ISPs have been mandated to block Russia state media. For me the site is unreachable. One swedish ISP refuses to comply due to them being anti-censorship activists.
“In this time of war, words matter. We are witnessing massive propaganda and disinformation over this outrageous attack on a free and independent country. We will not let Kremlin apologists pour their toxic lies justifying Putin’s war or sow the seeds of division in our Union.”
It seems like war is always the excuse used to restrict our freedoms.
I believe Brave uses Tor for their incognito mode on desktops so we're already seeing some advancements on that front. Unfortunately, brave are still unable to provide tor for their users on android.
For overlay networks to be normalized, popular browser makers have to include them in their mobile versions. For better or worse, android and ios are what most normal people use these days.
I’m just sad to watch the world following Turkey’s steps on Internet control.
These ISP level “security filters” have been a thing in Turkey since 2011. They are optional but they always try to trick people into enabling them. There’s even safe internet day(5th February), they send you an SMS with a link to instantly enable filters to celebrate internet safety day.
What I find weird though, not all sites are blocked equally. Some are on DNS level and simply using something like Google DNS removes the blocking, others are blocked on IP level and only VPN can help. There’s no consistency between the ISP on site blocking methods.
It's a concern for me when they no longer become opt-in to prevent dangerous things like "misinformation" and "terrorism" and most importantly copyrighted material.
Seems to me like this is more of a law problem rather than a company problem.
Here we have a telecom service provider law, which states, among other things:
ARTICLE 57. - Network neutrality. Prohibitions. Service Providers shall not:
a) Block, interfere, discriminate, hinder, degrade or restrict the use, sending, reception, offering or access to any content, application, service or protocol except by court order or explicit request of the user.
This is not really new. Iirc the requirement agreed with the government was that users would have an active choice for filtering or not, which I think is required for mobile connections. This is an age gated thing essentially, and can be removed at the request of the user (or never added). Age rated things require some ID I think.
That archive.org, a place to archive essentially any content , gets flagged as potentially 18+ or some other content warning is not really surprising.
When I was a child, I was allowed to go into the adult library. In a conservative, Southern US state. It's a shame to see the UK being more right wing than the most conservative parts of the US.
I'm not quite sure that something that is on by default for everyone can be described as parental control, unless in the context of a nanny-state metaphor?
Yep, in the last few days it’s become fully unusable. Niche forums are now walled with:
> Unreviewed Content — This community has not been reviewed and might contain content inappropriate for certain viewers. View in the Reddit app to continue.
My ISP doesn’t block Reddit, but Reddit has effectively blocked me.
The title sounds rather alarming. In reality, this is one mobile ISP blocking archive.org as part of its parental controls. I can't help but wonder if this is the author's first exposure to ISPs' content blocking?
Still, I'm curious as to the logic (if any) behind targeting archive.org - is it because it allows filters to be bypassed, or was it in error? Or something else?
It is enabled by default, so it's a big deal in my opinion.
Edit: also, "parental control" is not really a good description for something that is active by default for anyone regardless of their age. It is quite literally a case of "nanny ISP".
Looking into this a bit more, this seems like a classic case of “much ado about nothing.”
The situation as I understand it:
1. A UK telecom company, EE, has an optional (!!) parental control feature, which blocks websites based on a user-selected threshold [0]
2. Archive.org was added to this block-list. This makes sense at first glance: as an exercise to the reader, go to archive.org and type in the URL of your favorite porn website.
3. This is all user-controllable and is disabled by default.
Yeah, assuming I have my facts right, this seems like a big, fat, nothing burger. Please correct me if I’ve misanalysed.
For the same reason they shouldn't have firearms. People shouldn't let their kids be unsupervised with even a very useful item where the risk is high and they haven't yet developed the self-control to use it wisely. Eventually you have to let go, but that transition time is critical.
It makes your kids unhappy to not have unsupervised access to the internet? Guess we should just let them do what they like? They'll be super happy then.
This is true to some extent, but not in a simple and categorical way.
We should really think more about how we want our kids to grow and discover the (online) world, and sheltering them from everything controversial or have their parents dictate every content they can and cannot access until they’re 18, doesn’t look like an actual viable option to me.
Unsure about "enabled by default". I don't think I've ever been offered (explicitly) a parental for my home ISP (not EE) that I opted out of. Archive.org isnt blocked on my home internet.
Archive.org is also available on my EE phone (when using mobile connection) - it's possibly I explicitly opted out of parental control filter, but I don't think I have. I'm less sure about that.
GiffGaff's is enabled by default. I hate the way they (all) phrase it too, like you can disable it if you want to access 'bad stuff' - no, I just want not to be told what I can and can't access, 'no filter', one less place for anti-privacy logging potential etc.
