654

The French government is considering a law that would require web browsers – like Mozilla's Firefox – to block websites chosen by the government.

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Chriszz@lemmy.world 82 points 1 year ago

Damn what is happening in France

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

A couple of idiots are failing to learn from history, heads are preparing to roll. Just a guess. "Cracking down" on the French has never really worked.

[-] merde@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

if they had the CRS and teargas back then, France would still be a kingdom.

don't worry, no heads will roll

[-] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

The government is tired of people rightfully complaining and so is trying to build a cage around their citizenry to make them compliant. The rich of France are wanting it to be more like America so they can literally suck every penny out of the citizenry

[-] merde@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

what a shame for France that the richest man in the world is a Frenchman now

[-] krayj@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago

How are they going to stop people from downloading the source and modifying it and building versions of the browser that do not comply with that bullshit? Are they going to block French citizens from accessing the Firefox open source project entirely?

[-] dansity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Laws are usually made by people far detached from what they are ruling on. In short: They have no idea. Although majority of the planet uses chromium based browsers and once this is implemented in chromium its kinda decided.

[-] Teppic@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

Except at it's core chromium is open source, and I can't see the FOSS community embracing the idea. The French also wouldn't be able to fully limit access to unrestricted browsers.

It's an all round dumb idea. Much easier and more effective to tell ISPs to do the blocking.

[-] hyperspace@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Sure, Chromium is open source, but let's not pretend that the community has any say over Chromium's direction. Google is making the decisions, we're just allowed to watch

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think you understand what open source means.

[-] hyperspace@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I think I do. The source is open, but that doesn't mean that the community decides what happens with Chromium. The comment I was replying to said that the FOSS community would not embrace Google's decision. I say that Google does not care about you. What are you gonna do about it, short of forking Chromium and going your own way, or maybe patching out their changes? Most people will stay on the unmodified Chromium

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago

If I maintain a piece of software and everyone decides they'd rather use my version than develop their own, does that mean I control it, or does it just mean everyone is happy enough with my work that they'd rather use mine than do it themselves?

I say that Google does not care about you.

I don't see how that's relevant.

What are you gonna do about it, short of forking Chromium and going your own way, or maybe patching out their changes?

I dunno, maybe use of the many other Chromium-based browsers from groups that are already maintaining their own forks? Or use another browser entirely? I do both, actually.

[-] merde@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

what I don't get is, they already do this through ISPs. Unless people use tor, they can't see a site that's blocked by their ISP.

so, why 🤷

[-] Teppic@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

And the chromium open source project while they are at it...

[-] ahal@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I think at that point it ceases to be Firefox. I guess the government could go after whoever is distributing the modified browser.

[-] EricHill78@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

What happened to parental responsibility?

[-] Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

  • Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
  • Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge's approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
  • More ID checking to "protect minor"

And if you want details :

The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

  • preventing children to access porn
  • punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
  • punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
  • preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
  • regulating the market of cloud storage providers
  • regulating gambling and real-money video games
  • preventing phishing

They have different actions at their disposal :

  • Fines for website admins who do not comply
  • Forcing websites to check people's identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
  • Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
  • Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
  • Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
  • Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
  • Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
  • It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like "Pirating contents harms artistic creation" (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
  • It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
  • Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.

[-] lando55@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

I'm trying to reframe this in a way that will help me and others better understand; are the measures being proposed in this bill analogous to forcing auto manufacturers to build a car that won't let you drive down certain streets?

[-] hoodatninja@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

That’s not a bad example. But my new one I’m testing is to say a TV that won’t let you browse channels you pay for.

[-] ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

What fresh new hell is this?

[-] gabriele97@lemmy.g97.top 11 points 1 year ago

Signed. It makes absolutely no sense

[-] MagneticFusion@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

Can we sign even if we are not French citizens?

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Looks like you can, and it does technically effect everyone... Slippery slopes and what not, or people going "Hey France did this, let's do it here."

[-] gigachad@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Well you can select any country while signing, so I would say yes. If France cares about that it another question.

[-] TheMadnessKing@lemdro.id 9 points 1 year ago

IMO this even bigger BS that govts are pulling. They are attacking the entire stack: DNS, ISP & now f* browsers.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

And it's not just France. The US has some bills that are full of fuckery.

I would not be surprised to learn other countries are at this same tomfoolery.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The US is doing WHAT?!?!

[-] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago
[-] Jumper775@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Does Mozilla really think their petitions do anything?

[-] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Maybe it doesn't do anything, but not the reason to not do something.

[-] 7777AKA@lemm.ee -4 points 1 year ago

Is Brave affected by this?

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

If brave is a browser, then yes.

[-] 7777AKA@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
654 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

59670 readers
2568 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS