- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- fedditdk@feddit.dk
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- fedditdk@feddit.dk
- technology@beehaw.org
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853884
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853256
To whom it may concern.
They’re not accessible anymore from a jurisdiction if said jurisdiction which rules they are violating decides to change their networking policies. And because twitter likes to be accessible, twitter decided to comply with the rules eventually. You seem intentionally obtuse btw.
Some thoughts: (1) networks don’t necessarily run according to judicial borders.
(2) you also have to penalize the use of rerouting tools, which Brazil seems to have done.
(3) it became incorrect to refer to it as “world wide web”
(1) Agreed of course, but I don’t see much of an issue there. You try to get a 100% coverage on your blockade, but 99% will move twitter to compliance too. same goes for (2). As for (3), I’m not really sure why you directed that at me.
I think it’s dangerous to be unscathed by governments deciding which publishers publish “truth”, and which don’t.
To not care if the “law” applies to 100% of the population, or only 95%. Some more equal under the law than others.
I bring up 3, because the idea behind www was to counteract the points above.
Imagine the same techniques used by a government you do not agree with. It’s very scary, no?
That has nothing to do with what I was answering to OP (who seems to have a difficult time translating ‘operating in’ to ‘being reachable from’), I don’t know why you are trying to debate (?) me on something else completely. Same goes for the www, I’ve never called it that.
I’m sorry your anger doesn’t allow you to see the connection between the technical implementation, and philosophy of www, and your own answer to OPs question.
I’m not angry, that’s in your mind. You seem to have a habit of linking things that shouldn’t be linked. Good day.