloudflare is a good company. My argument isn't that pulling out of the country is a good idea.

My main concern and the reason that I responded to your comment in the first place was because you tried to make this about freedom of speech, and as it pertains to this discussion I'm not really sure what your argument is except that your idea of free speech is predicated on the idea that the freedom of the people and their speech should in some way negate the freedom of the company.

The threat of legal action on Cloudflare's part seems to be to do with the fine that the government is trying to force on them for refusing to agree to obey the newly enacted law. It's normal for corporations to fight civil penalties like this.

Your argument doesn't seem to be that it costs tax dollars (it does), or that it's unfair because you or I wouldn't have the same opportunity due to monetary limitations to legally fight the government. Or even that if you or I didn't agree with the law we couldn't just up sticks and leave the country. Your argument seems to be that somehow, by standing up for the rights they do have, this company is somehow blocking free speech? I'm asking because I still am not sure I understand.