3 ms·
So hosting services deserve safe harbor protections, but hosting services that provide a nice front-end to your data (e.g. YouTube, Facebook, etc.) don't. This
by natrius 17y ago
So hosting services deserve safe harbor protections, but hosting services that provide a nice front-end to your data (e.g. YouTube, Facebook, etc.) don't.
This is wrong. I think the internet would be a better place if it were easier for people to run their own servers, but that doesn't mean we should make it more difficult for hosted services to operate.
- pyre 17y agoI don't think that I advocated what the author is necessarily. I feel that people should be working towards a more decentralized web, but removing safe-harbor protections from large sites just because they provide an obstacle to a more decentralized web is not really the correct stance to take. Take Facebook for example, why couldn't we just have a number of providers of social networking services with an agreed-upon protocol to communication/authentication between them? Then I could run my own server for my profile/albums/etc while someone less tech-savvy could sign up with a ready-to-go service that pays for itself with ads.