• Opafi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    No, it’s not. It’s just not. The important question is how the law is written. Wild guess: they won’t target “browsers”. They’ll target “means to display remote content” or some shit to not have people rename browsers to surfers to evade that law. And depending on how generic they’ll make it sound, it’ll be a pain for not only every piece of software but maybe also stuff like digital binoculars or phone sex companies or whatever.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      They won’t do that because they are stupid ignorant idiots. They don’t make a law like that with a purpose in mind, they are filling an excel sheet.

      • ISOmorph@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        This is dangerously wrong. This is a classic foot-in-the-door law. They test the waters with something nobody can argue against, like piracy, child porn, terrorism. Then the censoring gets broader and broader until you can’t access left-wing stuff anymore because it’s anti-governmental. There is a very specific, very dangerous purpose in mind.