6 ms·

Yes. We've never had free speech on the internet. Or rather, we do, but only so far as you're free to set up your own server and host your own site and put what

Yes. We've never had free speech on the internet. Or rather, we do, but only so far as you're free to set up your own server and host your own site and put whatever you want on it (and if you can't convince a domain registrar to give you a domain, you can always advertise its IP address, or maybe operate a Tor hidden service or something like that). But if you're not willing to host your own site, then free speech on the internet has only been an illusion.

the8472 9y ago
The DNS tree at least probably should get the same treatment as ISPs, i.e. being considered a utility and thus provide service to everyone.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Providers of DNS services have terms of service. And arguably even if something is not in their terms of service if they deem it to be unacceptable then they are well within their rights as private companies to deny service. ISPs are all about access, the DNS is all about publishing and your ability to publish depends to a large extent on whether or not you will be able to find parties to work with to enable the publishing of the material you wish to spread. Google is under no obligation to provide such a service to a party they deem objectionable (on pretty good grounds).
  - the8472 9y ago
    Considering that IP addresses you get from most service providers are dynamic you need a lookup system for others to be able to access your speech. > they are well within their rights as private companies to deny service. Many utilities are also private companies and they they are required to provide service anyway. So one does not strictly follow from the other. That's why I said DNS providers should be considered utilities. At least the national-level ones. If resellers won't take it you should still be able to get it straight from the ccTLD registrar.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > Considering that IP addresses you get from most service providers are dynamic you need a lookup system for others to be able to access your speech. Not on the hosting side. > Many utilities are also private companies and they they are required to provide service anyway. Yes, but they're not. DNS is a nice-to-have, not a must. Hosting is a must, if you want to make a case then you are going to have an uphill battle where a hosting provider would have to supply and and all paying customers.
      - the8472 9y ago
        > Not on the hosting side. I assumed we were talking about hosting from home, since hosting at some datacenter would again be dealing with additional private entities. > if you want to make a case then you are going to have an uphill battle where a hosting provider would have to supply and and all paying customers. I guess that would be an alternative. So either non-discriminatory treatment from hosters or non-discriminatory treatment from ISPs + DNS registrars.
        jacquesm 9y ago
        Hosting (anything) from home is against the TOS of almost all providers.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        It may be on a consumer account, but you can get a business account at a residential address from most providers; and in many cases you need to to get the balance of upstream to downstream to you'd want for hosting, even leaving aside ToS concerns.
    - DougWebb 9y ago
      Many utilities are also private companies and they they are required to provide service anyway. That's because they're not exactly private companies; they're government-sponsored monopolies. If they weren't, and if there were real competition for the services they provide (like all of the other local businesses), then they wouldn't be required to provide services to any particular customer.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  FWIW, I don't necessarily disagree with this and certainly think that it's a debate we should have. OTOH, I think in the regime we do have, expecting Nazis to get a free pass for violating registration firms TOS is unreasonable, and granting such an exception, even silently by failure to enforce, would send a terrible message.
  - the8472 9y ago
    My point is that they (at least ccTLD registry operators) should not be allowed to have arbitrary ToS. As long as it is legal and the customer can pay non-discriminatory prices they should not have any leverage to remove them. Just like you can't get kicked from your internet service, electricity or water providers for arbitrary reasons.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Just like you can't get kicked from your internet service, electricity or water providers for arbitrary reasons. Given that the net neutrality regulations which were adopted to actually explicit protect all lawful content and applications are unlikely to ever go into effect given the new FCC makeup, this is not true. Nothing stops ISPs today from having restrictive, content-based TOS restricting lawful activity. That being said, I can appreciate the argument that DNS service should be covered in an even more expansive net neutrality framework than the one we almost had in the US.
      - the8472 9y ago
        Yes, I was assuming net neutrality. Without it the whole discussion is moot since your traffic could just get tossed out at any time by any provider along the route.
DougWebb 9y ago
That's a good point. There are plenty of Tor sites (most of them?) that are on Tor specifically because no private third party is willing to host their content. Let the bigots go to Tor and enjoy all the free speech they like, down in the darkness where they won't bother anyone who doesn't want to hear them.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  Until they emerge on the streets with their tiki torches.
adgfsjgjhds 9y ago
> and if you can't convince a domain registrar to give you a domain This is the problem. If nobody wants to host my speech, fine: I can set up a server in my own bedroom if need be. But if nobody accepts my domain, it's not quite so easy to set up my own registrar. Private companies arbitrarily censoring domain names is a can of worms that shouldn't be opened. Registration must be held up to a higher standard, like an utility.
- BrainInAJar 9y ago
  No it shouldn't. If I make a nazi movie nobody has to show it in their theatre. If I write a nazi book no publisher has to pick it up and print it. If you want a nazi domain name system then go ahead and create it. Run a DNS server, advertise it as "this is the DNS for nazis" and you can have www.holocaustdenial.nazi all you want.
mike_hearn 9y ago
Self-hosting doesn't solve free speech on the internet. The first person who doesn't like you will DDoS you off the net, and then you'll need to run and hide behind a service like CloudFlare. There are only a few such firms. If they've been pressured not to protect you because your opinions are deemed objectionable, then you effectively cannot publish online at all. This is not a theoretical problem. After Quillette published the response of 4 scientists to the Google memo they were DDoSd off the net.
- lilyball 9y ago
  DDoSing is illegal, so I'm not sure what your point is. Saying "you don't have free speech because someone could do something illegal" isn't really an argument. You may as well say that someone could murder you, the only real difference is DDoSing is a lot more likely and a lot harder to catch the perpetrators.
- problems 9y ago
  There are indeed only a few such firms - but those firms are probably some of the most bulletproof in the entire industry. BlackLotus hosted stormfront for years, CloudFlare hosts reams of controversial content - wikileaks, the pirate bay, 8chan, etc. They're practically known for it. Currently at least, it's still quite possible to find a provider who will look out for their customers. In the registrar category there are a few providers who shine, DynaDot and EasyDNS have really gone to bat before.
  - ardaozkal 9y ago
    Also they're still hosting daily stormer. Well, they got booted from their registrar so they're offline, but CF denied to stop hosting them.
falcolas 9y ago
> only so far as you're free to set up your own server and host your own site Where? Your bedroom? You can and will be blocked by your ISP. Colo? Private facility and network interconnects. Outside the country? Blocked at the borders, or you have to register with a US company (.com is managed by a US company, as is .net; .org is a global company but still incorporated in the US). Plugged directly in to the backbone? You can still be shut down by Level3 and its ilk (or by the terminating ISPs). In short, I disagree that even by hosting your own site you can still avoid censorship by private companies.

