Hacker News Reader

Comment by barbariangrunge | Hacker News Reader

Remember: upvoting the EFF's articles is good, but you (yes, you!) can also donate to them to help with these campaigns!

View on HN

Agreed. I have a lot of respect for the work they do.

They make some cool merch too:

https://supporters.eff.org/donate/

Can anyone speak to the quality of the shirts? I bought one many years ago at a Linux conference and the design was cool but the shirt itself feels like cardboard and sandpaper, so I never wear it.

If the shirts are Bella Canvas or American Life or something else high quality, I'd happily buy some. Tshirts are a great way to raise funds IMHO, and the EFF is doing extremely important work and needs to be funded.

The sizing charts give the shirt manufacturer: https://supporters.eff.org/t-shirt-size-chart#watcheru

Wonderful! Thank you, this is even better than I hoped for :-)

but i just gave all my money to uganda...

I had donated to the EFF in the past, but their stance[1] that CDNs/hosted services shouldn't be allowed to choose the customers they are willing work with is not only wrong, it's causes harm[2].

[1] https://www.eff.org/press/releases/international-coalition-r...

[2] https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/

I agree with you in disagreeing with EFF's stance on that issue. However, I think the good work they do in other areas makes them still a worthy place to put money, so I continue to donate to them. I definitely understand if others feel more strongly about that issue, though.

I'm happy to make up the loss with my donations.

I'm a strong supporter of EFF -- but you know what? I don't agree with every position they take. I can't think of any organization (or person) that I agree with 100%. If perfect alignment with my worldview were a prerequisite, I'd be unable to support anything or anyone.

Instead, I look at the total effect. On the whole, EFF (in my opinion) does far more good than ill, so they have my support.

You are essentially saying that we should have to ask permission from large corporations to be able to effectively run a website. For all practical purposes that means no free speech on the internet.

Freedom of speech meaning freedom from consequences has never existed, and will never exist.

Infringing on a company's freedom of association does not eliminate consequences for speech.

This is about freedom of association and the right (or lack thereof) to other people's broadcast equipment.

As a society we have held that in most cases corporations do not have freedom of association when providing vital services. e.g. your electric company has to offer you access to its services as long as you pay. This clearly needs to be extended to preserve freedom of speech on the internet. I care a lot about individual rights to free speech and very little about freedom of association for large corporations.

I'm more on the side of the EFF on this one. I don't think that infrastructure (and banking) companies should be able to deny lawful access as a default. What is able to be done in China in terms of cutting people off based on social credit scores should be terrifying and the only way around this is to expressly make certain markets open to anyone, even if you don't like them.

You know what I love about donating to EFF? They actually ask you which positions of theirs you agree with and will only use your money on those issues if you ask them to.

>hosted services shouldn't be allowed to choose the customers they are willing work with is not only wrong,

Cool. So since you do think multi-billion dollar companies should be allowed to deny services to a paying customer, I assume if they deny offering their services to gays or blacks, for instance, you are also fine with that? Like, we shouldn't force corporations to do business with anyone...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com