From the same article:
sites must obey or face being blocked in the UK.
If they can’t reach the owner in Ethiopia, they’ll just block the site.
You’ll be able to unblock it with a VPN or probably just a custom DNS provider, but unless the website has a tech savvy userbase, most users will probably not know how to unblock it.
Another good drunk news.
I think you’re losing the plot here maybe, or I’m not understanding. What’s your argument?
Right, but that doesn’t stop JRandoTerrorist, only people trying to be legit. Look at priate sites, how easily they can hop hosts and ip addresses. Eventually, this type of legislation can only mean “whitelist” of sites, in that case. Which means only big players. Any small legit players are squeezed out.
Only small businesses suffer, unless they host their stuff on mygoogle.com/my_business or whatever service pops into existience, which hastens the consolidation of power and control of the internet to just a few companies.
I read
as "See also, the priate bay, which has been hard to block. Or Tor, or any number of other “edge-case” fast-moving transient sites.
People looking for illicit or extremist materials will just go farther underground
while
will have a disproportionate impact on competitors and benefit big companies with the resources to comply
will eventually mean “whitelist” because they can’t block everything. So they’ll only allow certain things, eventually.
This is already happening. Your project on github.com already has better SEO than yourproject.com/something.
Something we directly experienced with looking glass is all the AV companies blacklisting it because it looks like it’s doing something funny. And it was a monumental pain in the ass to get it looked at. Why? Because the type of consolidation we’re worried about for sites is already happening for programs.
In some scenarios (whitelist only, looking at you carbon black) it IS ACTUALLY highly effective. But the choice shifts from you, the user, to some sort of nanny… in this case government, or an oligopoly of companies in control, at their behest.
Dark Times.
In the first quote it says:
not the big tech platforms the government’s proposals are targeting
Which would suggest that the bill was specifically written to only apply to big tech, whereas in the second quote:
will have a disproportionate impact on competitors
Suggest that the bill was specifically written to apply to everybody.
It just looks to me like nobody actually read the bill.
As far as blocking is concerned, I messed up. I thought it was easier than it actually is.