How can it possibly be, that an ISP, which I’m paying for gets to decid, which sites I’m allowed to have access to, and which not?

All the torrenting sites are restricted. I know, I can use VPN, and such… but I want to do it because of my privacy concerns and not because of some higher-up decided to bend over for the lobbying industry.

While on the other hand, if there’s a data breach of a legit big-corp website (looking at you FB), I’m still able to access it, they get fined with a fraction of their revenue, and I’m still left empty-handed. What a hipocracy!!

What comes next? Are they gonna restrict me from using lemmy too, bc some lobbyist doesn’t like the fact that it’s a decentralized system which they have no control over?

Rant, over!

I didn’t even know that my router was using my ISPs DNS, and that I can just ditch it, even though I’m running AdGuard (selfhosted)

  • nephs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They already do restrict you from using lemmy by charging full Internet price for it, and allowing special free data plans for Facebook.

    Net neutrality matters.

  • XTornado@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No offense but if they can do that you have to blame your government not the ISP… as those are the ones allowing this to happen.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The government are the ones telling the ISPs to do it, not just allowing it.

      • XTornado@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In some cases yes, but I would say that is allowing it too… Idk… I don’t see the need to nitpick but yeah.

        • RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only choice he have here are stupid people and tech illiterate ones. Not a lot we can do except face palm at the ridiculously stupid solutions they come up with.

      • XTornado@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah… But if there were laws that prohibited it they couldn’t do it that is my point.

    • nephs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As if the government wasn’t controlled by probate lobbyists.

      Blame goes to private interests being allowed to influence public decision makers, in my opinion. Infrastructure companies should not be for-profit companies.

    • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or the FCC to make internet a utility and strip their ability to restrict access, throttle speeds, or be bias in any way. Always use a VPN. Getting Mullvad on my next paycheck.

  • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Censorship is wrong. Every rational, adult human being should have the fundamental right to their autonomy, without third party intervention, with full awareness of the laws that apply to them.

    If they decide to abuse that freedom and awareness by accessing illegal content (even CSAM), then they are taking the risk of being discovered, prosecuted, and punished accordingly. And, in many cases (like CSAM), I hope they are caught and punished.

    Regardless of the outcome, it still starts with the freedom for that individual to make that decision for themselves.

    • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s part of the price of freedom. Tor is a browser that makes it hard to be tracked down, so people use it to facilitate illegal activities. Crypto is a currency that makes it hard to be tracked down, so the same occurs. While most of us use and support these services for legal activities, just to be free from corporate and government oppression, there will always be people who use them to be from legal consequences.

      Sadly, making it easier to find people who do things like post CSAM in turn makes it easier to find people who want to watch Porn without supplying a government ID. (Still can’t believe my state of Virginia passed that law.)

      • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        people who want to watch Porn without supplying a government ID

        Yeah, and this is where the part of my comment that discussed “laws that apply” is nuanced. If the laws that apply are designed to abridge people’s autonomy, and right to privacy, then that’s an unjust law.

        • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No disagreement here, just unsure if there will ever be a way to grant freedom to the common man without enabling unsavory actors as well.

          • hardcoreufo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Unsavory actors will find ways around any restriction put in their way. So these restrictions only serve to remove freedoms from the rest of us not commiting unsavory acts.

          • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, sadly there isn’t. I don’t envy lawmakers - there’s a knife edge they have to walk, between enabling them to catch the bad guys, but without infringing on the rights of the innocent.

    • yukichigai@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Holy hell that sounds cursed. How obnoxious are they? Can you share a screenshot?

      Next time I’m cursing Spectrum I’ll remind myself that they aren’t doing that at least.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Before Wikipedia default to https, I remember being surprised seeing ads in a Wikipedia page. I was so disappointed that Wikipedia has stoop so low before eventually realizing my cursed ISP was the real culprit.

        • yukichigai@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          As your typical American I can only read English, what do those “news” ads say, roughly? Tinfoil hat nuttery? Increase your Pen-One-Five size?

          Either way that’s still pretty bad. And there are video popups? Jeez. I’m guessing you either don’t have much choice in ISPs or the other options are even worse somehow. My sympathies. Also thanks for sharing.

          • corrupts_absolutely@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            i have an ad blocker on my desktop so i never see them. as far as i know the adverts are particular to this isp and the others dont do that, but all of them block more or less the same amount of websites. this is actually one of the largest providers in the country too.
            in terms of content of those ads they are largely the government line about the ukraine conflict and some other affairs. i dont think ive seen the typical 2010s pop culture bait ads. the videos tend to be some store advertisements like leroy merlin.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Shenanigan like this was one of the main driving force to push website operators to use https by default. The other driving forces are the computational cost of serving https got significantly cheaper thanks to modern CPU with accelerated cryptography instructions support, and letsencrypt providing free TLS certificate to everyone.

    • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Never saw it on a website but back when I just plugged things in and used it the one at the time liked to swipe bad DNS requests and use it to push an ad page rather than a name not resolved.

      • yukichigai@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        OpenDNS used to do that. Caused a lot of unexpected problems, enough that I stopped using it entirely. I’m still hesitant to even though they’ve stopped doing it.

  • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah this is government level. They tell the ISPs what to block and they do what’s ordered. ISPs want your money. All the legal crap they have to do is part of business.

    • JewGoblin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      seems like a violation of our first amendment, it’s none of the government business what site or what we can access on the net

  • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Switch over to an ISP that doesn’t do that. Leave record with your country’s customer protection service and/or open press / open culture office that’s why you did it. There. Done.

    • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lots of people come have a choice in who their ISP is. I don’t. For my area, there’s one provider. If I want to change that, I have to move.

      • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A fair point.

        Still, in this case you should direct your issue to your country’s consumer protection and culture protection services. Since they are essentially charging you for an incomplete service.

        Of course, there’s other measures that one can take by themself to route around the issue, such as using a VPN. But they don’t deal with the real issue at hand that is what the thread title says: that the ISP is doing something that it shoudn’t.

  • z00s@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well you can buy a car but the gov’t will still make you drive on the correct side of the road.

  • CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know where you’re from and therefore don’t know what laws affect you but unless the ISP is involved in the media game (i.e HBO & AT&T) they don’t care about restricting access. In fact, they’re against it in most scenarios because if a competitor that doesn’t restrict access to piracy related websites exists, that competitor is likely to siphon customers from ISPs who impose restrictions.

    On top of that, most ISPs do the absolute bare minimum to restrict your access so that you can bypass it easily, the most common being the modification of DNS records which you can easily bypass by changing your resolver.

    TL:DR blame your lawmakers not your isp