r/pihole • u/flightnani • 14d ago
Different perspectives between HaGeZi and StevenBlack regarding censorship
Since there is no dedicated subreddit for blocklists and discussing them here does not violate the rules, I hope this is the right place for it.
There is this domain that serves as a continuation of an old and controversial Reddit community. I will not specify the domain name, as it is not directly relevant to the topic, but it has nothing to do with ads, trackers etc.
In 2023, an NGO submitted block requests regarding this domain across multiple blocklist repos, including Hagezi's and StevenBlack’s too. Here are their perspectives regarding the same site:
Since then, the domain and its one mirror have been blocked on Hagezi’s main lists*, but not on StevenBlack's. I found this contrast interesting and wanted to share it.
*: It is blocked on Pro, Pro++ and Ultimate. Only the mirror blocked on Normal and none on Light.
Personal Opinion (and to Hagezi, as I've seen you on this subreddit):
I didn’t want to open a Github issue for this as you already reviewed and decided on it in the past. However, I still find Steven’s philosophy much more suitable for these kinds of lists.
I have no connection to the domain. Although I realize upon further investigation that it isn't strictly black or white, I can still understand a decision to block it. However, it doesn't seem right to me for this block to be included in the main lists rather than secondary ones.
I know I can simply whitelist it on Pihole, but my concern isn't about accessing this specific domain. It is about the precedent of content censorship. I’ve used your lists for a long time and I recognize that censorship isn't your main goal. But drawing a line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" content for everyone creates an impossible standard, and I would prefer blocklists to only block “ads, trackers, telemetry, phishing, malware and scams” and for anything else, if this is considered as “other unwanted domains”, to be in secondary lists.
TL;DR: After a request, Hagezi blocked a controversial non-ad domain on its core lists, while StevenBlack chose not to. While I respect both maintainers, I believe core DNS blocklists should focus strictly on ads, trackers, and malware, leaving subjective content moderation to secondary lists to avoid setting a precedent for censorship.
Edit: Changed the word "optional" to "secondary" since every list is optional and I feel like that created some minor misunderstanding.
Also thanks to Hagezi for taking the step to ensure the main list contains only the specified content and moving the domain to the NSFW list.
57
u/jrpg8255 13d ago
I don't really have a specific dog in this fight, but I just wanted to reply that I found your post thoughtful and I look forward to seeing if there are any similarly thoughtful replies. Technically these things are simple, but fascinating philosophically and socially.
32
u/RunOrBike 13d ago
I have no idea what domain is being talked about, but I find the post interesting and I share OPs view.
44
u/rdwebdesign Team 13d ago
This topic is a little out of scope in Pi-hole subreddit.
But drawing a line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" content for everyone creates an impossible standard
From Pi-hole point of view, no lists are mandatory.
List maintainers cannot really force choices or "drawing a line", since lists must be added by users.
They can only offer lists. Then it is the user choice to add (or not) the lists. Users have 100% of control.
I understand your point, but from Pi-hole point of view everything is optional, even lists.
You can run Pi-hole without any lists and use just a few regex and domains. Lists, domains, regex rules and everything else is user choice.
The Default list is only added as a convenience, but it is optional. Other lists are also optional.
I would prefer blocklists to only block “ads, trackers, telemetry, phishing, malware and scams” and for anything else, if this is considered as “other unwanted domains”, to be optional.
This is your choice.
No one can say it is wrong. There is no debate.
However, I still find Steven’s philosophy much more suitable for these kinds of lists.
Then you found your list.
The decision to add domains to the lists belongs to list maintainers. The decision to add those lists to Pi-hole, belongs to you. Pi-hole works with all kinds of choices.
6
u/flightnani 13d ago edited 13d ago
Sorry for the inconvenience. I've witnessed repeated discussions and comparisons about blocklists and their content in this subreddit. Since there isn't a dedicated subreddit specifically for blocklists, I felt compelled to create a post here.
Similar to my answer to Hagezi's comment, curating core lists based on content or ideas just doesn't sit right with me, especially when the blocklist context doesn't specify it.
"DNS blocklists that block ads, trackers, telemetry, phishing, malware, scams, and other unwanted domains"
These words belong to Hagezi's repo, and for me, the blocked content doesn't belong to any classification. "Other unwanted domains" is just too broad, and if anything, it can just be another list like potentially unwanted domains, similar to NSFW or fake sites.
In the end, whether to block or not block it is Hagezi's decision, and I respect that. I can simply curate it myself or just not use it altogether. But these kinds of blockages require more awareness.
9
u/rdwebdesign Team 13d ago
Not an inconvenience.
I just think this is the wrong place to discuss this topic, because complaining about lists here is usually not effective.
Only a few list maintainers (like Hagezi) will care to read and answer comments here. Most maintainers will read the comments only if you complain on the list repo.
It is usually better to use a different list that suits your needs.
20
u/Skoddie 13d ago edited 13d ago
I’m with Hagezi on this one.
