Charles Randall on Nostr: npub1yyx7s…2qa5g npub1sqfnx…n5skr yes, that's fair, it's still one step removed ...
npub1yyx7sllvsrr0fauh2rdlqk5rakf3963g9xk4a7j5uhfcs00lr3kq42qa5g (npub1yyx…qa5g) npub1sqfnxau480pnvm0t258kdrj5u2u72zwm2kh7tk3qf6lxtqkwvlmqgn5skr (npub1sqf…5skr) yes, that's fair, it's still one step removed because there aren't laws about this, but I refuse to accept that denying access to a terrorist website is a slippery slope.
It is, fundamentally, an absurdist argument. It is akin to people who argued gay marriage would lead to people marrying dogs.
The fundamental problem here is not that a private company is restricting traffic to a terrorist website, it is that legislation is not nuking sites like KF out of existence.
It is, fundamentally, an absurdist argument. It is akin to people who argued gay marriage would lead to people marrying dogs.
The fundamental problem here is not that a private company is restricting traffic to a terrorist website, it is that legislation is not nuking sites like KF out of existence.