I notice foreign propaganda has sneaked in there. It wouldn't have been there 20 years ago. Then defending site blocking with the need to stop foreign propaganda would be seen as a huge self-goal.
People might even have assumed it was sarcastic, and that you didn't actually want site blocking, if you defended it that way.
I think people have forgotten how extreme that position used to be.
(Money laundering and anything involving payment and debts are also independent of site blocking - it's neither sufficient or necessary to block sites to do that.
I think you’re actually just incredibly unfamiliar with history to be honest and might be mixing up a Reagan quote about border control and extrapolating that into something very different.
Even in incredibly recent times what do you think the position was regarding the monthly magazine Al-Qaeda published was? It certainly wasn’t the “marketplace of ideas” I’ll tell you that much.
No Reagan quote here, I don't know what you're talking about.
I wasn't suggesting that authoritarians hadn't suggested (or succeeded at) suppressing "foreign propaganda" in the past, but then people still knew they were authoritarians, if they found out. You imagine you're not.
Just checking a real basic assumption here. Is there a scenario in your mind where a government says that legally its citizens can not consume certain material that ISN’T authoritarian? Because I don’t even know where to start with a premise like that to be honest with you.
People might even have assumed it was sarcastic, and that you didn't actually want site blocking, if you defended it that way.
I think people have forgotten how extreme that position used to be.
(Money laundering and anything involving payment and debts are also independent of site blocking - it's neither sufficient or necessary to block sites to do that.