[nubinetwork]

Quad9 already blocks content they don't like... they just call them threat feeds.

Edit: not that that's a bad thing, but it's disingenuous to say you're for free speech, and then block some websites and cry when you have to block others.

Never half ass two things, whole ass one thing.

[waboremo]

There is a substantial difference between being forced to block some sites, and choosing to block some. You know this, it's not disingenuous in the slightest.

Especially when this sets precedent and others will have to follow suit. I can choose not to use Quad9 if I don't like who they choose to block/what filters they use. That stops being a possibility when all DNS providers are forced to block anything that could be viewed as copyright infringement.

[nubinetwork]

> That stops being a possibility when all DNS providers are forced to block anything that could be viewed as copyright infringement.

That already exists today with ISPs. Don't like it? Run your own internal resolver pointed at the root servers.

[waboremo]

It sure does, and many dislike it ever happened which is why they're also trying to fight this. Surely you understand precedent.

[torified]

>Run your own internal resolver pointed at the root servers.

Any tutorials on how to do this?

[handsclean]

Wanting yourself, not others, to decide what you say is not disingenuous at all, that’s what free speech is.

I do think there’s a problem with economic and government pressure causing individual speech decisions to coalesce into emergent extralegal censorship, but surely just revoking free speech isn’t the way to fix that.