> The internet is still needed for delivering legal streams of matches. So there’s never going to be any pressure to turn off the entire internet.

Cloudflare serves a whole bunch of legal and genuinely important services, and yet there was enough pressure to block them off.

▲

hnlmorg 6 hours ago | parent [-]

…and that was already enough to get Congress to review the situation. The first paragraph in the article we are discussing says:

> The complaints about the massive fall of web pages caused by LaLiga's fight against piracy reached Congress months ago. And the Chamber is now preparing to take measures.

But even ignoring the fact that TFA directly disproves your and the GP's argument, the point you're making that "x got approved so y also will" isn't how things work in the real world. People do have a pain threshold and just because CloudFlare was tolerated until now doesn't mean greater blockages would have been equally tolerated.

▲

pdpi 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The Cloudflare block has been in effect since December 2024, so it's been in effect almost a year and a half, and Congress is at the "will act", not "has acted" stage.

And yes, of course you're right, that people have a pain threshold, but it's also true that people will normalise behaviour over time. I'm not saying further blockages will happen, just that I don't take it for granted that they won't.

	▲	hnlmorg 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nobody was claiming that future blockages couldn’t happen. The argument I was disagreeing with was the statement that “a total internet block is the logical conclusion” Which it isn’t. But, and as I said in my comment you claimed to disagree with, that doesn’t mean things can’t still get worse.