[elisbce]

Simple. Take a look at the dark net. Anything that exists there but not on the clear net is censored. e.g. Pro-nazi, anti-humanity, hatred, drugs, CSAM, extreme criminal information is censored from the clear web. Absolute freedom gives you absolute chaos. It is just a matter of degree of "freedom".

[genewitch]

facebook is "dark web"[0], everything in my gmail folders is "dark web", anything that john q. public can't see on the internet is literally "dark web"/"dark net" - that is, greater than 90% of all content behind a URI/URL is "dark" - unsearchable.

That the media and politicians use it as a negative connotation speaks volumes. "Dark whatever" != illegal content.

[0] facebook by virtue of their php lineage and gatekeeping have made (and kept) most of the content behind their own walls; unsearchable on any search engine - ironically, this includes their own. contrast this to something like reddit or stackexchange, which will gladly show up in search results.

[Felk]

I believe you are confusing dark net with deep net

[genewitch]

Evidently so, although one is a subset of the other. I think saying "it requires special software or authentication" merely adds to the confusion, here.

For example, a site may require tor, or it may require a VPN connection to the same network the site lives on - is there a functional difference? And gating content behind authentication would be a good definition for "deep web" too.

However i can see the appeal of having "dark web" or "dark net" signify illicit things, but we also have "dark fiber", so something will have to give.

[TeeMassive]

All of which existed prior to the Dark Net. What allows unwanted marginals to have a digital presence is also what allows the dissents of today and tomorrow to exist.

[tdhz77]

Free speech is hardly the only value in a democratic state.

The First Amendment protected Internet intermediaries from obligations to censor, while at the same time rebuffing efforts to impose stricter privacy obligations on Internet enterprises. The First Amendment thus created the business model of new media, permitting it to publish vast amounts of speech but not be held liable for that speech, while at the same time earning income through advertising based on personal profiling. For the first time, individuals could now speak to the nation—through YouTube, Twitter.. profiting from lies is now a viable economic model. It’s a threat to democracy and undoubtedly will be its undoing unless we censor.

[TeeMassive]

> Free speech is hardly the only value in a democratic state.

You're making a straw man argument, I never said it was the only value. Still, a democratic state can't function without free discourse.

> The First Amendment protected Internet intermediaries from obligations to censor

Not exactly. While they would not be forced by the State, people could still sue them for the content. This is why section 230 exists which allows providers not to be liable for content posted on their platform provided they do not select content unless they do it under the Good Samaritan clause (offensive content, criminal content, etc.).

> while at the same time rebuffing efforts to impose stricter privacy obligations on Internet enterprises

Unauthorized publishing of private information was never 1st amendment protected speech, what are you talking about?

> The First Amendment thus created the business model of new media, permitting it to publish vast amounts of speech but not be held liable for that speech

Again, see section 230.

> while at the same time earning income through advertising based on personal profiling

which again has nothing to do with the 1st.

> For the first time, individuals could now speak to the nation—through YouTube, Twitter.. profiting from lies is now a viable economic model.

Snake oil merchants existed way back and the democracies thrived all the same. Magazines, journals, public discourse, universities, books... all existed way back. Really, you should read old magazines from the 1920s. I personally have one from 20s where Nicolas Tesla made some outrageous claims complete with ads that sell complete BS. Making a profit out of BS is nothing new.

> It’s a threat to democracy and undoubtedly will be its undoing unless we censor.

This reads like a the beginning of a dystopian movie. A least the cat is out of the bag I guess.

The problem is, the people with that kind of power will use that same power to stay in power. This always happen; even if they are elected. Censorship never led to a better society.

Also who the hell is "we"?

[seanw444]

At the end of the day, censorship requires sole trust, and sole trust breeds corruption. Every. Single. Time. This hasn't, and will not change. But I don't think that's a good enough argument for censorship and big-state advocates, even though it really should be.