I see a silent downvote. Wonder what that’s about.

I guess I don’t know what was non-open to start with. Were registrations closed? I don’t recall a restriction on accessing the site. But I see that community creation is still blocked.

Now is our chance to post whatever the fuck we want to slrpnk.net communities from non-slrpnk instances, and the mods cannot stop us.

Woohoo! It’s a censorship-free free-for-all!

Are bookstores oppressive because they don’t have every book?

They are oppressive if they arbitrarily deny access to the books they already have to a demographic of people. E.g., you have brown skin, and because a shoplifter had brown skin they decide to block all people in that demographic. Of course collective punishment is oppressive. Anubis is not creating a failure to have information. It’s being used to deny access to information the service already has.

Do you not still have access through other means?

I personally do not. Clearnet does not work on my system. But this is irrelevant. Tor supports my right to privacy and autonomy, and it is consistent with my values and ethical lifestyle. I actually find it unethical to use clearnet needlessly, for a number of reasons, one of which is to do our duty to give strength in numbers to activists and the oppressed. And to give them cover traffic. I also morally oppose advertising and thus object to sharing data with surveillance advertisers.

And your missing the point of your not entitled to it either. Why does a website HAVE to cater yo how you wish to access? Because the website still has every right to tell you to kick sand. A bookstore can ban you for wearing a backpack. This is the society we live in.

For the /third/ time, I already agreed there is no entitlement. The site can grant access to whoever the fuck it wants. And we have the right to express criticism. This is still irrelevant to the thesis of incompetent access controls, as it was the previous times you tried to recycle a this dead strawman of an argument. I never said admins don’t have a right to implement infosec countermeasures in a foolish manner with reckless results. It’s their right. This was not contested by anyone in this thread.

Is it that internal belief system I keep talking about?

You’re talking about it, yet the doublespeak remains irrelevant.

I have no idea what the UDHR is.

Not surprised. Universal declaration of human rights.

Do you feel opreased by a book?

Of course I would feel oppressed when blocked from access to a book, amid your attempt to arguing the contrary by reducing it to an object /being/ a thought. Being blocked from access to books is similar to being blocked from information generally (i.e. the Internet, which is where books now exist).

Neither is your browser.

Okay, but you’re still missing the relationship between objects and the practice of one’s cognitive liberty facilitated those objects. It’s the oppression of cognitive liberty that is the problem. The objects involved are just working for your doublespeak to conflate and trivialize the oppression of a demographic of people.

If its a choice it should be easy.

If a choice is inherently easy, in your view, then you are misusing the term. Of course the reality is some choices are easier and some are not.

Thats great, but not what I was talking about. I’m talking about internal belief systems.

The UDHR is not.

Your browser is not an internal belief system.

This is like saying a book is not an “internal belief system”. Yet the bible and koran are books.

Your high-heels is not “an internal belief system”. Nor is a hajab. Does this mean you can’t cite oppression when forced to dress a certain way?

And again, browsers are irrelevant without the transparency of knowing the oppressor’s blocking criteria. They are more likely suppressing people on the basis of their IP address, not browser. But we can only guess because they do not express which demographics they are oppressing. The oppressed knows they are in the oppressed group, but they don’t know how they got there.

You don’t choose faith, its found to be you. You find your faith and community.

Nonsense. Religion is a choice in my part of the world. There may be regions where it is imposed, but that’s irrelevent to the demonstration of your foolish stance that it’s okay to oppress demographics of those who made a choice.

We are also free to change our religion, or even join another religion in parallel, where I am.

Is a browser so important to you that you can’t live without it?

This is becoming increasingly so, as governments impose using a browser to obtain public service. (and yes, I am in a country that is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which means public service is a right).

Nonetheless, a “living without it” test does not exist in this context. The UDHR does not have such criteria for our right to autonomy. Rightfully so. Women in France got their right to abortion under the right to autonomy. Imagine if they had to prove being unable to live without that right in order to have it. That criteria can fuck right off because we have higher standards than mere survival.

Is a browser part of your internal definition of you?

This is double speak. My choice of browser is a reflection of my ethical values. Some browsers are more closely aligned with my philosophical view than others.

None of those are choices for faith, or other protected classes.

Nonsense. The UDHR does not separate religion from freedom of thought. It’s written in the same article. Would do you some good to read it.

I can’t choose a woman, you can choose a browser. Its really that simple.

No, it’s not. This is as good as telling someone oppressed for their religion: “you chose your religion -- you don’t have to be muslim if you don’t like being oppressed -- become christian”. Of course, this requires you to neglect freedom of autonomy, freedom of thought and conscious, freedom to practice one’s values and live by a philosophy. Choice is irrelevent when the choice is a rightfully protected choice.

(edit) And no, I cannot “choose another browser” when the oppressor does not even disclose which browser they are not blocking. Choice implies transparency.

I’m not the one being an asshole here buddy

Of course you are. You’re the one supporting oppression. Collective punishment and collateral damage is a dick move. Stop being a dick. You cannot support collective punishment and marginalization of a demographic of people without being an asshole. It’s impossible.

That could be a plausible reason for opacity if it were true, but I don’t think it’s true because blocking Tor (for example) is trivially discovered and the non-transparency only frustrates legit users. The opacity of an anti-tor policy has no effect on adversaries. Yet a vast majority of tor-hostile sites are sloppy about informing legit users.

Infosec that relies on secrecy is already out on a limb in despiration. And in this situation, the collateral damage to friendlies based on arbitrary factors creates a heightened need to inform the legit users. An AI scraper bot is not going to be coded to know where to look for such announcements because that’s actually more effort for the attacker than manual trial and error. Note as well we are talking about relatively unsophisticated adversaries considering they were too lazy to code the user-agent header to dynamically blend better in the first place. (They will fix that in the future).

Nonetheless, your point cannot be disregarded because those who take the crude approach of blocking on the basis of UA string are likely not thinking all this through. Perhaps some have consciously made the decision to not inform the legit users, but considering the widespread pattern of not informing users, it’s sloppy disregard for the most part.

I suppose they would file an insurance claim and not give a fuck. It’s no money out of the pocket of the bean counter who decides infosec costs more than it saves. OTOH, hopefully insurance companies would react by charging a higher premium to grocers who have cloud-controllable refrigeration and no proper infosec. And then maybe /that/ would turn this around.