this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
318 points (99.1% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] ramble81@lemm.ee 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what about things like cURL, wget, Invoke-Webrequest, straight up nc calls. Where does the line exist?

[โ€“] ISOmorph@feddit.de 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not about making it impossible to reach certain sites. It's about making it harder for normies. Take a guess if your neighbor knows about wget.

[โ€“] Opafi@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it's not. It's just not. The important question is how the law is written. Wild guess: they won't target "browsers". They'll target "means to display remote content" or some shit to not have people rename browsers to surfers to evade that law. And depending on how generic they'll make it sound, it'll be a pain for not only every piece of software but maybe also stuff like digital binoculars or phone sex companies or whatever.

[โ€“] bouh@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They won't do that because they are stupid ignorant idiots. They don't make a law like that with a purpose in mind, they are filling an excel sheet.

[โ€“] ISOmorph@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is dangerously wrong. This is a classic foot-in-the-door law. They test the waters with something nobody can argue against, like piracy, child porn, terrorism. Then the censoring gets broader and broader until you can't access left-wing stuff anymore because it's anti-governmental. There is a very specific, very dangerous purpose in mind.

[โ€“] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As Mozilla points out, there are numerous safe browsing systems to which you can opt in โ€” opting in being the key here โ€” and there's nothing preventing any entity, the French government included, from creating their own software, browser extension, or DNS service for anti-fraud purposes. They don't need legislation for that, but they do need laws to force software providers to implement a non-optional, government-operated blacklist of "no-no" sites they deem unacceptable for any reason they see fit; it will absolutely not be limited to fraud alone.

France's proposal is so stupefyingly contrived, it's so obvious this is the true intention.

[โ€“] bouh@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

What's even more evil is that we already have dns filtering for isp. Somehow, by making this new law they are acknowledging the old one was stupidly ineffective.

[โ€“] Veraxus@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

When did France's government get taken over by US Republicans?

[โ€“] nicetriangle@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Macron's been quite the fuckstick of late

[โ€“] ISOmorph@feddit.de 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

When Le Pen gets elected in 4 years we'll talk about the good old times with Macron.

[โ€“] nicetriangle@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

Yeah amazing how the next asshole can re-contextualize the previous asshole. George W Bush looks practically humanitarian now in comparison to Trump, for example.

[โ€“] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago

Nobody will ever like Macron

[โ€“] Bigs@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Hey bub, this isn't right. Not a big fan of the red team in the US either, but shit on them where they deserve it.
ISPs to snoop for drugs with bipartisan support.

We're all closer to being homeless than billionaires.

[โ€“] denissimo@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

Edge got a shitstorm for in-browser self ads on the chrome page, now in-browser censoring? The internet bows down to EU, sure, but one nosy country? If at all the official download links for France would be laced, but not anywhere else i.e. its gonna be yet another joykiller for normies, like.. even the thought of maintainers pushing another release specificially for a country is laughable. That's my assessment anyways. Signed

[โ€“] odc@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Well, they've heard people can use a VPN to bypass the current blocking (which is done by the ISP, usually through the DNS server) so they are looking for alternatives. It's only natural.

As far as I know, all governments block websites. What would be more interesting is comparing which one sensors the most.

edit: to be clear, what I mean is: the method used by governments to censor the web is not as important as what is being censored. And I wish there was a simple way to monitor what is censored by each state.

[โ€“] LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm guessing China? Not sure North Korea counts

[โ€“] odc@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Oh, I wouldn't even count China, NK and Russia. They block so many websites they are in their own category.

[โ€“] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

(Nearly) all governments limit car speeds on public roads, with external enforcement (fines, road design, etc.).

Yet AFAIK no government enforces the national speed limit through a speed limiter on cars.

Exact same goal, maybe even result, but I'm uncomfortable with the semantics.

[โ€“] odc@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[โ€“] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

That's Volvo, doing that of their own volition. 180 km/h is well within "criminal charges" territory in most places, they're not doing that for regulatory reasons but in order to improve their safety record. Completely different than if the government asked then to limit their cars to 130 km/h.

[โ€“] stiephel@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

France can fuck off then

[โ€“] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do they need to petition it? Mozilla is an American corporation, if they just ignore it, can France do anything punitive to them?

[โ€“] Jaccident@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They could have the ISPs block Mozilla web presence I suppose.

[โ€“] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm in favor (as a french). This would give one more reason for people to be angry. And they need to be.

[โ€“] ISOmorph@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With the market share Firefox has it would be a drop in the ocean

[โ€“] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ypu underestimate how angry we get for this kind of things

[โ€“] ISOmorph@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We got pretty angry at that retirement age shit, which has arguably more reach. Still got written into law...

[โ€“] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago

Do you think that feeling got away? It didn't. People are still angry and more censorship would help them stand again

[โ€“] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ISPs in France, sure. They would have to convince ISPs elsewhere in the world to do it, and it wouldn't be a popular move if ISPs start letting foreign governments censor stuff. Would the ISPs decide the bad press is worth making the French government happy, is the question.

[โ€“] Jaccident@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Sorry I wasnโ€™t intending to imply that isps out of France would comply, just that getting the French ones to block Mozilla would prevent the vast majority of the country from accessing their browser (at current level of technical acuity).