In a well-intentioned yet dangerous move to fight online fraud, France is on the verge of forcing browsers to create a dystopian technical capability. Article 6 (para II and III) of the SREN Bill would force browser providers to create the means to mandatorily block websites present on a government provided list.

I don’t agree that it’s “well-intentioned” at all but the article goes on to point out the potential for abuse by copyright holders.

cross-posted from: https://radiation.party/post/64123

[ comments | sourced from HackerNews ]

  • BastingCheminaEnglish
    00·
    1 year ago

    ainsi mieux protéger nos enfants

    This is to protect our children of course.

    As usual, so anyone who is against this law can be depicted as someone who is supporting pedopornography.

      • Unruffled [he/him]OPMEnglish
        00·
        1 year ago

        There is absolutely no need to bring left vs right identity politics into the discussion, please stick to the topic of piracy. Same goes for the replies below. Thanks.

          • Kilgore TroutEnglish
            00·
            1 year ago

            Why should we give up on trying to listen to each other’s point of view?

            It’s never too late to learn how to participate in a community.

        • IAccidentallyCameEnglish
          00·
          1 year ago

          Yes, I agree. My point was left v. Right or anything like that. I was just pointing out that it’s another label I’ve seen thrown out label I’ve seen thrown out there in the last few years when trying to discredit people.

          I guess my point didn’t come off they way I meant it looking at all of these replies.

      • figaroEnglish
        00·
        1 year ago1 year ago

        I don’t like the idea of conflating falsely accusing people of being a pedophile with calling someone out for holding harmful right-wing beliefs.

        The first (saying someone is supporting pedophiles) is oftentimes used as a method to support bans on anti-encryption technology. It is a bad-faith justification for harmful and 1984 type legislation.

        The second, however, is an argument used by right wing extremists to justify hate speech.

        To be clear - I’m not saying the government should mandate a ban on conservative media. I’m just saying that as a normal citizen, it is a justified, non-harmful act to call people with harmful right-wing beliefs ‘right wing extremists.’

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]English
          00·
          1 year ago1 year ago

          I don’t like the idea of conflating falsely accusing people of being a pedophile with calling someone out for holding harmful right-wing beliefs.

          Here in the states, among common harmful right-wing beliefs is the assertion of calling LGBT+ folk groomers, especially when protesting trans folk existing.

          The use of bad-faith child safety and child victimization rhetoric to push questionable legislation, especially targeting general privacy or the rights of marginalized groups is so prevalent that it dwarfs by order of magnitude actual child welfare interests (like healthcare access, free school lunches and bullying in schools)

          So I’d be skeptical of any rhetoric that asserts a policy might protect children.

          I’d also be skeptical of IAccidentallyCame’s good faith regarding right wing rhetoric. As the world’s plutocratic elite runs out of lies to justify the hierarchies that keep them in power, right-wing rhetoric, including hate speech, is on the rise as a last defense against general unrest. They would rather the world literally burn than give up their wealth and power.

          Oh, and the world is literally burning.

          • figaroEnglish
            00·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I intentionally didn’t go through their post history. Don’t have time for that lol. I mostly wrote that out for anyone who read his post and thought maybe there wasn’t a counter argument to what he said.

  • roofuskit
    00·
    1 year ago

    Despite all the problems we have in the United States, this would be struck down in court SO fast due to the first amendment to our constitution. The government making a list of speech you are not allowed to hear is pretty much the most cut and dry violation of that.

      • PulpEnglish
        00·
        1 year ago

        The main sites yes. Others are ignoring it

  • Silverseren
    01·
    1 year ago

    If the reason for this is to prevent pedophilia content, then this will do nothing. People who access that sort of thing on the dark web aren’t going to be affected by this whatsoever.