|
Top-level
Matthew Booth
@ariadne @opendna @eff I'm taking the EFF at their word here, but IIUC they argue that Hurricane is so large that if they refuse your traffic you are effectively denied internet access. They singled out 'Tier 1' providers in that regard. Taking them at their word, I do not believe we should allow them to make contract terms of the sort KF would be in breach of. I have no problem kicking them off the internet, it just scares the shit out of me that we might let a corporation make the choice. 12 comments
Matthew Booth
OpenDNAāļø
@mattb @cmsj @ariadne @eff We are already well down that path: refusing service to LGBT+ is protected, as evidenced by multiple SCOTUS rulings. As is refusing service for partisan membership or political beliefs. In that context, the argument here is that violently hateful anti-LGBT+ speech is uniquely privileged. The decision has already been made about who should not be protected: the people KF is dedicated to terrorizing. 
Ariadne Conill š°
@mattb @opendna @eff by the way, HE is not a tier 1 ISP ā they purchase transit from Telia to reach Cogent, for example. IncogNET (the hosting provider used by KF) was also previously multihomed, but their other transit got terminated for the same reason ā they refuse to follow industry standard practices, like enforcing a real AUP.
Thomas Guyot-Sionnest
@ariadne Then I think HE should have threatened to do the same, and block IncogNET entirely if it didn't comply. I think the eff position only about filtering in the middle of the chain, therefore blocking your direct customer is the correct action here. It also ensures the correct parties get involved in the fight. KF (or any other customer that could be involved in this type of filtering as no one here gives damn about KF) has no mutual contact or obligations with HE...
qwertyoruiopz
@ariadne Iām curious: say IncogNET was multihomed, HE dropped the announce for KF and I was a single homed HE customer trying to access KF. Would I still be able to reach KF via HE-bought transit or would there be a situation like with IPv6 where HE cannot reach Cogent at all because they buy no v6 transit?
qwertyoruiopz
@ariadne I ask this because in my view the only bad outcome from this scenario would be HE filtering the full IPv4 internet for their non-IncogNET customers. But if all they are doing is refusing to announce a single homed customerās range, itās a complete nothingburger (and even in the former case itād just make me avoid HE as a single homed upstream (which is an awful idea to begin with, case in point Cogent over IPv6), not really look at it as an attack on the constitution)
Ariadne Conill š°
Matthew Booth
OpenDNAāļø
@mattb @ariadne @eff If not corporations, who? The US and Canadian governments? Then there are clear First Amendment issues. Look, ISPs were blocking the websites of their own workers unions during strikes. Their right to do so is precedent. Facebook (which has monopoly position) is blocking all Canadian news to retaliate against the government. We're not in danger of sliding down a slippery slope, we're at the bottom watching the worst people demand privileges to stay at the top. |
Gregory's Server
@mattb @ariadne @opendna @eff thereās no good faith argument for KF specifically to be given internet service, thereās only abstract free speech arguments which rely on an assumption that any denial of speech invariably and unalterably leads to totalitarianism.
Compelling a company to provide a service which nobody would defend directly, seems somewhat ridiculous to me.