EE's Content Lock is enabled by default, and is called out in the article itself. To opt out of Content Lock, you must undergo age verification, either via ID checks in person at the store, or via a credit card.
Please note: All new and existing accounts with Content Lock enabled have the "Moderate" setting applied by default. [1]
thank you. overreactions over things like this REALLY increase people's "I care about this" fatigue more than people realize.
those who do the overreacting never seem to look into things and immediately jump to incorrect conclusions, and observers eventually get an understanding that these issues are crackpot issues and not real, or not real enough to care about.
it erodes the awareness of the issue that the overreacting person hopes (consciously or not) to increase.
it really is a shame that most "civic-level" advocates are so poor at their advocacy; paid lobbyists are quite effective, indeed.
> This makes sense at first glance: as an exercise to the reader, go to archive.org and type in the URL of your favorite porn website.
If this is their reasoning, then it's silly to me. With this logic every search engine should be blocked! Even with all their domain blacklisting simply searching for adult content on google images will yield millions of results. Probably more than archive.org :)
I think this is an honest mistake. I reckon they either had a crawler that flagged archive.org or maybe someone added it by mistake and never realized it :)
It actually does make sense to blame the UK for this. UK law (Digital Economy Act 2017) says that ISPs are legally required to offer content filtering to their customers, turned on by default, although customers are allowed to request to opt out of it. So, this ISP is legally required to impose content filters unless a customer specifically asks them not to do so.
Now, you can say the real issue here is not the filtering itself, but the decision to include this particular website in the list of sites to be blocked. But the reality is, filtering decisions are inherently subjective, mistakes are inevitable, so I really think if someone ought to be blamed, it is not the company legally forced to do the filtering, but rather the law which forces them to do it. Also, the company wants to spend as little money on the filtering as possible, since it is a pure cost centre – and if customers don't like it, they can opt out, and then either have unfiltered Internet, or filter it themselves – meaning there is no incentive for the company to do a good job of choosing which sites to include
I'm a parent (of a 9 year old and a 4 year old), and I think it is totally good parenting to seek to limit your children's access to online material they are too young to process. But I think the right answer is a free market of parent control solutions (both commercial and open source), with parents being able to choose the solution which works best for their family – not government-imposed network-level filtering, even if it is an opt-out. Parental control is best done at the endpoints, not in the network.
archive.org is still blocked by 2 mobile telcos https://www.blocked.org.uk/site/http://archive.org
It was blocked by more around 2019, including by Three. Had to do the same dance to get restrictions lifted so that I could visit a library, then the rep offered me a special deal on increasing my monthly data transfer quota "for streaming videos".
Despite an "unrestricted" account, I still cannot connect to tor bridges and telegram (according to OONI tests https://ooni.org/)
This specific sort of filter has been in place in the UK since 2004. It's part of the "Mobile Broadband Group"'s code of practice – the joint industry association representing the large UK mobile networks. The principle in general was that mobile broadband operators would enable an "adult content filter" by default on their products, with the ability for users to disable it on providing proof of age. I think it's basically a DNS block, though the implementation might vary between operators.
If I remember the details right, I'm pretty sure this was a compromise solution – basically one of those situations where the industry generally agrees to self-regulate in exchange for avoiding more formal state regulation on their services.
It's a bit silly generally, particularly when stuff like archive.org gets added to the list when it really shouldn't be.
Although I use wayback machine infrequently (1-2 times per week), I hold it's one of the most important websites in existence - up there with wikipedia - it's the digital equivalent of a famous museum.
I do wish there was a wayback machine for youtube videos, because of all the now dead links in my technical and personal notes. I suspect the cost of hosting video is too high.
78 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadhttps://techcrunch.com/2022/03/02/eu-rt-sputnik-ban-live/
I wish there was more reporting on this.
It seems like war is always the excuse used to restrict our freedoms.
For overlay networks to be normalized, popular browser makers have to include them in their mobile versions. For better or worse, android and ios are what most normal people use these days.
These ISP level “security filters” have been a thing in Turkey since 2011. They are optional but they always try to trick people into enabling them. There’s even safe internet day(5th February), they send you an SMS with a link to instantly enable filters to celebrate internet safety day.
What I find weird though, not all sites are blocked equally. Some are on DNS level and simply using something like Google DNS removes the blocking, others are blocked on IP level and only VPN can help. There’s no consistency between the ISP on site blocking methods.
PayPal, Booking.com and many more are illegal due to data protection or business guild reasons.
Netflix, Prime Video, radios, podcasts etc are subjected to censorship by TV&Radio broadcasting regulator and are required to register for a license.
Social media with user base over certain number are required to be licensed.
The world mostly caught up but there’s still some way to go.
Then they make it out-out. The change doesn’t get much attention because the funding is already in place and “think of the children”.
Then they add political thought crimes to the filters.
Then they make it so you can’t opt-out.
