Comment on Lemmy.world blocks VPNs
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 3 months agoAdmins are doing both. (Am an admin of another instance, not lemmy.world).
Fact is is that the people who ask for privacy behind the VPN are very flippant when it comes to actual attacks. Everyone is pretty quick to forget the CSAM and spam attacks that were happening only a couple of weeks ago.
I used to think “Yeah go privacy, go anonymous”, but the fact is that bad actors ruined that for everyone else, so yeah, had to clamp down. For anyone who disagrees, I welcome them to host their own instance where they can allow anyone and anything. They can take up the fight with their respective governments, I’m going to focus on the people who are just here to hang out and chill.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Hmmm, should we universalize that argument? Say, nazis ruined free speech, no more free speech? Criminals ruined the 5th amendment and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, so now cops can beat confessions out of you?
elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 months ago
You win today’s Godwin.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 months ago
X ruined Y, so lets take Y away from everyone because the small number of X ruined it.
Better?
It’s a dumb argument. It would be like saying that one person had an elective abortion with a viable fetus, and therefore we need to ban all abortions. Despite the fact that it’s a very, very rare occurrence, and can be handled in different way.
towerful@programming.dev 3 months ago
No, its more like “i own a library. I dont want people shouting in my library. Anyone shouting in my library will be kicked out”
Someone that shouts in a library is more than welcome to start their own library where shouting is allowed, even welcomed, encouraged or mandatory
elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 months ago
This is wildly off-topic, but define “rare occurrence.” Because I’m sure it’s more common than you and I think.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 3 months ago
None of that is relevant to my server. All I care about is that I host my own server, and that means I’m responsible for it. If you care so much you go host your own server.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 months ago
There’s nowhere in this statement that indicates that you’re referring to your own server. The text of your argument is that you are in favor of restricting privacy rights because you don’t like the way a limited number of people have misused privacy to post illegal material.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 3 months ago
In case you missed that bit.
Correct, that is what I’m saying. When it comes to data that I host on my server, I am responsible for it, and my government would agree with that. Which is why again, I say if you do not like it, feel free to host your own server. That’s the beauty of the fediverse, if you don’t like the way one server hosts things then spin up one and do it your way.
Paragone@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Define “free speech”:
Mass-shooters exercise mass-murder as their free speech, even though that style of free speech is illegal.
The denser the population, the more each expression deforms other’s lives.
Tribal villages can just move elsewhere, to create space, but NYC can’t.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Mass murder isn’t free speech, because it directly infringes on the rights of other people. To wit, your freedom to swing your fists around in the air ends at my face. Expressions that do not cause direct harm, by their nature, are generally covered under 1A. Calls to commit genocide that don’t rise to the level of incitement, for instance, are covered by free speech protections (e.g., nazis marching in the heavily Jewish city of Skokie, IL). Outright lies and yes, defamatory comments, are covered by 1A protections. (In the case of defamatory speech, the government has no course of action; Trump lost a suit brought by E. Gene Carrol for defamation, not a criminal prosecution by the gov’t.) Child pornography is not covered by 1A protections, because child pornography can’t be created without committing acts that are otherwise illegal. Generally speaking, when the gov’t has a legitimate interest in controlling certain forms of speech that are likely to cause harm–such as incitement–principles of strict scrutiny apply; the laws restricting 1A rights are supposed to be as narrow as possible to achieve the stated goals. Prior restraint is also usually not a thing without being very, very narrowly crafted.