what next? @eff blasting gmail for refusing to accept spam?
12 comments
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! @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 @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. @dermoth they are not "blocking" anything. they are just refusing to accept the KF-specific routes. @ariadne I think this statement is about as biased as all other comparisons I've seen about the issue so far... @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 @ariadne@social.treehouse.systems @eff@mastodon.social Uh yeah, kinda. https://www.eff.org/effector/14/31 |
@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