> That’s why EFF has long argued that we must “protect the stack” by saying no to infrastructure providers policing internet content.
I agree with this, but you need to understand what you agree to. It's not just the content you want to see - it's also the content you don't want to see. It's the freedom of the most extreme content imaginable - CP, snuff, murder, doxxing, drugs, etc, etc.
People will experience severe issues as a result, but there are other things that can be done:
1. Individuals can do more to protect themselves. We have AI now that can quite accurately detect what is in an image or video, it's entirely feasible to do live content filtering.
2. We need to protect the most vulnerable in our societies. We don't give whiskey to a 5 year old, and we shouldn't give unfiltered internet to a 5 year old. This also extends to vulnerable adults. If you receive government assistance (money/drugs) for a mental disability, a filtered version of the internet should be available to you.
3. The punishment for filtering without permission should be severe enough that it's not just a tax. People really need to be held accountable, otherwise they will just pay the toll and be done with it.
"If you receive government assistance (money/drugs) for a mental disability, a filtered version of the internet should be available to you."
Not every mental disability makes people stupid enough to make them need a filtered internet.
As someone in that category, but still able to think, if people like you nerf my internet, the amount of rage and anger that I will unleash upon society is going to be endless.
> Not every mental disability makes people stupid enough to make them need a filtered internet.
It's not about being stupid, it's about being vulnerable. Also it may not be appropriate in every case. I am also weary of removing the ability to access the internet from otherwise functioning adults. I've not quite happy to have a solid stance on it just yet.
As I said: "[..] a filtered version of the internet should be available to you." - That's to say that they can choose to use it. It's not ideal, but it would be opt-in at least for example on a doctor's recommendation.
> [..] people like you [..]
I'm making the case for an unfiltered internet, and I want as many people as reasonable to be able to access it. My suggestion was a compromise.
> As someone in that category, but still able to think, if people like you nerf my internet, the amount of rage and anger that I will unleash upon society is going to be endless.
I don't know your your specific scenario, but despite your fundamental rights, it may for example be prudent not to give you access to a gun, despite your want for one, or claims of rage and anger unleashed upon society.
Also we haven't really discussed (for good reason) what such filtering would look like, or who would control it. That's a difficult situation in itself. There's not really a person or group I would trust with such power.
> If you think it’s in societies best interest to filter the internet for people like me, don’t worry about my access to firearms.
I can't talk about "people like you", I don't know you. Your immediate jump towards the destruction of society upon discussion on an opt-in filtering of your internet is concerning.
> I’m not an idiot and I don’t need guns to dedicate all my time to ruining society and destroying infrastructure.
I'm not calling you an idiot. The guns were just an example of a right that can removed if a person is mentally unwell. Again, I am still completely undecided how it would be offered in such a way that cannot be politically weaponized. I would default to the null position, which is not to offer it unless such issues could first be addressed.
As for your disillusions of grandeur regarding the 'ruining society and destroying infrastructure' - I think your years of smoking weed to treat your depression are catching up with you. I won't reply further as I don't want to fuel whatever it is you're going through, but please reach out to those around you for help.
It’s not grandeur to understand that the infrastructure that makes society function is not incredibly fragile. It’s a realistic observation of people that understand technology. Turn the power off and everything will fail.
My extreme reaction to the idea of your totalitarian control isn’t going to be rare, I just don’t have anything to lose by publicly expressing it.
I come from the era of an open internet where it’s viewed as a human right.
I agree with this, but you need to understand what you agree to. It's not just the content you want to see - it's also the content you don't want to see. It's the freedom of the most extreme content imaginable - CP, snuff, murder, doxxing, drugs, etc, etc.
People will experience severe issues as a result, but there are other things that can be done:
1. Individuals can do more to protect themselves. We have AI now that can quite accurately detect what is in an image or video, it's entirely feasible to do live content filtering.
2. We need to protect the most vulnerable in our societies. We don't give whiskey to a 5 year old, and we shouldn't give unfiltered internet to a 5 year old. This also extends to vulnerable adults. If you receive government assistance (money/drugs) for a mental disability, a filtered version of the internet should be available to you.
3. The punishment for filtering without permission should be severe enough that it's not just a tax. People really need to be held accountable, otherwise they will just pay the toll and be done with it.