Here we have a telecom service provider law, which states, among other things:
ARTICLE 57. - Network neutrality. Prohibitions. Service Providers shall not:
a) Block, interfere, discriminate, hinder, degrade or restrict the use, sending, reception, offering or access to any content, application, service or protocol except by court order or explicit request of the user.
That archive.org, a place to archive essentially any content , gets flagged as potentially 18+ or some other content warning is not really surprising.
We’d be pissed to no end if Google deployed an opt-out arbitrary content filtering module in Chrome.
Why would you expect an ISP to get a pass for it ? (except for it having precedents)
I am doing my part, by telling everyone I can to boycott everything on the internet.
See you all.
"Even" Reddit (which, to be fair, does include actual porn) is blocked on at least some networks unless you unlock the account.
> Unreviewed Content — This community has not been reviewed and might contain content inappropriate for certain viewers. View in the Reddit app to continue.
My ISP doesn’t block Reddit, but Reddit has effectively blocked me.
But yeah, reddit is really shooting itself in the foot with this nonsense.
Still, I'm curious as to the logic (if any) behind targeting archive.org - is it because it allows filters to be bypassed, or was it in error? Or something else?
Edit: also, "parental control" is not really a good description for something that is active by default for anyone regardless of their age. It is quite literally a case of "nanny ISP".
The situation as I understand it:
1. A UK telecom company, EE, has an optional (!!) parental control feature, which blocks websites based on a user-selected threshold [0]
2. Archive.org was added to this block-list. This makes sense at first glance: as an exercise to the reader, go to archive.org and type in the URL of your favorite porn website.
3. This is all user-controllable and is disabled by default.
Yeah, assuming I have my facts right, this seems like a big, fat, nothing burger. Please correct me if I’ve misanalysed.
[0] : https://ee.co.uk/help/help-new/safety-and-security/content-l...
We should really think more about how we want our kids to grow and discover the (online) world, and sheltering them from everything controversial or have their parents dictate every content they can and cannot access until they’re 18, doesn’t look like an actual viable option to me.
https://www.blocked.org.uk/ is a useful resource on this front.
Archive.org is also available on my EE phone (when using mobile connection) - it's possibly I explicitly opted out of parental control filter, but I don't think I have. I'm less sure about that.
Please note: All new and existing accounts with Content Lock enabled have the "Moderate" setting applied by default. [1]
[1]: https://myaccount.ee.co.uk/app/anonymous-content-lock
those who do the overreacting never seem to look into things and immediately jump to incorrect conclusions, and observers eventually get an understanding that these issues are crackpot issues and not real, or not real enough to care about.
it erodes the awareness of the issue that the overreacting person hopes (consciously or not) to increase.
it really is a shame that most "civic-level" advocates are so poor at their advocacy; paid lobbyists are quite effective, indeed.
It's a shame so many western people rally around their censorship, their restrictions, and act all surprised that their sites get blocked in the east.
If this is their reasoning, then it's silly to me. With this logic every search engine should be blocked! Even with all their domain blacklisting simply searching for adult content on google images will yield millions of results. Probably more than archive.org :)
I think this is an honest mistake. I reckon they either had a crawler that flagged archive.org or maybe someone added it by mistake and never realized it :)
As an added exercise, maybe try translate.google.com to see if it's blocked as well.
Now, you can say the real issue here is not the filtering itself, but the decision to include this particular website in the list of sites to be blocked. But the reality is, filtering decisions are inherently subjective, mistakes are inevitable, so I really think if someone ought to be blamed, it is not the company legally forced to do the filtering, but rather the law which forces them to do it. Also, the company wants to spend as little money on the filtering as possible, since it is a pure cost centre – and if customers don't like it, they can opt out, and then either have unfiltered Internet, or filter it themselves – meaning there is no incentive for the company to do a good job of choosing which sites to include
I'm a parent (of a 9 year old and a 4 year old), and I think it is totally good parenting to seek to limit your children's access to online material they are too young to process. But I think the right answer is a free market of parent control solutions (both commercial and open source), with parents being able to choose the solution which works best for their family – not government-imposed network-level filtering, even if it is an opt-out. Parental control is best done at the endpoints, not in the network.
And then, what? You get the content and you consider that problematic?
EE is a mobile operator and not very important in the grand scheme of things when it comes to decisions about morality.
They obviously also have dropped the ball - silly ISP.
If I remember the details right, I'm pretty sure this was a compromise solution – basically one of those situations where the industry generally agrees to self-regulate in exchange for avoiding more formal state regulation on their services.
It's a bit silly generally, particularly when stuff like archive.org gets added to the list when it really shouldn't be.
I do wish there was a wayback machine for youtube videos, because of all the now dead links in my technical and personal notes. I suspect the cost of hosting video is too high.