On 22/07/2025, 10:21, "Vittorio Bertola" <[email protected]> wrote:
I really find the insistence on the word "censorship" unhelpful. At least in my culture, it is a morally loaded word with a negative attachment which is out of place both in a technical discussion and as a tag for vendors that are just trying to provide malware blocking and parental controls, according to market demands and applicable regulation. It is fine if we want to include policy considerations against the misuse of the protocol for political censorship, but it is IMHO inappropriate to brand the entire mechanism as if censorship was its only or main use case. [JM] I find using the term “network policy” more helpful. If a provider must conform to any governmental policy they are not performing censorship, the government is, and different people/countries have different ideas of what is censorship e.g. copyright vs. CSAM blocking. If it is the operator’s policy to block, for instance disrupting malware, it is also network policy, possibly based on a contract with the customer. Jim Mozley
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
