Re: [hrpc] ***SPAM**** Re: Censorship

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

(In general, I agree with Andrew's analysis, but one other
aspect below.)

On 14/03/2022 20:17, Jens Finkhaeuser wrote:
> Bill's last reply and my reading of the paper suggests that the main
> point here is to create a defensible position for network operators
> against too much filtering: they can hardly be accused of doing
> nothing if they filter something. And if the filters are created
> carefully by a multi-stakeholder organization in full consideration
> of their impact on human rights, calls for stricter measures
> automatically cast a bad light on the party doing the calling - and
> network operators may use that in the Internet's favour.
> 
> I do - maybe naively - see value in this.
I'm skeptical.

But aside from considering efficacy, do we have any examples
of blocklists for which the evidence justifying a block, and
all the process steps leading to a decision to add an entry,
are public?

I can't think of one, but they may exist.

It might be that if the proponents here fleshed out the idea
another level deeper, then it'd be easier to understand just
what's envisaged. Personally, I can't really see how to setup
anything resembling what's envisaged, but I may be missing
something.

Cheers,
S.