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

[Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 15, 2022, at 3:50 PM, Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I'll answer Bill's previous question to me about political risks. In the case of censoring, or boycotting through internet cutoff, the Russian military, you are:
> 
>  * Provoking Russia on national security and it will have ramifications at the UN on the cybercrime treaty and any future hope of a cybersecurity treaty,

You think it’s _substantially more_ prevocational to block their military than to block their whole country?

>  * Giving Russia an excuse to continue building its own internet, splintering further away,

First. they don’t need an excuse.  Second, can you present a rationale for why you believe military-only is more of an excuse than whole-country?  That seems radically counterintuitive to me.

>  * Undermining civil society's prior positioning firmly against all internet censorship even to advocate for carve outs in sanctions,

If party A and party B are in disagreement, and party C is somewhere in-between, how does party C’s position “undermine” party A’s position?  Are people not free to have disagreeing positions?

>  * Normalising blocking by intermediaries that haven't the in-house capacity to take a political position, when instead we should be helping build their capacity to resist unjust blocking,

How does blocking less normalize more than blocking more does?

>  * Moving out of alignment what is best for the internet and what is best for people,

How is blocking civilians “what is best for people?"

>  * Making more incoherent messaging and guidance about is "right" to do, not less.

?  Explain?

>  * Abstracting the nascent capacity to govern the internet with political considerations away from where those decisions should instead be made.

Where do you think they should be made?  Governments are very clear that they should be made in government.

If you don’t believe the governmentally-proposed solution is the right one, and you believe they should be made elsewhere, what’s your plan for doing that?

> You'll never get the civil society sector to come to consensus about it

Agreed.

> so you can't call it that (as you do in your letter).

Where do you see that?

> Gentle reminder to everyone in the discussion that we are meant here to identify research topics related to human rights and internet protocols.

I’m always happy to discuss in private email, I don’t have any burning desire to use public-mailing-list bandwidth.  I do want to make sure I fully understand all cautions, additional information, arguments against, etc.  So please do follow up with me if you feel like I’m not understanding what you’re saying (anyone, this isn’t specifically with respect to Mallory).

                                -Bill