So looks like Brave doesn't pay out to people who live in certain countries and the owner of archive.is is retaliating by blocking the browser from accessing the service. Why is Brave at fault here? Am I missing something?
The archiver's argument is that blocking everyone in a country based on the fraudulent activities of just a few people in that country is "nationalist" and just as unsupportable as racial discrimination.
One could apply that same argument to IP bans: in a network where IPs are assigned dynamically, blocking an IP based on the activities of one person assigned that address is similarly unsupportable.
Curious exactly what tools they expect an admin to use to prevent abuse, given that any tool uses some imperfect heuristic to discriminate.
So looks like Brave doesn't pay out to people who live in certain countries and the owner of archive.is is retaliating by blocking the browser from accessing the service. Why is Brave at fault here? Am I missing something?
The archiver's argument is that blocking everyone in a country based on the fraudulent activities of just a few people in that country is "nationalist" and just as unsupportable as racial discrimination.
One could apply that same argument to IP bans: in a network where IPs are assigned dynamically, blocking an IP based on the activities of one person assigned that address is similarly unsupportable.
Curious exactly what tools they expect an admin to use to prevent abuse, given that any tool uses some imperfect heuristic to discriminate.