• Crimfresh@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Your argument really sucks. You don’t trust the courts or law enforcement to uphold laws, but you’re willing to allow ISP’s, like Comcast (the most hated company in the US), to regulate what speech can be used online? That’s absolute madness and defies all logic.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      but you’re willing to allow ISP’s, like Comcast (the most hated company in the US), to regulate what speech can be used online?

      Where did I advocate for that? This is a small ISP, and I am in no way arguing that what they’re doing is the best solution. What I am arguing is that there is no political movement to create laws to police this, especially not an international political movement, since not all Kiwi Farms users are from the US. I’m saying that the EFF’s argument is that we should expect no one to do anything, and let them keep ruining people’s lives, because our solutions for stopping this mess currently aren’t perfect. It’s one of those “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” situations. I am in no way endorsing what the ISP has done, but I am questioning an argument to argue for laws to handle this when we can’t even seem to get our politicians to do anything, especially when it comes to policing some of the worst of our society. Republicans claim guns aren’t the problem, mental health is, but they also want to take away all the money for support and mental health services, and they refuse to see the connection between the violent vitriol they spew about political opponents and lone-wolf terrorists, like dude, we have an entire political party not operating in good faith and who is happy to let this kind of shit keep happening. The idea that we just have to sit by idly and twiddle our thumbs while they ruin lives because the solutions aren’t great is a fucking farce.

      It really is arguing “We have to let these vicious, fascist abusers to run rampant, because otherwise their fascist political representatives or fascist business owners might use the legalism of fascism to justify them doing it even worse.” Like dude, hate to break it to you, at this point, they’re gonna do that whether we fight back or not.

      • Tosti@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it is fair to characterize their position as “let these guys run rampant”. The fact someone points out something that is unacceptable, does not automatically make them responsible for downstream effects and the solutions to these problems.

        While I wholeheartedly agree these people (the online abusers) should be dealth with and the behaviour should have consequences.

        ISPs and other commercial entities should either: curate the content and be liable for the content… or stfu and leave it to a government entity.

        I favor the latter, realizing that this would require the entity to have proper funding.