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...
I don’t know what fantasy land the eff is living in, but as great as freedom of speech is, there has to be SOME level of censorship involved in the modern internet, otherwise it would be hell. It’s simply not feasible to run the internet unmoderated…
Well they specifically calls out ISP’s, rather than the media companies running forums or social media, etc.
The latter SHOULD be policing their platforms to some extent, but ISP’s can’t even do so without being pretty invasive/authoritarian, so they should stick to providing internet service.
You didn’t read the article, did you?
No. It’s like expecting construction companies to enforce traffic laws because they build the roads.
Who else do you expect to enforce site blocks?
The owners of…the sites. How they do that, is up to them. But again, I’ll go back to my construction analogy: There’s a burgaler entering your house, who do you call and why? Not the people that built it.
You are absolutely correct, we should not have law enforcement at all, just ask the people to arrest themselves when committing a crime, i’m sure that’ll go tremendously!
I think that’s a bad analogy, isp’s and dns providers have the ability to control mass amounts of traffic, enforcing site blocks at isp and dns level would be the most feasible way to do this. They’re also likely much more capable of moderating the internet than small websites which don’t have time to do so.
Host providers, like they already do
You don’t. Censorship is evil