I am appalled at how much censorship is being pushed down our throats with this war and somehow it is gaining wider acceptance that doing this is ok. The writer of this article even seems to suggest that Google or Cloudflare could have blocked them from their DNS, but they haven't been ordered to. We want to censor our opponents at big DNS providers level? Really?
> The writer of this article even seems to suggest that Google or Cloudflare could have blocked them from their DNS,
No the writer is irritated that local ISPs are confronted with a regulation which can be interpreted as requiring them to go _far_ beyond DNS blocking while non local DNS provider aren't required to do any blocking when providing service to the UK.
Never let a good opportunity pass by, I guess. Information should be free imo, though I do not know how to deal with people who believe even the most obvious bs.
Can DNS level blocks be bypassed using other DNS services? Google and Cloudflare are by far not the only ones, pretty much every ISP has their own.
I’m sure worst case you could run your own recursive resolver locally (on a Raspberry Pi or something) but you do get a bit of a performance hit for sites you aren’t visiting regularly.
Censorship is (roughly speaking) the suppression or prohibition of a particular point of view, or the speech of a person. This is not that. No points of view are prohibited, and if these people want to express their opinions in public or on other forums that choose to deal with them, they are feee to do so. This is a restraint of trade.
Closing a book shop or newspaper because it was funded by criminals isn’t censorship. That’s hysterical hyperbole.
Anyway this isn’t really about reading websites particularly, it’s mainly about accessing commercial internet services like search or commercial sites. It just happens that internet publishers are also businesses so they can be affected too. However there’s nothing in this targets speech and that doesn’t seem to be the intention.
But they're not closing the websites - they're preventing people in the UK from accessing them.
To work with your analogy - this is like intercepting a shipment of newspapers, and blacking out any ads placed in them by criminals. Regardless of what the ads say - they're criminals, why should they be entitled to say "I'm innocent"?
Sorry - why should they be entitled to printing press amplify their voice. They can just scream in their cells - their free speech isn't being curtailed.
Who knows, maybe it is too dangerous to let them speak - but at least have the honesty to call it what it is - censorship.
It's like banning anyone in the UK ordering things from the Maffia in Italy, and it happens that one of the businesses the Maffia operates is a newspaper, so you're banned from importing it. Being a publisher isn't an end run around the rest of the law.
These people profit from the operation of these sites, or many of them anyway, that’s what is being targeted. Even in the case of a publishing site advertising revenue due to page impressions is a legitimate target.
What on earth makes you think "designated individuals" are criminals? They aren't being prosecuted, they haven't been found guilty in any court of law. They've just been blacklisted by some random civil servants and politicians who want to be seen to be doing something. Not much different to the US no fly lists.
noun
1.The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Does this fit that definition? I would argue no it does not but I’m open to be convinced otherwise.
The business enterprises of these people are being targeted. If some of those happen to be publishing businesses, they are included, but publishing businesses or opinion sites etc are not being singled out. It’s not the content of these sites (those that are content sites) that’s the issue, it’s the business beneficial ownership. It’s their finances that are the target, not their speech.
Publishing businesses are still businesses and subject to the law. If they want to exercise their speech rights in other legal ways, they are free to do so.
I agree with simonh on this one. Ideas aren’t being censored. Political parties aren’t being censored. I do not agree with saying “because government” makes it political. That’s like saying speeding tickets are political “because government” is involved in the process.
The target of this isn’t particularly personal web sites like blogs and such. All the commercial activities and business interests of these people are being targeted. It’s mainly about commercial sites for which these people are the beneficial owners. Remember we talking about billionaire oligarchs many of who’s businesses will have commercial web sites and web applications. As a matter of law it’s conceivable it might affect their personal sites, if they have any, but that’s incidental.
That sounds like the “something must be done, this is something, so this must be done” argument. Seems to be the most common argument pattern for censorship of all kinds - doesn’t matter if the course of action is ineffective or possibly harmful in the medium term.
It boils down to “if we can’t think of any good solutions to a difficult problem, then we should try bad solutions even if they’re counterproductive”.
Sometimes you need to act in the present. Russia is bombing civilians and is pumping propaganda into nations that help Ukraine trying to convince those nations to not support Ukraine. I don't see how stopping that propaganda is counterproductive. Once the war is over with Russia losing it and Putin out then we stop with the censorship and go back to counter the propaganda using education, information, etc.
The best way to fight enemy propaganda is not letting it get to the point of becoming enemies, defusing it long before the information war. The slow institutional degradation in Russia was nobody's concern - "meh, it's Russians; not my business" - until it suddenly was. To not become enemies, you have to listen and allow the other party change you. Then you can attempt to bring your point and change them.
