Democrat teams up with movie industry to propose website-blocking law
Democrat teams up with movie industry to propose website-blocking law
Proposed US law slammed as “censorious” and an “Internet kill switch.”…
Lofgren's bill would impose site-blocking requirements on broadband providers with at least 100,000 subscribers and providers of public domain name resolution services with annual revenue of over $100 million. The bill has exemptions for VPN services and "similar services that encrypt and route user traffic through intermediary servers"; DNS providers that offer service "exclusively through encrypted DNS protocols"; and operators of premises that provide Internet access, like coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, and universities.
Invest in VPN providers.
"Man we really got trounced in that election "
"Yeah we should really work on our image"
"Yeah. Oh I know! You know how everyone hated that tik tok ban?"
"Yeah?"
"Well what if that, but more!"
"But people hated the ban...."
"Oh right, no, the movie industry is paying us to do this."
"Oh why didn't you just say so."
On the one hand, more Dems voted no on tiktok ban
On the other hand, you can bet any bipartisan bill is not in the interest of the American people
Is the capability to block any website something the Democrats want to enable with for Trump to abuse?
Yes, then they can blame him for it but still get paid by the oligarchs who wanted the bill.
Sometimes I feel like democrats don't actually care more about voters, they just care much more about appearances.
Idk man, that sounds like evidence based thinking to me, reported.
And rich people
its uh, definitely one of the feelings of all time reading through threads like this, assuming these are actual real people, spending their actually real time, talking about these actually real things.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
Don't settle for half measures.
Trump is president and this is their priority?
Of course it is, what else would you expect from the controlled opposition party?
Why wouldn't it be? People's interests don't bring in money
Democrats once again losing on purpose.
Even out of power they still find a way to give hand jobs for industry donations and casually screw the public. I admire their energy.
Democrats: "Please for the love of God, don't vote for us ever again! We really, really don't want to win."
D E M O C R A T singular, one. Not democrats. For fucks sake it's on the bloody title!
Why are people so willfully ignorant?
US Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) today proposed ...
From California? Hmmm... Why would a representative from California put forward such a bill?
Cause people fail to awknowledge there is more to politics than just left and right, or progressive and conservative, etc.
The country is being burned to the ground from the inside by fascists, and this is the hill Democrat politicians choose to die on?!! Holy shit! What a fucking joke!
Corporate dictatorship masquerading as "democracy"
I don't think it's even corporate now. There are oligopolies/monopolies in each sector already
This is some fascist (& not at all surprising) shit.
Really uh...
Setting themselves up for success uh..
Great to see our representatives finally focusing on the real issues in these difficult times.
77 year old who has been in the house since the 90s. Actually a prime example of why we need term limits and real competition in elections (if not from GOP, at least in primaries). Irony is she reps a district that isn't really associated with streaming or producing movies.
My guess? She won her primary because she was the incombent or was unopposed, but she probably receives cash from the film industry. Almost all house seats are uncompetitive unless someone drops out or gets redistricted. Until something changes, this is and will be the way our government continues to work.
in power since the 90s
Oh so carrying the torch for the LAST time they tried to go after media with the moral panic of "Explicit" music label stuff led by Tipper Gore? The one where Twisted Sister showed up in 1985. A continuation from when they had a panic about VHS recordings in 1969 and Mr Rogers testified.
If they are not blocking the access to the WHO.is servers you can get the IP address of the site and add it to your local hosts file.
Doesn't the IP address change anyway?
Some do and some don't. Even if the IP changes, the actual IP address will be shown on the WHOIS site. Alternatively, I am sure that the actual IP address of these sites is shared by non-American users on forums and other sites.
Fuck. How bad is this...??
Is this going to take out VPNs as well?
Lofgren is a corporate stooge is the message I'm getting.
This somehow reads with the same energy as those "please don't download scientific papers for free from <long list of websites>, that would be so terrible" posts.
So it help vpn stocks?
This is some dumb shit.
I'm missing the part where consumers are required to use their ISP DNS. I never do, in favour of CloudFlare DNS, Google DNS, etc
@SquiffSquiff @some_guy They do that here to some degree. ISP's DNS give a shitty warning about pirating if you try to visit any of the normal places for that kind of thing. Personally i just use a local DNS over HTTPS server. Which reminds me I need to see if he/she would like a donation.
Whoever wrote this bill probably lacks the basic network skills to know you can do that.
oh cool, tackling the key issues facing us right now
Article 1) Streaming prices going up Article 2) websites being blocked
Okay.... And that helps anyone how? Where's the other foot? I would like to help? I have a sledge hammer! C'mon don't be shy.
But, I got ideas! How about everyone who files for a patent has to give the Democratic party all their money or how autocorrect wants, all their monkey! That'll show them!
And how about everyone who goes to and graduates from college must serve a 30 year sentence? Fabulous!
Need a car license? Just smash your car on this steel wall! Yey! So easy! So much better than racists!
WTF! Put the thinking cap back on dudes!
@some_guy is there such a thing as an open source dns and encrypted DNS? Or federated DNS?
It's actually surprisingly centralized.
It sort if have to be. In the end there has to be one source of truth for each TLD, otherwise who is to say who owns foo.com, and what it resolves to?
And then the same structure for assigning TLD ownership.
But there is nothing stopping you from running another DNS service, call it DNS2 with different root servers, etc. It is just going to be extemely hard to convince people to use it.
They're absolutely is, it's called onion routing, get around DNS blocks with tor as long as you know where you're going.