An article in Vice caught my attention this morning. The title of the article is “Censorship and the Future of the Internet According to Yasmin Green.” In it she’s asked about uProxy, a tool that people can use to circumvent firewalls in countries who’ve imposed internet bans on users.
Can you tell me about uProxy?
It’s one of the projects we’ve been developing as part of our overall goal to end repressive censorship. It is essentially a tunnel built through national firewalls—the invisible borders that governments erect—so that people in those countries can have access to an open internet. There are proxies that exist already, but uProxy has special characteristics: It’s an open-source project, which means anyone in the world can contribute code, and it’s peer-to-peer, meaning you get your access to a free and open internet directly from someone you know, like a friend or family member, which means it’s trusted. It is decentralized, so it doesn’t show up on anyone’s radar. It’s about really giving people access to the free and open internet with just a few clicks.
That all sounds well and good, but is that what she was talking about when she said:
“The phenomenon of organized and politically motivated harassment ruins lives and stifles speech all around the world, and it is poorly understood. As the SXSW OHS community explores opportunities for technology to address intimidation online, I hope that our outlook remains truly global.” Read more…
Oh, o.k., no she wasn’t. She was talking about “other” people:
Did you have a specific population in mind?
We want to build the tools that we can to help realize an internet without borders. We have this situation where three billion people are using the internet today, and the next three billion coming online are not going to be in the same environment—they aren’t going to be in Palo Alto or Chelsea Market. They are going to be in places where conflict is rising and repression is really severe. So our mandate is to think about how you would develop products when you are thinking about the next three billion coming online, because their world is going to be ridden with conflict and oppression in the physical world, but those threats that are going to manifest online as well. We have the privilege at Jigsaw of taking this unique perspective on product development.
Got it. Seems to me she’s more interested in allowing people access to the internet who support her and her employers liberal censorship of those they disagree with. Unless of course her Online Harassment Summit words were just pissing in the wind.
And then she adds:
What is the next big challenge facing internet freedom?
Recognizing that the internet is a fundamental human right, access to information is a fundamental human right, and that everyone in the world deserves to have that right. And we need to bring it to them. Read more…
The internet along with access to information is a fundamental human right. Sounds good! But what about all that bloviating about finding ways to censor people deemed harassers and abusers by people and/or entities likes her bosses at Google, Facebook, Twitter, and basically all of social media?
Let me get this straight: A woman who spoke at an “Online Harassment Summit” where they cried sjw tears on how “the internet … also enables new mechanisms for intimidation and censorship… and groups may use the Internet not only to spread propaganda but to intimidate and even to shut down the other side.”, who spoke out against what she considers online harassment and abuse in an article she penned on the Daily Beast, who works for a Google company, is bemoaning internet censorship in oppressive countries?
Imagine if online platforms had the capacity to effectively moderate comment threads and message boards, so threatening and harassing comments were filtered long before they reach their intended target. Imagine if victims of online harassment had as many legal recourses as victims of physical harassment. There really isn’t a digital equivalent of a restraining order. Imagine the benefits of creating spaces online for thoughtful discourse where people didn’t have to fear the consequences of eliciting the wrath of online mobs. Read more…
So she doesn’t want censorship unless it’s against people who’s ideas are in opposition to her’s and her buddies. Right, thanks, good to know.