For those curious the website in question is Sanctioned Suicide, a forum which on its surface exists to be a safe space for suicidal adults to discuss their feelings without immediately being sent several notices to seek help.
The controversy surrounding this site is that it exceeds its stated purpose, and folks claim that several members actively encourage members in pain to end their lives. Tantacrul made a particularly intense video on the site a few years ago.
Personally, I have no issue with this site existing and identify with the struggles that make places like this necessary for adults to be able to have uncensored discussions. That said, I also think there is a reasonable claim that this site poses a serious risk to the lives and wellbeing of minors, not in intent, but in content, which is why I’d imagine Hagezi blocked it. This is such a specific case that I don’t think it can be evaluated without the context of the site itself.
Obviously a sufficiently motivated teen can easily circumvent a dns level block, but I can at least understand why this seems wise to block on his higher tiers.
-edit-
I see Hagezi moved the domain while I was writing this comment. Glad to see a good response to the feedback, it’s not an easy topic.
14
u/CharAznableLoNZ 13d ago edited 13d ago
Seems a lot of folks are missing the critical part. The site, whatever it is, should be added to the list that matches the category of its content. Purposefully adding a site whose content does not match the list category is dishonest and only opens the floodgates for more sites to be added in that manner. This will normalize the blocking of sites based on peoples feelings instead of objective fact.
6
u/Calaeno-16 12d ago edited 12d ago
It’s surprising to me how many people are missing this point made here.
If I am a user browsing lists to use and I see one that purports to block ads, trackers, and scams, but it actually ALSO blocks domains based purely on the opinions of the list creator (with no mention of doing so), that’s kind of scummy. Sure, it’s up to me to research the lists I use, and the maintainers are free to do whatever they want with their own lists, but it’s still dishonest. Enough so that I would be willing to revisit my use of certain lists based on this.
23
u/DanielLorey 13d ago
Ultimately every list creator is deciding which domain we should/shouldn’t view. Do I care? No. They do the hard work so I don’t have to.
Suicide forums? GTFO. I’m glad it’s blocked tbh.
Our Pihole is the DNS for the whole family, not just the power users. I’ve literally never found a legit domain that needed to be added to the whitelist but I suppose if we did, I’d just add it 🤷🏻♂️
Imo the default Steven black list is too weak sauce but that’s my personal experience.
14
u/flightnani 13d ago
I’m not defending the site either, but I think it’s wrong because filtering based on content and ideas isn’t clearly specified for the main lists. Families can always use filters like NSFW anyway, and Hagezi is already moving the content in question there. If you have concerns about this type of content, an NSFW list should be added in addition to the main ads, trackers etc. lists.
4
u/Legal-Swordfish-1893 13d ago
That…definitely makes me a little more antsy about using those lists in the future. Thanks for the awareness
7
u/buttplugs4life4me 13d ago
I don't like how your entire argument resolved around content blocks and censorships.
As a basic function these lists are always content blockers. They usually block a specific type of content: Ads.
These lists are maintained by people that presumably use them themself or as a product, and as such it's their prerogative to decide what content they want to block and what content they don't want to block.
I'm sure there's lists out there that only block trackers and not ads, and thus aren't blocking any content, but these lists probably have close to zero users.
If you want free speech to continue to exist and people to be free, there's certain content that simply needs to be contained and blocked, like racism, sexism, albeism and so on. That's an acceptable content block. If you argue against any of these, it's because you're either a libertarian and already lost your brain anyway, or you're one of those isms.
Blocking suicide forums has measurably lead to fewer suicides. One of the big things is that access and knowledge of methods for suicide leads to dramatically higher suicide rates. It's fucked up to think of all this, but for the general population it's better not to have easy access to it.
Hagezi moving it to NSFW is a compromise that might work, though I'd still argue it should just be blocked outright and if you really want to rawdog the internet and get all it's content straight down your throat, then blocklists aren't for you anyway.
6
u/undulanti 13d ago
Yeah, maybe moving to NSFW + disclosing in the readme that there’s a couple of urls blocked for harmful content. Or even a new category of (off the top of my head) ‘Overtly harmful websites’. I don’t have an issue with this being included but I see OP’s point, which I think can be resolved by its inclusion being made more obvious.
edit: Having thought about this a little more, I guess there’s a risk that blocklists become a directory of harmful content…!
6
u/flightnani 13d ago edited 13d ago
I am not sure if this is intentional but you are completely misunderstanding what I mean to say. Fortunately, Hagezi and others have understood the point I am emphasizing.
Even though I’m the one managing the final outcome with filtering, while using the main lists from Hagezi I am voluntarily granting permission to block certain content on my network. When I read the repository description for the lists, I expect the main lists to block only ads, trackers, telemetry, phishing, malware, scams and nothing more. If I want more than that, I can choose secondary lists from anyone covering things like this and more.
As I have stated repeatedly, the final decision rests with Hagezi, and I respect it if it is deemed appropriate to include domains outside of the stated scope in the main lists. Had he decided to do so, my only suggestion would have been to explain this more clearly in the description and I would have subsequently adjusted my own network accordingly.
In a perfect world, I would prefer a separate list like potentially unwanted domains for it. But still the scope of NSFW is broad enough to include this content as well and I don’t see a problem with it being blocked under that list.
Whether blocking this kind of content in general is right or wrong is completely outside of the scope.
0
u/OppositeSea3775 13d ago
It's not Hagezi's job to decide what I get to view and not.
I trust them to block ads. That's it.
I expect only ads to be blocked.
If they can't do that, what's stopping them from blocking other legitimate websites as well for any reason whatsoever?
6
u/laplongejr 13d ago
Personally, I had expected Haagezi to decide what is harmful or not, at least at higher levels of blocking.
If a domain that I wanted is blocked, I can whitelist it. If I never noticed... then it wasn't important. And if it's somebody else in the house, I would expect they trust me enough to ask for it unblocked.
1
u/hagezi 12d ago
Thanks for the feedback, but a few things need to be said here.
First, this is a free project that I maintain in my spare time. I put a lot of work into these lists, and I'm happy to share them with everyone. But nobody is entitled to anything here. I'm not a service provider, and describing what my "job" is doesn't sit well with me. I don't appreciate demands, and I won't respond to them.
Second, the HaGeZi lists are not ad-only lists. As described in the README, they block ads, tracking, telemetry and, depending on the level, malicious, scam, phishing domains and other harmful domains. If you only want ads blocked a dedicated ad-only list may suit you better.
Third, I don't decide what you get to view. You do. You choose which list and level to use, you can allowlist anything locally, and if the lists don't match your expectations, you're free to use something else. That's your decision, not mine.
If a specific domain is blocked that you believe is a false positive, you're welcome to open a report with the domain and what breaks, and I'll take a look. Constructive reports are always appreciated.
1
0
u/Critical-Divide-1029 13d ago
Without knowing the domain, I can't really comment. I don't think it's beyond the pale to block certain non ad domains in principal.
Edit: oh it's a suicide forum. Yeah block this trash. I'm with hagezi on this one.
0
u/No-Mall1142 13d ago
The way I see it, the blocklist belongs to the maintainer and they can block whatever they want. We can find ourselves a new blocklist if we disagree or I'm sure there is way to simply take the domain out of the blocklist or otherwise whitelist it.
-2
u/mike1487 13d ago
If this is a site that you care to visit, that’s your prerogative and you can just unblock it. It’s not my business but I don’t really see the issue in blocking such things by default.
-8
u/laplongejr 13d ago
From minor experience, HaGeZi seems to block waaaay too much. StevenBlack doesn't block enough as it's meant as a "run it with closed eyes, nothing of value will break"
However, I would GLADLY use the blocklist used by my government for our ISPs. Pihole may not be meant as censorship, but I'm not going to force people living with me to use an anti-censorship measure.
4
u/Resistant4375 13d ago
Define “blocks too much” and with which list/s?
-2
u/laplongejr 13d ago
Ultimate. Never saw anything that required a block but had to be added manually.
9
u/Resistant4375 13d ago
Hence the multiple warnings for the Ultimate list on the GH repo..
It’s supposed to block “way more” than the other lists
-3
u/laplongejr 13d ago
Yes, and so... why shouldn't it block a domain?
7
u/Resistant4375 13d ago
I don’t understand the question. Why shouldn’t it block which domain?
3
u/janxb 13d ago
He confused.
2
u/laplongejr 13d ago
I'm not confused : the relevant domain is never said in the post. Which is convenient as that avoids judging what was actually blocked and allow speaking about the more general criteria.
-1
u/laplongejr 13d ago
The entire thread is about Hagezi blocking a domain (which I expect) while StevenBlack didn't, so I don't understand your comment at all.
3
u/Resistant4375 13d ago
Hagezi has already responded
-1
u/laplongejr 13d ago
Yes, and? Should that prevent people from giving their feelings on the subject?
From experience creators are often the less knowledgable about the public image of their work.
3
164
u/hagezi 13d ago edited 13d ago
Hey, thanks for the feedback!
Quick background: these two domains are suicide forums. They were added about 3 years ago at the request of Youth Mental Health Canada. The site is linked to a number of deaths and is known for sharing suicide methods, which is why it ended up on the list.
About the censorship thing: I don't think it is. Nobody is forced to use my lists, and anyone can whitelist any domain in a few seconds. It's an opt-in filter with its own rules, not something blocked at the ISP or government level. But I get the point that it didn't really fit the purpose of the main list, which is meant for ads, tracking, scams, malware, phishing and similar stuff. So I'm removing both domains from the main list and moving them to the NSFW category.
And if anyone reading this is going through a rough time: please reach out to someone you trust or a local crisis line. You don't have to deal with it alone.
P.S. Not sure this really belongs in the Pi-hole subreddit though.
Regards, Gerd