And that’s all it should be. Currently, the US government does not have the facilities to block traffic to specific websites or IP addresses on a country-wide basis. We don’t have a “great firewall” the way China does, and we should keep it that way.
Yes it does? All it would take is a single piece of legislation and a couple of hours for all ISPs to block all traffic to certain IP ranges.
Sure, it doesn’t prevent VPNs but it would block 95% of access. The remaining 5% can be blocked through banning VPNs and deep packet inspection, the latter of which doesn’t require that much new infrastructure.
Except banning vpns would kill the economy immediately. Pretty much every big corporation is utilizing vpns to facilitate their work from home infrastructure. Hell, often even internally. Not to mention state and federal governments also use them. Suggesting they could do that is a joke.
I wasn’t talking about the technology behind VPNs. Every single country that “bans VPNs” still uses them commercially to some extent.
What I consider a ban on VPNs is a ban on commercial B2C VPN providers that do not comply with US legislation - meaning they’d allow customers to access banned sites.
Add the fact that pretty much all major payment providers happen to be US companies and I’d wager 99% of “normal” access could be blocked.
I said “currently”. Sure, the US could pass legislation that would require ISPs to implement that ability. I said they do not currently have that ability, and you seem to be disagreeing because it is hypothetically possible for the US to build its own great firewall. I do not want to assume your intentions but it appears you may have misinterpreted my message.
What I said is still correct. The point of my comment was that the US should not pass legislation to build a great firewall.
Oh, I thought you meant physically unable (for some time) - meaning they’d have to upgrade their router hardware or something which would take a couple of weeks/months.
But yes, right now the US is unable to implement a firewall. Though with the current Supreme Court it might as well decide tomorrow that free speech doesn’t extend to communication via electrons or something.
They cannot take down a domain registered with a registry and registrar outside their jurisdiction. They could try and compel domestic DNS providers to block queries for that domain, but there are numerous providers who are unlikely to comply with that request on grounds of the 1st amendment.
Given that the OP is about TikTok (a foreign website) being blocked in the United States, your point has limited relevance here. Further, if the website was hosted stateside they could just physically seize the servers themselves.
Correct, but that doesn’t mean TikTok would be inaccessible if they didn’t have servers in the US. My point is that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to completely limit access to a foreign website. It would be very slow and they’d lose users, sure, but they could keep running as usual from outside the US and still remain accessible to people inside the US.
I completely misunderstood the ban then. If you go back and read my previous thoughts on the matter, I debated IF this was good or bad.
And my debate was, do you allow actual spy services to keep spying in your country? Or do you ban the services, and introduce a precident which could easily be used towards a government lockdown of services?
And ultimately I landed of the belief that we shouldn’t ban tiktok. But that was under the assumption that it was a nationwide services ban. Not just a delisting from the app store.
Tiktok can still host the apk on their own website. Any other installations already installed on apple devices would still work. This isn’t a ban. It’s an app store delisting. And that’s fine. That initself doesn’t fly against the concepts of net neutrality. It becomes a matter of availability at that point.
And if tiktok is doing this of their own choice, then that doesn’t go against net neutrality either. That’s YOUR choice (if you are tiktok).
So, yeah. This small clarification really made this “debate” not much of a debate to me anymore. Ignore all previous positions I held. This issue just became simple. Fuck tiktok. Thats on them. The government didn’t ban them. They delisted an app.
Childporn is illegal on any network. As well it should be. Tiktok is not illegal as a result of this “ban”. That’s what I thought was happening. It’s not (assuming you are correct, which I have no reason to doubt).
Um, well, they are first of all complying with the decision, in spirit. When someone has indicated to you, even in very diplomatic terms, that you may be unwelcome, it’s a reasonable response to stand right up and walk the fuck out.
Secondly I think they are doing it swiftly and abruptly to take advantage of this moment of public awareness. They want to create as abrupt a break as possible no doubt to maximize the outrage of their many millions of users and advertisers while everyone has the news fresh in their mind. They probably hope that this will create enough pain and disruption to stir opposition to the ban or at least political fallout for those who caused it.
They are going to ban themselves as protest for banning them…?
Essentially yea, the laws enforcement mechanism as-is is just having the app delisted from app stores
Everything else is of TikToks own doing
And that’s all it should be. Currently, the US government does not have the facilities to block traffic to specific websites or IP addresses on a country-wide basis. We don’t have a “great firewall” the way China does, and we should keep it that way.
