[JoshTriplett]

Arrest can only happen when someone is subject to a jurisdiction (or somewhere with an extradition treaty), which is an added layer of protection. And it's a heavier tool, which means it gets used in fewer and more serious cases.

Blocking can shape a whole society.

Also, arrest is the appropriate tool to stop something bad from happening, rather than just hiding it.

(And to be clear, this is all about things that a government is restricting, which should be few and far between. Private sites can block whatever users they wish.)

[stuartjohnson12]

Exactly, which mitigates abuse only to the same degree that it mitigates your own response to the solution to child pornography. Either the necessary custody chains needed to enforce laws overseas exist or they don't, you can't have it both ways.

It is a heavier tool, but it's also a more severe tool, I'm not sure I understand this objection.

Blocks and arrests both serve to reduce the occurrence of bad things because bad things require delivery and arrests take time and are sometimes not possible. Disbanding the drug cartels in Brazil and Mexico would be the best solution to the flow of drugs into the U.S, but that's hard and even at best will take a long time, so in the meantime countries settle for trying to stop drugs at the border instead. The response to overseas distribution of child pornography should be similar.

[JoshTriplett]

My objection is precisely that the important thing is to stop abuse, and that blocking just hides something rather than tracking down and stopping the abuse.

(To be clear, I do also think it's important to go track down the sites hosting such content and take down the sites. But at the source, not blocking at the border, which is a capability that shouldn't exist.)

Also, at the risk of unrelated political commentary:

> Disbanding the drug cartels in Brazil and Mexico would be the best solution to the flow of drugs into the U.S,

Legalization would be the best solution to the association between drugs and organized crime.

[stuartjohnson12]

> My objection is precisely that the important thing is to stop abuse, and that blocking just hides something rather than tracking down and stopping the abuse. (To be clear, I do also think it's important to go track down the sites hosting such content and take down the sites. But at the source, not blocking at the border, which is a capability that shouldn't exist.)

I don't think you've justified that objection any other way than saying "stopping it at the source would be better" (which is unambiguously agreeable).

Teaching a man to fish is obviously better than just giving him a fish, but if tuition is not possible due to resource constraints, a fish distribution system isn't a terrible idea.

[JoshTriplett]

I am stating the position that the ability for governments to block part of the Internet rather than it being all or nothing is a net negative for the world.