the8472 9y ago

The DNS tree at least probably should get the same treatment as ISPs, i.e. being considered a utility and thus provide service to everyone.

jacquesm 9y ago
Providers of DNS services have terms of service. And arguably even if something is not in their terms of service if they deem it to be unacceptable then they are well within their rights as private companies to deny service. ISPs are all about access, the DNS is all about publishing and your ability to publish depends to a large extent on whether or not you will be able to find parties to work with to enable the publishing of the material you wish to spread. Google is under no obligation to provide such a service to a party they deem objectionable (on pretty good grounds).
- the8472 9y ago
  Considering that IP addresses you get from most service providers are dynamic you need a lookup system for others to be able to access your speech. > they are well within their rights as private companies to deny service. Many utilities are also private companies and they they are required to provide service anyway. So one does not strictly follow from the other. That's why I said DNS providers should be considered utilities. At least the national-level ones. If resellers won't take it you should still be able to get it straight from the ccTLD registrar.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > Considering that IP addresses you get from most service providers are dynamic you need a lookup system for others to be able to access your speech. Not on the hosting side. > Many utilities are also private companies and they they are required to provide service anyway. Yes, but they're not. DNS is a nice-to-have, not a must. Hosting is a must, if you want to make a case then you are going to have an uphill battle where a hosting provider would have to supply and and all paying customers.
    - the8472 9y ago
      > Not on the hosting side. I assumed we were talking about hosting from home, since hosting at some datacenter would again be dealing with additional private entities. > if you want to make a case then you are going to have an uphill battle where a hosting provider would have to supply and and all paying customers. I guess that would be an alternative. So either non-discriminatory treatment from hosters or non-discriminatory treatment from ISPs + DNS registrars.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Hosting (anything) from home is against the TOS of almost all providers.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        It may be on a consumer account, but you can get a business account at a residential address from most providers; and in many cases you need to to get the balance of upstream to downstream to you'd want for hosting, even leaving aside ToS concerns.
  - DougWebb 9y ago
    Many utilities are also private companies and they they are required to provide service anyway. That's because they're not exactly private companies; they're government-sponsored monopolies. If they weren't, and if there were real competition for the services they provide (like all of the other local businesses), then they wouldn't be required to provide services to any particular customer.
dragonwriter 9y ago
FWIW, I don't necessarily disagree with this and certainly think that it's a debate we should have. OTOH, I think in the regime we do have, expecting Nazis to get a free pass for violating registration firms TOS is unreasonable, and granting such an exception, even silently by failure to enforce, would send a terrible message.
- the8472 9y ago
  My point is that they (at least ccTLD registry operators) should not be allowed to have arbitrary ToS. As long as it is legal and the customer can pay non-discriminatory prices they should not have any leverage to remove them. Just like you can't get kicked from your internet service, electricity or water providers for arbitrary reasons.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Just like you can't get kicked from your internet service, electricity or water providers for arbitrary reasons. Given that the net neutrality regulations which were adopted to actually explicit protect all lawful content and applications are unlikely to ever go into effect given the new FCC makeup, this is not true. Nothing stops ISPs today from having restrictive, content-based TOS restricting lawful activity. That being said, I can appreciate the argument that DNS service should be covered in an even more expansive net neutrality framework than the one we almost had in the US.
    - the8472 9y ago
      Yes, I was assuming net neutrality. Without it the whole discussion is moot since your traffic could just get tossed out at any time by any provider along the route.

