This only apparently changed like 2 months, and so the author was entirely correct about how it had worked when the post was published. Your comment is extremely misleading and casts improper aspersions on the author.
I hadn't noticed the date, that's a good catch. At least the post may have been part of a public debate. I haven't found any evidence of that while searching, but I also wouldn't know. I don't know a lot about German politics.
I still don't agree with the characterization of the old rules as a "shadow cabal". It was an organization aimed at implementing democratically decided law, under review of the competent authority. While it would have been technically true that there were "no judges" it still wouldn't have amounted to the scary authoritarian corporatist regime I feel was being alluded to.
That's 24 entries over the course of almost 5 years. Seems awfully little - especially if the OP apparently saw CUII blocks "in the wild" frequently enough that they decided to make a website to track them.
I don't know about the "no judges" part, but considering you put "no transparency," I assume you're trying to dispute that part too. In that case, could you explain the lack of a first-party list of blocked domains and the change in censor responses?
I'm not an expert in this stuff, especially not in Germany. My intent with including both "no judges" and "no transparency" was that those were the claims I found surprising in the original blog post. In my opinion, if either of those two claims are false, both lose all credibility. The author gets sorted into my mental bucket of "cooky conspiracy nuts".
> As of July of this year (2025) all orders are ordered by a judge, and all final orders are published on the website[1].
What does that mean? Does that mean they bought a judge to say what they want them to say? Or does that mean, that they have to get their decisions through usual courts like anyone else? You see, it makes quite a difference, if they have one specific judge, who will do their bidding and maybe is completely clueless about the Internet, or they face the possibility of failing, because a court has properly looked at each case and might decide that they don't have the right to block a site.
So you can't be bothered to read even the first sentence of the only reference gp uses before commenting with a request for deeper explanation?
Let me then quote the first sentence for you:
> ORDERS OF THE COURTS
The list published on this page contains structurally copyright-infringing websites (SCIWs) for which a court has ordered a DNS block, together with the file number of the court decision.
You seem to misunderstand the word “orthogonal.” Maybe you mean “opposite” or “contradictory.” “Orthogonal” would mean “related to an entirely different topic.”
This only apparently changed like 2 months, and so the author was entirely correct about how it had worked when the post was published. Your comment is extremely misleading and casts improper aspersions on the author.
Check the date of the article. They used to be the shadow cabal before Lina put public pressure on them to go legal.
I hadn't noticed the date, that's a good catch. At least the post may have been part of a public debate. I haven't found any evidence of that while searching, but I also wouldn't know. I don't know a lot about German politics.
I still don't agree with the characterization of the old rules as a "shadow cabal". It was an organization aimed at implementing democratically decided law, under review of the competent authority. While it would have been technically true that there were "no judges" it still wouldn't have amounted to the scary authoritarian corporatist regime I feel was being alluded to.
That's 24 entries over the course of almost 5 years. Seems awfully little - especially if the OP apparently saw CUII blocks "in the wild" frequently enough that they decided to make a website to track them.
The vast majority of known blocks are missing on that list.
It's in fact worse than no list as it gives the impression of transparency, where there isn't any.
I don't know about the "no judges" part, but considering you put "no transparency," I assume you're trying to dispute that part too. In that case, could you explain the lack of a first-party list of blocked domains and the change in censor responses?
I'm not an expert in this stuff, especially not in Germany. My intent with including both "no judges" and "no transparency" was that those were the claims I found surprising in the original blog post. In my opinion, if either of those two claims are false, both lose all credibility. The author gets sorted into my mental bucket of "cooky conspiracy nuts".
When you say:
> As of July of this year (2025) all orders are ordered by a judge, and all final orders are published on the website[1].
What does that mean? Does that mean they bought a judge to say what they want them to say? Or does that mean, that they have to get their decisions through usual courts like anyone else? You see, it makes quite a difference, if they have one specific judge, who will do their bidding and maybe is completely clueless about the Internet, or they face the possibility of failing, because a court has properly looked at each case and might decide that they don't have the right to block a site.
So you can't be bothered to read even the first sentence of the only reference gp uses before commenting with a request for deeper explanation?
Let me then quote the first sentence for you:
> ORDERS OF THE COURTS The list published on this page contains structurally copyright-infringing websites (SCIWs) for which a court has ordered a DNS block, together with the file number of the court decision.
You seem to misunderstand the word “orthogonal.” Maybe you mean “opposite” or “contradictory.” “Orthogonal” would mean “related to an entirely different topic.”