upvote
This is coming, eventually, and it will be a rehash of the 90s. Someone will have to be a sympathetic test case, and the EFF will get back into full gear.

Then either freedom wins again or freedom-loving individuals move to Soviet-style samizdat, “lying flat”, and clever subversion. And the world continues turning as usual.

reply
If you violate memory protection you get a segfault, consistently. That isn't how the law works. Federal agents only kick down your door if they want to - which in this case probably means your forum users disparaged ICE or Trump.
reply
I mean, social networks already made genocide happen. They they were instrumental in the curren winning march of fascism - in USA, in EU in Asia.
reply
This is why China and Russia are shiny beacons of democracy and liberalism — they heavily regulate their social media!

Seriously, do people not look at history or at least the world around them when they make such claims? Genocides have happened before we had internet, or TV, or radio, or any modern technology people attribute genocides to. Hatred and violence are parts of human nature and trying to blame it on technology is just us trying not to make ourselves look bad.

reply
My point is, the "what happens when federal agents kick down your front" thing is already happening and happened. And curiously, tech libertarians ranting about the freedom were facilitating every single step along the way, actively helping those every single step along the way.

> Genocides have happened before we had internet, or TV, or radio, or any modern technology people attribute genocides to.

Genocides became more frequent every since we have technology. Technology facilitates genocides. Both by creating actual means of killing (industrial killing in WWII) and by creating conditions for distribution of "work". Radio specifically was instrumental in Rwanda.

reply
Not to mention the printing press! Hitler couldn’t have published his vile screed without it.

Haven’t seen any Amish committing genocides, have you?

reply
That’s a very dramatic take - and I dare say a counter-factual one too.

Which actual genocide would you be talking about?

I really don’t think people should water out words like that over what is essentially tiny political differences.

reply
Myanmar?
reply
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46105934

Facebook has said it agrees with a report that found it had failed to prevent its platform being used to "incite offline violence" in Myanmar. The independent report, commissioned by Facebook, said the platform had created an "enabling environment" for the proliferation of human rights abuse. It comes after widespread violence against the Rohingya minority which the UN has said may amount to genocide.

reply
> I really don’t think people should water out words like that over what is essentially tiny political differences.

I really don’t think people should minimize actual historical and current events for political purposes. Knee jerk "bad things are inconvenient, therefore they did not happened" denial is how we got here.

> essentially tiny political differences

The political differences between actual fascism that is on the rise, its actual opposition and those in between are large. Not small. Also, in more recent events there were pogroms in Belfast now. Elon Musk personally contributed to their incitement.

reply
It seems unlikely that running a website without age verification will be illegal across the entire planet.
reply
So if you want to run a BBS for say vintage motorcycle owners, you have to move to a country without such laws and make sure to never set foot in any country that does?
reply
No, you just have to host it there and use a VPN. Like all piracy sites are done right now.
reply
Oh oh. You ISP has detected non sanctioned use of an unauthorized VPN service. The police is on its way.
reply
If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.
reply
People are downvoting this, but the objective is precisely that.
reply
It seemed unlikely to me that cookie banners would be a thing across the whole internet if nothing else because no website operators would put them in. How wrong was I.

All they need to do is popularize the idea of "if your website doesn't do X, it'll place lower on google" and people will do anything.

My websites still don't have cookie banners and the police still hasn't come to my house. And the websites uses cookies like every other website always did.

reply
Ironically 99% of them don’t meet legal requirements. They serve no purpose.
reply
The purpose is to make people think laws like gdpr are bad for people, rather than bad for the surveillance industry.
reply
Cookie banners aren't across the whole internet.
reply
You really only need the banners if you're doing privacy-impinging things.

Much like the GDPR notices that a small industry of 'compliance' product companies sold seemingly to everyone as necessary, they aren't if you're only using cookies for functional reasons and not tracking people. Unfortunately that leads to lower margins for advertisers and we can't have that.

reply