you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 34 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 25 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 11 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent