@romin@Moon@vhns would that even be deemed constitutional tho? let alone enforceable
anyway they'd have to outlaw tor, which the feds themselves created :puniko_shrug:
if we set aside videos and large images, both of which are hardly necessities, the core of networks like fedi is inherently very low bandwidth. there's no practical reason you couldn't operate it on top of a mesh net
@roboneko@Moon@vhns >constitutional enforceable outlaw for Yes to all. Your ISP just need to block and report content deemed inappropriate. The internet is centralized at every stage (ISP, DNS, TLS).
>Operate on top of mesh net Neither the required infrastructure not expertise is there to make it happen (yet).
@ChristiJunior@Giganova8@Moon That's why we need to create robust encrypted social networks that mimic other internet traffic and/or filter everything through TOR and/or i2p. The politics are not in our favor. Most Americans now want mass censorship.
@Giganova8@Moon That's why we need to keep close track of what these "save the children" pro-censorship types think about shit like public school Groomers and Drag Queen Story Hour.
@ChristiJunior@Moon It's the only thing that works anymore, I fully expect that when Congress finally manages to get one of their internet censorship bills through it'll be cloaked in "save the children" bullshit, so that everybody who criticizes it can be slandered as pedophiles. :bocchi_dead:
(It will, of course, do absolutely nothing to impede actual child molesters and will exclusively be used to track down people who say nigger or post spicy anime girls :chino_dead: )
@coolboymew@ChristiJunior@caekislove@Moon@Giganova8 I don't have that kind of optimism. With the right leading question, pretty sure you get 90% to agree that they want mass censorship. Of course, you can also make 90% oppose mass censorship by asking the questions the right way.
@divVerent@ChristiJunior@caekislove@Moon@Giganova8 Yes / No but they can definitively write everything they want to lean in the way they want and then distribute it in the right circle to get exactly the answer they wanted and maybe even cook their own conclusions so that journos can propaganda
- "do you want mass censorship" - leading towards no censorship - "do you support filtering of radical and extremist content" - leading towards yes censorship - "do you support filtering of child abuse content" - leading towards yes censorship - "should providers be fully responsible for the content they host" - leading towards no censorship - "should providers be exempt from any responsibility for the content they host" - leading towards yes censorship
@caekislove@ChristiJunior@Moon@Giganova8 literal lowest iq take ever. get kids off the internet and socially shames parents that let them on without any fucking mercy.
@Moon if you refuse to use centralized services to monitor your user you will be labeled a pedophile and dragged off to prison when they plant several hundred terabytes of the worst abuse materials imaginable in your house shortly before it burns to the ground
@KennyWhitePowers@ChristiJunior@Humpleupagus@jeff@Moon@Giganova8 I mean, what's really important is the timeframe. When you were a rebellious kid on the internet in the 90's and 00's, the main crime you could get caught up in was hacking or phreaking (hacking phone systems).
In recent years, young children are being groomed and traded among pedophiles as fucktoys. That's a wee itsy bity teeny weeny bit minor no big deal difference. 🙄
@romin@Moon@vhns I'm highly skeptical that it would be constitutional for the US feds to impose ID requirements to access communications networks. I'm also skeptical that it would be constitutional for a state or local government to do so
> Your ISP just need to block and report content deemed inappropriate.
they'd essentially have to filter all VPN protocols (hugely disruptive). and then figure out a way to detect obfuscated VPN streams. and etc. china has demonstrated that even with full government buy in it's very much an uphill battle