Isn't the problem of censorship much more than technical? I mean, censorship doesn't seem like something everybody agrees is bad. Free speech is not absolute at all : there is a demand to regulate, prohibit and prosecute for instance pornography, defamation, so-called "hate speech", "disinformation" and so-on.
Whether we agree with these policies or not, the fact remains that these impediments to free speech can be seen as a form of censorship. At the end of the day, I think what makes censorship acceptable is very much subjective, and tied to political beliefs. I can't help noticing for instance that on this github page, there are a few flags illustrating "censoring regimes", and the Russian one is there, but not the European Union one, even though the European Council blocked RT and Sputnik throughout the whole EU after the Russian special military operations in Ukraine. This blocking, regardless of what one can think of its legitimacy, is hard not to consider as censorship. If it's not, how is it called then?
This. A lot anti-censorship technology assumes a censored space surrounded by a non-censored space. However, we should we thinking about different areas with different blocks, and therefore bi-directional circumvention. Show BBC to Russia, and Russia Today to EU.
Free speech is not absolute. Every (almost every?) country have laws against child porn. Does that mean every country is violating humans rights by banning it?
Thanks for reductio ad absurdum baiting. And yes, these "laws" are clearly an abuse. Most of them ends up banning virtually any drawings because its impossible to assert if particular manga really depicts non-minor. Funny thing to see where burden of proof is in this particular case. Even more funny what its been almost 1.5ky after Justinian's statute.
But anyway... Why should I give up my freedoms just because of someone's parenting failures? Irresponsible parents are putting their children in danger, not the ABSOLUTE freedom of speech. Which isn't a subject of quid pro quo, really. And even not because my libertarian views on this matter, but because it simply doesn't work otherwise.
Some child porn laws may be an abuse, but that doesn't mean all child porn laws are.
The exact example I mention doesn't matter. I am just saying free speech absolutism doesn't make sense unless you are anarchist. Free speech doesn't include hiring a hit man, treason, libel, slander, etc.
If you are actually in support of no regulation on speech then do you actually support removing the laws I mentioned above? You don't think somebody hiring a hitman to kill you or a loved one should be punishable?
Censorship anywhere is bad. Especially when it is purely for political reasons.
Most European nations have very strict Holocaust denial laws. And as much as I personally think people who deny the Holocaust happened are idiots, that's clearly "thoughtcrime" type of censorship. What someone thinks or believes about history is none of the government's (or anyone else's) business.
Whether we agree with these policies or not, the fact remains that these impediments to free speech can be seen as a form of censorship. At the end of the day, I think what makes censorship acceptable is very much subjective, and tied to political beliefs. I can't help noticing for instance that on this github page, there are a few flags illustrating "censoring regimes", and the Russian one is there, but not the European Union one, even though the European Council blocked RT and Sputnik throughout the whole EU after the Russian special military operations in Ukraine. This blocking, regardless of what one can think of its legitimacy, is hard not to consider as censorship. If it's not, how is it called then?