• jwt@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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”

      • jwt@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 minutes ago

        (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.

        • iii@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 minutes ago

          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 , 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?