It would be nice if Mozilla would add more context around it.
That said, it’s freaking exhausting how these dumb actions keep being taken by governments all over the world.
It seems like every month there’s some new crap going on
That said, it’s freaking exhausting how these dumb actions keep being taken by governments all over the world.
It seems like every month there’s some new crap going on
Why would this ever be done on a browser level? Any nation with internet censoring intentions can already do this by blocking it on an ISP level.
The governments cannot go and forbid browsers to do that if they don't have the law to back it.
Because government says so. Its signaling/actionism for political/power purposes.
Repressive government's don't do their blocking at the browser level because it is completely ineffective. Anyone who wants to access the forbidden websites will be able to do so anyway.
What could work is a local proxy server that translates the host name in the request.
It must MITM the https requests though.
Only if you configured it that way. Most http servers have a "default" website which they will happly serve from if the Host header has no match. I expect these sites will continue to work just fine in firefox using the host file hack or via alternative DNS domains.
Unless they just want a foot-in-the-door law to make certain browsers illegal (to then expand on it later), blocking content at the terminal is not the way to do it. So so many ways to get around it.
The French government censors websites by forcing ISPs to delist stuff from their DNS servers. It's trivial to bypass simply by setting alternative DNS providers like Cloudflare.
Of course, authortiarians will always pretend there's some mistake or some good intention, once they're exposed, and attack people with labels, when criticism is used against their policies.
Comparing stuff to the great firewall of china is ridiculous. It's like saying things are ok with police in the US because they're not north Korea.
Why do I have strong vibes that a better way of phrasing this is "a percentage of the people who thinks the fr gov's been acting against national interest (likely the people who think /their/ interest aligns with the national interest quite closely) knows it."
I mean, I don't know France and I'm no friend with "the government" and I oppose turning browsers into anything they are not supposed to be, but that "the government" can go against "national interest" for 20 year and "the people" know it is such a trite story that... uuuuugh. In short, you added no context at all.
Then don't try to put discredit to the saying of an insider. GP is 100% right. I've been back after about ~5 years living abroad and the country is in an astonishing decline on every plan (educational, moral, economical, political, diplomatic, security, judicial, medical, etc. the list goes one). And most of it is stemming from the policies enforced in the last decades.
The GP in question is a generic ramble about distaste for current government. You can apply that for each and every country - there's not one where citizens are happy with their leaders. And if this flies for 'insider knowledge' in France you really are f**d and, its not because of the government.
For the last 4 presidents and their ~15 governments (20 years), both "left" and "right".
But I agree said rambling remains quite generic nonetheless.
I was actually trying to show it does have some merit by pointing out that, despite being generic, said ramble targets all the governments we’ve had over the last 20 years, and thus shouldn’t be so easily dismissed.
The conclusion was me playing nice by finding some common ground with the person I was replying to.
That’s all.
That's what makes it sound like noise. If you took "france" out of the sentence I wouldn't be able to tell which country this is talking about. US, Canada, UK, China, Japan? It's like the fortune reading of government criticism.
I'm sure you perceive the decline, and you were so kind to mention in which fields. Let's take an example, i.e. economy and security. Immigration and illegal immigrants are often related to immigration, in public discourse. I'm sure the government in the last 20 years has done something about it (despite me not knowing France): either it tried to tighten it, or to make it happen more smoothly, or to integrate the immgrants, or to convince them to go back, or...
Now, I'm also pretty confident there's a sizable percentage of people that think that immigration is not a security problem nor an economic problem, but it's casted as such by the right; all these measures were a waste of time and money, which could have been used to improve other stuff in the public interest.
There's a decent amount of people that believe immigration should be helped and increased, and the efforts in controlling it have been wrong, and bad, and against the public interest.
There's people, likely on the right, thinking that there's way too many immigrants, and the previous government didn't do enough to address this; it is in the national interest to reduce immigrants, make sure they are all working, but without hijacking the possibilities for French citizens.
Did I guess correctly? Who is The People, and what is the correct National Interest now? Does it by any chance align with your views on immigration (which might or might not align with those of the OP, btw - we can't say much about those since there was no content)?
Which one is better? Because I don't see one.
The only recently released the Constitutional Council’s archives, 25 years later, and it’s been quite enlightening.
Our Supreme Court "equivalent" basically approved, enabled, contributed to and hid away blatant fraud, then lied about it for years, all under the guise of avoiding "political consequences".
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/politique/affaire/affaire-karach...
Don’t worry, we’ll be upset, we love getting upset, but we have to feel like we figured it out. Americans just prefer to bring our outrage from home, rather than have it supplied for us when we get there.
It's slightly more worrisome that the law doesn't include any privacy protection measures, but the GDPR still applies and whoever runs the checking service has to comply with it since the browsing history is personal data.
It’s not about being effective, it’s about making things illegal. It’s trivially easy to break the speed limit, but that doesn’t stop local police using it to collect millions of dollars of fines every year