When the communication becomes "enemy propaganda", you are forced to raise a wall which looks suspiciously like what your "enemy" does and wants from you as well. Mutual coexistence is impossible without two-way communication, and that means they will also going to influence you, whether you want it or not, even if you raise a wall. Communication here not necessarily being words but actions.
Turns out it was your business as well, after all. Think about it today because it might be too late tomorrow.
This. We were taught in school to recognize and analyze propaganda, advertising, and PR. I'm not immune but sometimes it almost seems like it when I talk to other people.
Who is we? YMMV, but any sort of emphasis on critical thinking wasn't my experience in an Arizona school district in the late eighties/early nineties. If such curriculum was available, the kids who took it were likely outliers in having influences to push them in that direction.
I see that the West copies the absolute best Russian solutions. Censorship has been in the manual mode here for years, no one even asks useless questions about formal framework. Basically, some official comes running with the message “THEY don't like X, add X to The List of Bad Blocked Things”, and technical details don't matter. Anything gets approved by law offices anyway, and the laws routinely get extended (sometimes post-factum) if it is needed for operation.
I'm not a fan of “economystical” models, but here it is quite striking. The business, the not so novel startup idea, is putting a roadblock on a previously open busy road, and acquire the power to decide who can pass. Then you can offer free services to the government (ass licking is the key to success), and paid services to the big copyright holders — something that unites “democratic” and “undemocratic” countries is that corporate piracy fighters are in bed with government censorship, and usually lobby the inclusion of pirate sites. You can be sure that agreeable stance and swift daily updates (through formal law enforcement proxy) cost them a percentage of global revenue.
By the way, this is how cities and states on world trade routes operated for centuries.
One thing that is missing from the scheme is the reason to start the whole thing. Whether it's “the children”, “the war”, or “starving kittens”, it doesn't matter at all. What matters is the willingness of the people to agree with that execution of the power. Given what we've seen in previous years, people all across the world are going to agree even with checkpoints and searches for the sake of starving kittens, because those, too, could be a part of “natural order” today. The war, in fact, greatly helps things like those.
> I bet they've already had anti-CSAM blocklists mandated by law
Not just anti-CSAM, the UK has a mandatory "adult content" ISP filter since years (of which you can opt out, through doing so is annoying).
(Which also was used many times already in a inappropriate way by "accidentally" placing websites which are are not adult-only content but politically unpleasant on them because many don't opt out because "it's just for porn/violence right".)
EDIT: Just to be clear the law formulation seems to be over the top/vague and a extremely strict interpretation could imply that ISPs somehow have to block users access to sides even if the user uses an ISP or Tor, so wtf.
The article quotes one of the principals of Andrews & Arnold ISP, which has for a long time traded on providing "real" internet - i.e. unfiltered. Their response to the legal requirement to provide a "filtered" option was a "I want filtering" button on the sign-up page that took you to the results of a Google search for UK ISPs.
As far as I'm aware, complying with this legislation could force A&A to impose filtering on all their users for the first time.
Would certain mailservers become out-of-bounds?
Presumably it would remain possible to ping any IP address, because that doesn't depend on URLs, and the explanatory note seems to say that URL blocking would be sufficient.
Anyway: this kind of nonsense is why I run an Unbound recursive resolver.
Seems like a stretch to think that your personal wifi hotspot device is an ISP, almost like the author is grasping at straws to come up with ways this will affect anybody who isn't an ISP. If we're going to have WWIII this summer, of course everybody needs to make sure the Russians can't get into the Internet. And we will.
I started reading their website once their TV channel was blocked. Really just out of curiosity too see what all the noise is about. Now, I read both sides every time and I understand both sides tell the story the way they want to tell.
No. I (UK) can access the website through my 5G broadband. I think they prohibited RT's TV station from being broadcast in the UK, but I can't check that because I don't own a TV. RT's live-stream is still accessible.
In UK, the RT TV channel was cancelled by the UK gov. The site RT.com was inaccessible for a week, more or less, at same time, except by Tor, but now it's working
The sanctions involve the government not wanting anyone to be able to read things written by Russians. Shocking. Why, you might catch a nasty case of the ol' misinformation!
It's not about misinformation. It is about not being allowed to do business because of affiliation with a sanctioned entity, and playing the freedom of speech card does not give you a pass in this matter.
Your language "playing the freedom of speech card" indicates hostility to general freedom of speech arguments, and I would venture that your defense of this is motivated by a desire to suppress the speech of these unwanted persons.
