How is this different to saying “No meetings of groups of people in person to share thoughts, views, agree trades or have an argument”?
Happens in the pubs every night.
Is Mozilla 100% forced to comply with this? What’s to stop them from dropping their French presence and keep serving the browser unaltered on the public web? Do they also then get added to the ban list?
The thought behind this is alarming and worrying, but the mechanism of action seems shoddy and not thought out at all.
They’ve had quite an authoritarian tendency since quite a while, with legislation about surveillance and encryption, plus the most violent police in Western Europe (possibly in all of Europe) which was purposefully made to be so through legislation granting them increasing amounts of immunity and legal cover to use ever more harmful equipment to “maintain public order”.
In parallel, quite a lot of ex-PMs of France have been convicted of Corruption.
The Internet’s been ubiquitous for more than two decades now, and the people writing laws to regulate it in most democracies still lack even a high-level understanding about how it and the software they use to access it works. They also seem to go out of their way to avoid working with anyone who actually does know how to implement safety measures in less dangerous or exploitable ways. It’s inexcusable.
They ignore experts/scientists because they’re a liability when all you care about is personal financial gain and fulfilling the role your oligarch/corporate handlers bankrolled you to fulfil.
What’s a petition going to do? Is there any evidence that a bunch of people signing a petition is any more effective than a bunch of people just asking?
I guess from the perspective of lawmakers, it’s no different requiring browsers to not display certain sites than requiring book stores to not sell certain books.
I can even see the “logic” in that to a degree, especially if the people talking about it are rather tech averse.
Why should a book store not be allowed to sell certain books? Tf? There’s nothing we can’t find online if we wanted to. Why would anyone want allow some self righteous asshat to determine which books you can and can’t read. Dangerous shit.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
How is this different to saying “No meetings of groups of people in person to share thoughts, views, agree trades or have an argument”? Happens in the pubs every night.
this is like preventing your car from driving you to the bank so you cant rob it
deleted by creator
What kind of an idiot is going to rob a bank and hail a taxi cab for the getaway?
Is Mozilla 100% forced to comply with this? What’s to stop them from dropping their French presence and keep serving the browser unaltered on the public web? Do they also then get added to the ban list?
The thought behind this is alarming and worrying, but the mechanism of action seems shoddy and not thought out at all.
WTF?! „… force browser providers to create the means to mandatorily block websites present on a government provided list.“
Today it’s some terrorist / pedophile / fraudulent site, tomorrow it could be some opposition, news or whatever could be disliked site on that list.
nice
Jesus France is really fucking over their people aren’t they?
They’ve had quite an authoritarian tendency since quite a while, with legislation about surveillance and encryption, plus the most violent police in Western Europe (possibly in all of Europe) which was purposefully made to be so through legislation granting them increasing amounts of immunity and legal cover to use ever more harmful equipment to “maintain public order”.
In parallel, quite a lot of ex-PMs of France have been convicted of Corruption.
I suspect these things are related.
What happened to parental responsibility?
The Internet’s been ubiquitous for more than two decades now, and the people writing laws to regulate it in most democracies still lack even a high-level understanding about how it and the software they use to access it works. They also seem to go out of their way to avoid working with anyone who actually does know how to implement safety measures in less dangerous or exploitable ways. It’s inexcusable.
They ignore experts/scientists because they’re a liability when all you care about is personal financial gain and fulfilling the role your oligarch/corporate handlers bankrolled you to fulfil.
Dear France, wake tf up.
What’s a petition going to do? Is there any evidence that a bunch of people signing a petition is any more effective than a bunch of people just asking?
I hate that these articles are always couched in excusatory language like, “While motivated by a legitimate concern…”
These people are not your friends, they’re your enemies. Don’t accept their frame in the argument.
How would they enforce this on open source projects without companies behind them?
deleted by creator
Going after GitHub doesn’t seem viable given that they stood up for YouTube-dl
I don’t trust mozilla.
Makes sense
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/
Mozilla wants to control the censorship so can’t let any other do it
I guess from the perspective of lawmakers, it’s no different requiring browsers to not display certain sites than requiring book stores to not sell certain books.
I can even see the “logic” in that to a degree, especially if the people talking about it are rather tech averse.
Why should a book store not be allowed to sell certain books? Tf? There’s nothing we can’t find online if we wanted to. Why would anyone want allow some self righteous asshat to determine which books you can and can’t read. Dangerous shit.
So educate them?