Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Ariadne Conill 🐰

what next? @eff blasting gmail for refusing to accept spam?

12 comments
Electronic Eel

@ariadne @eff when you take into account gmail's shady definition of what is spam - then yes please.

gmails "spam" filter is very often blocking or rate limiting smaller mail servers, even when they only send fully legitimate emails. since gmail is so big and people need to have their mail delivered to gmail to reach their customers or friends, this effectively drives customers to gmail or one of the few big mail providers. this changes email from a fully distributed system into an oligopoly

Ariadne Conill 🐰

ah yes, one of the losers from that vile website sent me a comment i didn’t bother reading.

although that vile website has caused substantive harm to several friends and colleagues over the years, my objection to the EFF publishing this irresponsible take is that they are attempting to erode the right of network operators to enforce their policies, which will result in a much less secure internet.

as somebody who was a CTO of a reasonably sized NSP, this is not the outcome we want as a society. if every single takedown had to be adjudicated, illegal activities such as spam operations, malware distribution and CSAM distribution would take considerably longer to shut down than they already do, while tangible harms from these operations would continue for much longer.

did EFF blast Microsoft for shutting down various botnet control infrastructure? no.

ah yes, one of the losers from that vile website sent me a comment i didn’t bother reading.

although that vile website has caused substantive harm to several friends and colleagues over the years, my objection to the EFF publishing this irresponsible take is that they are attempting to erode the right of network operators to enforce their policies, which will result in a much less secure internet.

Ariadne Conill 🐰

did EFF blast UnitedLayer for terminating Atrivo? no

Ariadne Conill 🐰

bulletproof hosting is bulletproof hosting no matter how much ranting about “Big Tech” is present in the marketing copy.

and the customers of bulletproof hosting providers are typically engaged in various criminal operations as noted earlier in the thread.

that EFF would stand up for the bulletproof hosting provider is unthinkable!

Jimmy Jim

@ariadne Of all the hills to choose to die on...

tante

@starchturrets @ariadne the EFF and many other libertarian leaning NGOs in the US have been speaking very loudly through whose rights they actively fight for. Nazis and right wing mobs always get more support than sex workers for example. It's such a big "blind spot" that they can't be unaware of it

Thomas Guyot-Sionnest

@ariadne the issue here is about a backbone provider filtering traffic to a 3rd party. Since you mention TOS/AUP earlier, ok but then if they feel that one of their direct customer is violating it by allowing KF shouldn't they block *that* customer and not KF? This sets a dangerous precedent.

Ariadne Conill 🐰

@dermoth they are not "blocking" anything. they are just refusing to accept the KF-specific routes.

Thomas Guyot-Sionnest

@ariadne I think this statement is about as biased as all other comparisons I've seen about the issue so far...

Ariadne Conill 🐰

@dermoth I don't see how it is Hurricane’s fault that IncogNET has managed to become single-homed due to being a bulletproof hosting provider

nepi

@ariadne@social.treehouse.systems @eff@mastodon.social Uh yeah, kinda. https://www.eff.org/effector/14/31

See: junk mail section.

Granted this is like twenty years ago, but the EFF is kinda…fanatical about 1A stuff extending to the private sector. It sucks cause it kind of undermines (for me, anyways) a lot of the good work they do around privacy.

Go Up