Comment by JoshTriplett
9 months ago
My objection is precisely that the important thing is to stop abuse, and that blocking just hides something rather than tracking down and stopping the abuse.
(To be clear, I do also think it's important to go track down the sites hosting such content and take down the sites. But at the source, not blocking at the border, which is a capability that shouldn't exist.)
Also, at the risk of unrelated political commentary:
> Disbanding the drug cartels in Brazil and Mexico would be the best solution to the flow of drugs into the U.S,
Legalization would be the best solution to the association between drugs and organized crime.
> My objection is precisely that the important thing is to stop abuse, and that blocking just hides something rather than tracking down and stopping the abuse. (To be clear, I do also think it's important to go track down the sites hosting such content and take down the sites. But at the source, not blocking at the border, which is a capability that shouldn't exist.)
I don't think you've justified that objection any other way than saying "stopping it at the source would be better" (which is unambiguously agreeable).
Teaching a man to fish is obviously better than just giving him a fish, but if tuition is not possible due to resource constraints, a fish distribution system isn't a terrible idea.
I am stating the position that the ability for governments to block part of the Internet rather than it being all or nothing is a net negative for the world.