I live in a country in top three on the Reporters Without Borders freedom of press list so I cringe every time someone talks about free speech - especially when the folks doing so are basically from a country that is currently ranked 44th.
This makes no sense. Someone in Russia has to pay for their hosting bill so you visiting that website is now doing business with them? Is your definition of doing business "I visited their website?"
Potentially yes, ‘web sites’ are applications that can provide an almost unlimited plethora of services and business functions. Fortunately in the UK we have a fairly capable and independent judiciary that has a decent track record of interpreting regulations like this in sensible ways. Not perfect, but pretty good.
Yes, visiting a website is a form of doing business with the entity that runs that website. Especially in today's advertisement-centric web, visiting provides advertising revenue, and supports the entity running the website.
No. The site is supported by its advertisers, not the visitors.
If the site is selling something, and the visitor buys something, then the visitor is "doing business". Reading text that is published at zero charge isn't "doing business".
"Supporting", "paying", and "doing business with" are all very different concepts.
At the ISP level, it is even clearer than at the individual level. The ISP is passing traffic through from an entity, based on a business relationship, either direct or transitive, with that entity.
That is how all the censorship stories start. In the beginning, you censor several "reasonable" resources, and after a while, you get the Great Western Firewall.
For example, Russia introduced Internet censorship laws in 2012 with the excuse of blocking some Caucasus terrorist groups' websites and "protecting children". In 2022 it is nearly impossible to surf the net as usual without a VPN.
We had considered implementing a very extensive filter in the early 2000s. What started as blocking porn sites with questionable moderation and a fair amount of pedophiles transformed (before it was even codified into law!) into sites being blocked for personal offences, including a dentist's business site with a gif the censor board objected to, and perceived moral degeneration, likesites on safe usage of drugs and how to avoid overdosing.
It wasn't even a slippery slope, it was more of a crumbling ledge.
Censorship is bad, is as simple as killing is bad. that's something that should be learned during childhood and be a common ground for a modern society.
Classic slippery slope fallacy. Censorship is necessary to limit harm to the vulnerable in society. Or are you on favour of allowing rape videos, kiddie porn, ..., of allowing ‘Troll factories’ to spread Russian pro-war lies online?
My ideal social network is a network where all kinds public statements are completely free to be published. If you publish something illegal you should be legally liable for that. If something illegal was published anonymously, an author should be given a time threshold when he can prove his/her personality and become personally liable for that content/statement.
The only additional feature that would improve user experience without harming people's freedom, is labeling of content by a thirdparty(chosen by the enduser, like i would chose one labeling system of content, that would put the most horrible things under "nsfw" clickwall, and someone else might choose a labeling system that puts under a clickwall(one click away for you to view that) everything that has a chance to offend anyone)
Horrible content like footage of crimes presented as entertainment should be treated the same way as described above.
Classic fallacy fallacy. The fallacy fallacy is a fallacy that asserts that because an argument is fallacious, the conclusion of the argument is false.
I correctly pointed out that his argument was fallacious. I didn't say that the conclusion of his argument was false because he used a fallacy. Instead I backed my point of view with a coherent argument.
I am in fact in favor of “troll factories” being allowed to spread “pro war propaganda” online, because I do not think we should have the norm in place that videos can simply be declared propaganda and censored because they might cause someone to disagree with the foreign policy goals of whatever government they live under.
For example, if that was permissible and expected, then I would fully expect a hypothetical video of $ALLY/SELF committing war crimes to be censored as $ENEMY propaganda. Just as the Russians do. If you entrust the “experts” with the ability to tell you what is true, you will not be living in a democratic society.
I was arguing against the dogma that all censorship is bad. I can understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it. We are in an information war with Russia (and other such undemocratic entities). We have been for years and we have been losing it.
I am also needless to say against war crimes no matter which side perpetrates them so videos of $ALLY/SELF committing them that come from reputable source or that can be verified should not be censored.
You cannot have censorship of “disinformation” and democracy. They are necessary antagonisms. If you want a free society you just have to accept that sometimes people will hear and believe untruths and do your best to argue your side. This has been the case from the beginning - even in America, we have ample examples from the post-revolutionary era of people complaining that “designing men” were misleading the public to rile them up against their representatives. And of course, the Adams administration used the foreign policy position of the state to throw their critics in prison as being seditious. People like to say that well, social media has changed everything. In fact, we’ve simply returned to a situation more like what we had prior to centralized mass media, where rumors and panics and “disinformation” originating in the common people (and often blamed on foreigners) frequently caused all kinds of dramatic events and political upsets.
