Re: [Pearg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-04.txt

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:25:41PM +0200,
 Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 31 lines which said:

> 1. any blocking of content
> 2. any blocking of content except when done for technical and network security reasons (botnets, malware etc)
> 3. only the blocking of political content opposing a country's regime

I don't think that anyone, at the IETF or elsewhere, would label
"censorship" "any blocking of content". If I install uBlock on my
browser (or Pi Hole on the network), it is clearly not censorship if
half of the content of a Web page is blocked.

Censorship is when a third party blocks content that the sender wants
to send and the recipient wants to receive. Your case 2 is in the grey
area since it can be said that the recipient does not want to receive
malware.

Also, case 3 is way too narrow. If content is blocked for business
reasons, it is no longer censorship?

> accepts to be depicted like that.

I agree with Mallory here: people cannot choose how they are depicted,
it would be too easy.

> Then, it seems to me (though I haven't gone through the draft
> checking each and every reference) that almost all examples in the
> draft relate to authoritarian countries

Several examples (may be only a minority) are for the European
Union. Most members of the EU cannot probably be described as
"authoritarian".

> - only limit the survey to the examples that fall in #3, as these
> are unanimously considered to be censorship;

Not even that case is unanimous. The chinese governement does not call
its blocking "censorship" but use nice words like "maintaning
harmony".