DougWebb 9y ago

That's a good point. There are plenty of Tor sites (most of them?) that are on Tor specifically because no private third party is willing to host their content. Let the bigots go to Tor and enjoy all the free speech they like, down in the darkness where they won't bother anyone who doesn't want to hear them.

rbanffy 9y ago
Until they emerge on the streets with their tiki torches.

adgfsjgjhds 9y ago

> and if you can't convince a domain registrar to give you a domain This is the problem. If nobody wants to host my speech, fine: I can set up a server in my own bedroom if need be. But if nobody accepts my domain, it's not quite so easy to set up my own registrar. Private companies arbitrarily censoring domain names is a can of worms that shouldn't be opened. Registration must be held up to a higher standard, like an utility.

BrainInAJar 9y ago
No it shouldn't. If I make a nazi movie nobody has to show it in their theatre. If I write a nazi book no publisher has to pick it up and print it. If you want a nazi domain name system then go ahead and create it. Run a DNS server, advertise it as "this is the DNS for nazis" and you can have www.holocaustdenial.nazi all you want.

mike_hearn 9y ago

Self-hosting doesn't solve free speech on the internet. The first person who doesn't like you will DDoS you off the net, and then you'll need to run and hide behind a service like CloudFlare. There are only a few such firms. If they've been pressured not to protect you because your opinions are deemed objectionable, then you effectively cannot publish online at all. This is not a theoretical problem. After Quillette published the response of 4 scientists to the Google memo they were DDoSd off the net.

lilyball 9y ago
DDoSing is illegal, so I'm not sure what your point is. Saying "you don't have free speech because someone could do something illegal" isn't really an argument. You may as well say that someone could murder you, the only real difference is DDoSing is a lot more likely and a lot harder to catch the perpetrators.
problems 9y ago
There are indeed only a few such firms - but those firms are probably some of the most bulletproof in the entire industry. BlackLotus hosted stormfront for years, CloudFlare hosts reams of controversial content - wikileaks, the pirate bay, 8chan, etc. They're practically known for it. Currently at least, it's still quite possible to find a provider who will look out for their customers. In the registrar category there are a few providers who shine, DynaDot and EasyDNS have really gone to bat before.
- ardaozkal 9y ago
  Also they're still hosting daily stormer. Well, they got booted from their registrar so they're offline, but CF denied to stop hosting them.

falcolas 9y ago

> only so far as you're free to set up your own server and host your own site Where? Your bedroom? You can and will be blocked by your ISP. Colo? Private facility and network interconnects. Outside the country? Blocked at the borders, or you have to register with a US company (.com is managed by a US company, as is .net; .org is a global company but still incorporated in the US). Plugged directly in to the backbone? You can still be shut down by Level3 and its ilk (or by the terminating ISPs). In short, I disagree that even by hosting your own site you can still avoid censorship by private companies.