The very idea of an “information war” that can be won only by silencing your adversary is an attack on democracy.
> videos of $ALLY/SELF committing them that come from reputable source or that can be verified should not be censored
There is no world where the authority delegated to protect us from propaganda isn’t going to censor these. It’s well and good to posit the idea that untruth shouldn’t be allowed but by giving someone the authority to arbitrate what is reputable and true you’ve already ceded the entire idea of self-governance.
That sounds very dogmatic to me, "you cannot", "they are necessary", "you just have to", "an attack on democracy". You are right to be worried about attacks on democracy, with the refusal to Trump at al to accept the result of last year's election. But that is not down to censorship.
> That sounds very dogmatic to me, "you cannot", "they are necessary", "you just have to", "an attack on democracy".
There is no dogmatism necessary, it's a logical proposition. If people are not allowed to decide for themselves what is true, they are not self-governed. Unfortunately, we can see from the ample historical record that people will frequently believe things that aren't true, or lack context, and will decide on courses of actions that appear to be foolish, reckless, or wicked. But the reason we live in a democratic society is because we decided this was better than oligarchs or monarchs choosing for us, even if a given set of oligarchs or monarchs may have been better and wiser. And we also have an ample historical record showing us that governments and other power-systems, given the power, will censor true things as well as false ones for various reasons, usually self-interested, but not always in a direct sense.
You can argue that some kind of managerial technocracy with arbiters of truth is a better system of government, but it isn't really a democratic one, in the usual sense. Perhaps in the "you are allowed to choose from these pre-approved opinions, held by the earl and the duke, respectively" sense.
> with the refusal to Trump at al to accept the result of last year's election. But that is not down to censorship.
I am personally more worried about CIA directors torturing people, murdering people, spying on the Senate, and leading the attacks on democratically elected officials as a threat to democracy than this, which is not a new problem at all in America. But even in the latter case, censorship certainly played a major role: the Biden laptop story was censored because intelligence agencies said it was the sort of thing the Russians might do (not that they had any evidence they did it - but because they would have done it if they could), and this certainly aggravated the sense of aggrievement and persecution held by these people, even though I personally doubt the "revelation" that Hunter got jobs because of who his dad was and had to pay his dad some of the money would have swayed anyone, considering how common it is in DC.
I feel a democratically elected government it entitled to deny your right to consume such propaganda, although I don't understand why you would want to.
I feel that there are things that democratically elected governments is not entitled to do, like denying my basic human rights, which include my right to inform myself about world affairs from sources that do not align with said government's desired narrative, especially so when such methods could lead to a population making democratic decisions on falsified or misleading information. Manufactured consent is just as dangerous as allegedly fake news from outside actors.
I'd agree with you if I didn't see first-hand how propaganda starts wars.
And yes, reasonable censorship helps, e.g. YouTube blocking RT is very much positive for the whole world.
Propaganda has always been a problem and democracies and led to wars. What is different now? Also, in this particular case, what war are we stopping by banning Americans or Europeans from seeing Russian propaganda? It looks to me like that ship has sailed.
In fact, if anything, it appears to be we’ve opened the floodgates to pro-Ukrainian propaganda, as if being anti-Russian invasion means we must therefore accept all things pro-Ukraine. As with the Ghost of Kiev, people have even said even if it’s not true, we should still believe it. Since this type of propaganda has encouraged the arming of Ukraine by the west and increasing escalations, it seems like it is more likely to increase the scale, scope, and length of the war. Should we ban Ukrainian propaganda?
It's not necessarily will become a great wall. E.g. they already censor child porn.
Yes, propaganda is very capable to start wars and genocide (see Rwanda). I'm all for reasonable censorship, and it will not necessarily grow into bad censorship. You make it sound like white or black.
Yes, this is a case where the slippery slope is real. Another example is that Paul Graham and Marc Andressen are on hate speech watchlists run by ex-Twitter employees and funded by the German government. “Hate speech”, “public order”, and “disinformation” are all just very vague banners under which varying groups can implement their preferred censorship.
Challenge is that will get in the way of people doing OSINT from the UK e.g. BellingCat (although they can use someone outside the UK to do the research insteadj
Same as the reasoning for US blocking Huawei -- easily access to private communications of US citizens. Just one of hundreds ways it can be exploited -- blackmailing someone in order for them to spy.
But I'm also against any propaganda. I was all anti-censorship until I saw what propaganda does to people, that it literally starts wars and genocide (like Rwandan).