Yes it does? All it would take is a single piece of legislation and a couple of hours for all ISPs to block all traffic to certain IP ranges.
Sure, it doesn’t prevent VPNs but it would block 95% of access. The remaining 5% can be blocked through banning VPNs and deep packet inspection, the latter of which doesn’t require that much new infrastructure.
Except banning vpns would kill the economy immediately. Pretty much every big corporation is utilizing vpns to facilitate their work from home infrastructure. Hell, often even internally. Not to mention state and federal governments also use them. Suggesting they could do that is a joke.
I wasn’t talking about the technology behind VPNs. Every single country that “bans VPNs” still uses them commercially to some extent.
What I consider a ban on VPNs is a ban on commercial B2C VPN providers that do not comply with US legislation - meaning they’d allow customers to access banned sites.
Add the fact that pretty much all major payment providers happen to be US companies and I’d wager 99% of “normal” access could be blocked.
From what I understand, in my country OpenVPN and Wireguard work fine within the borders, but the protocols are blocked to foreign servers.
I said “currently”. Sure, the US could pass legislation that would require ISPs to implement that ability. I said they do not currently have that ability, and you seem to be disagreeing because it is hypothetically possible for the US to build its own great firewall. I do not want to assume your intentions but it appears you may have misinterpreted my message.
What I said is still correct. The point of my comment was that the US should not pass legislation to build a great firewall.
Oh, I thought you meant physically unable (for some time) - meaning they’d have to upgrade their router hardware or something which would take a couple of weeks/months.
But yes, right now the US is unable to implement a firewall. Though with the current Supreme Court it might as well decide tomorrow that free speech doesn’t extend to communication via electrons or something.
Actually…
I think if people in the US had the capacity for introspection and empathy we would have had a collective
moment every year for the past 250y…
False, feds have taken down whole domains for violations
They cannot take down a domain registered with a registry and registrar outside their jurisdiction. They could try and compel domestic DNS providers to block queries for that domain, but there are numerous providers who are unlikely to comply with that request on grounds of the 1st amendment.
Given that the OP is about TikTok (a foreign website) being blocked in the United States, your point has limited relevance here. Further, if the website was hosted stateside they could just physically seize the servers themselves.
They have servers here otherwise it would be a laggy mess to use tiktok
Correct, but that doesn’t mean TikTok would be inaccessible if they didn’t have servers in the US. My point is that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to completely limit access to a foreign website. It would be very slow and they’d lose users, sure, but they could keep running as usual from outside the US and still remain accessible to people inside the US.
I completely misunderstood the ban then. If you go back and read my previous thoughts on the matter, I debated IF this was good or bad.
And my debate was, do you allow actual spy services to keep spying in your country? Or do you ban the services, and introduce a precident which could easily be used towards a government lockdown of services?
And ultimately I landed of the belief that we shouldn’t ban tiktok. But that was under the assumption that it was a nationwide services ban. Not just a delisting from the app store.
Tiktok can still host the apk on their own website. Any other installations already installed on apple devices would still work. This isn’t a ban. It’s an app store delisting. And that’s fine. That initself doesn’t fly against the concepts of net neutrality. It becomes a matter of availability at that point.
And if tiktok is doing this of their own choice, then that doesn’t go against net neutrality either. That’s YOUR choice (if you are tiktok).
So, yeah. This small clarification really made this “debate” not much of a debate to me anymore. Ignore all previous positions I held. This issue just became simple. Fuck tiktok. Thats on them. The government didn’t ban them. They delisted an app.
Childporn is illegal on any network. As well it should be. Tiktok is not illegal as a result of this “ban”. That’s what I thought was happening. It’s not (assuming you are correct, which I have no reason to doubt).
It was either this or self immolation
Um, well, they are first of all complying with the decision, in spirit. When someone has indicated to you, even in very diplomatic terms, that you may be unwelcome, it’s a reasonable response to stand right up and walk the fuck out.
Secondly I think they are doing it swiftly and abruptly to take advantage of this moment of public awareness. They want to create as abrupt a break as possible no doubt to maximize the outrage of their many millions of users and advertisers while everyone has the news fresh in their mind. They probably hope that this will create enough pain and disruption to stir opposition to the ban or at least political fallout for those who caused it.