3 ms·

So does that apply to say server providers like OVH or proxies like CloudFlare? What about DNS providers? What about domain registrars? TLD owners? ICANN? Are

So does that apply to say server providers like OVH or proxies like CloudFlare? What about DNS providers? What about domain registrars? TLD owners? ICANN? Are they not allowed to host certain speech either without being deemed "socially irresponsible"? Or is there some level of removal beyond which it's okay? If you've decided they're not allowed to use the internet now, is it okay to rent them spaces? sell them land? There's no good, definite ending point to this. Which is why companies like Black Lotus, CloudFlare and OVH just get it done. I don't fault them for it at all, in fact I trust them more to keep me online if some controversy is ever stirred in my direction.

burkaman 10y ago
The definite ending point is government. The government cannot do anything to restrict anyone's speech. Private organizations can do whatever they want. I don't think they should take that to an extreme, but I think they can. I don't think it's ethical for a private company to censor everyone they don't like, but they should have that right. In terms of ethics, you're right that there's no definite ending point. Private companies should do what they feel is right, and not try to force themselves to allow full freedom of speech.
- problems 10y ago
  I agree that they can and even have the right to, but it's more of a "should they be considered socially irresponsible for allowing it in any way, shape or form" question than about what they can or must do. Personally I don't fault them for allowing it as long as they're sufficiently distant from it themselves and protect their employees from abuse to a reasonable degree.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Oh ok, well I think I just edited my comment to basically agree with you. There is no well-defined line here, it's as subjective as most moral questions. I just don't think private companies should feel any obligation to allow everything because of freedom of speech. The constitution is supposed to be a last resort, not a set of universal guidelines.

burkaman 10y ago

The definite ending point is government. The government cannot do anything to restrict anyone's speech. Private organizations can do whatever they want. I don't think they should take that to an extreme, but I think they can. I don't think it's ethical for a private company to censor everyone they don't like, but they should have that right. In terms of ethics, you're right that there's no definite ending point. Private companies should do what they feel is right, and not try to force themselves to allow full freedom of speech.

problems 10y ago
I agree that they can and even have the right to, but it's more of a "should they be considered socially irresponsible for allowing it in any way, shape or form" question than about what they can or must do. Personally I don't fault them for allowing it as long as they're sufficiently distant from it themselves and protect their employees from abuse to a reasonable degree.
- burkaman 10y ago
  Oh ok, well I think I just edited my comment to basically agree with you. There is no well-defined line here, it's as subjective as most moral questions. I just don't think private companies should feel any obligation to allow everything because of freedom of speech. The constitution is supposed to be a last resort, not a set of universal guidelines.