Some time ago, we were contacted by a group fighting against online CSAM, demanding that AdGuard DNS blocks the Archive.today website. This was only the beginning of a much larger story…
I feel like more people should know about this, specially the tech-native Lemmy audience that may be using Adguard DNS.
I read through it, and it makes wrong claims, misrepresentations, and wrong conclusions.
It claims AdGuard is lying and shifting its stance and communication while misrepresenting what AdGuard said and published.
They seem to confuse the availability of non-disclosed URLs with removal of known URLs. They seem to confuse successful reports by AdGuard with other content still being available. They fail to disclose, or conveniently evade disclosing, what and how they reported, only saying their report (of unlawful content) can be requested by law enforcement or adguard. They can’t fathom AdGuard blocking the content while it is available, and then changing stance and unblocking after the reporting and consequential removal was successful.
The AdGuard post is certainly much more convincing than their “rebuttal” with logical errors and misrepresentations.
They link to the org, which now hosts a response press release (PDF) (EN after FR).
I read through it, and it makes wrong claims, misrepresentations, and wrong conclusions.
It claims AdGuard is lying and shifting its stance and communication while misrepresenting what AdGuard said and published.
They seem to confuse the availability of non-disclosed URLs with removal of known URLs. They seem to confuse successful reports by AdGuard with other content still being available. They fail to disclose, or conveniently evade disclosing, what and how they reported, only saying their report (of unlawful content) can be requested by law enforcement or adguard. They can’t fathom AdGuard blocking the content while it is available, and then changing stance and unblocking after the reporting and consequential removal was successful.
The AdGuard post is certainly much more convincing than their “rebuttal” with logical errors and misrepresentations.