4 ms·

You call it the "public internet" but it's most definitely not a public space or anything like it. Private entities own and operate all(most of) the servers, s

by sbarre 9y ago

You call it the "public internet" but it's most definitely not a public space or anything like it. Private entities own and operate all(most of) the servers, services and conduits, and that does need to be paid for and maintained. I'm not saying I agree with Linkedin in this particular scenario, but this is about two commercial for-profit entities arguing over money, so let's not make it about something it's not.

smegel 9y ago
> Private entities own and operate all(most of) the servers, services and conduits, and that does need to be paid for and maintained And are MORE than happy to send the content of their servers to unsolicited, uninvited, anonymous guests on mere request. No-one is forcing them to do so!
- sbarre 9y ago
  And that's exactly LinkedIn's position here. No one should be forcing them to send their content to anyone. They claim they should be allowed to discriminate at their discretion who they respond to, since they own and operate the servers. This "no one is forcing you to send your content" goes both ways.. If one side is going to say they're entitled to receive the content on request, the other side wants to be able to say they're entitled to refuse to answer that request..
bogomipz 9y ago
>"You call it the "public internet" but it's most definitely not a public space or anything like it." How is it not a "pubic space"? They publish publicly visible A records for their site as well as route their public IP space to transit providers in order for the public to be able to reach their site.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  If I publicly distribute posters about a party in my apartment and leave the door unlocked, do I still have the right to kick out anyone I don't like?
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    That's a pretty diengenuous strawman. A more accurate comparison would be that you put up an advertisement on a billboard along a busy street and then decided to tell people who passed by that they weren't allowed to take a picture of it. And to continue with this absurdity you feel entitled to enforce who can or can not look at your billboard because despite it being publicly viewable its your advertisement on the billboard.
    - sbarre 9y ago
      That's also not accurate. There is no "public space" on the Internet.. There's no un-owned territory or resource that is free to use or metaphorically "stand around" in to take those pictures from. You are consuming privately-owned resources in all your online activities, and as such some will argue that they can decide to limit your consumption of those resources at their own discretion. Again, I am not siding with either party here, just trying to dispel this notion that "public space" - in the way we understand public space to exist in the physical world - exists on the internet. In your example, no one is controlling your right to take photos or stand around and look in any direction you choose. When you use the Internet, a private entity is allowing you to transit through their network and access sites, a different entity is allowing you to access and receive their content, etc.. LinkedIn owns the server you are accessing when you (or others) go to their site, and they are spending resources servicing those requests, and - they claim - can decide how and when they choose to do that..

by sbarre 9y ago

smegel 9y ago

> Private entities own and operate all(most of) the servers, services and conduits, and that does need to be paid for and maintained And are MORE than happy to send the content of their servers to unsolicited, uninvited, anonymous guests on mere request. No-one is forcing them to do so!

sbarre 9y ago
And that's exactly LinkedIn's position here. No one should be forcing them to send their content to anyone. They claim they should be allowed to discriminate at their discretion who they respond to, since they own and operate the servers. This "no one is forcing you to send your content" goes both ways.. If one side is going to say they're entitled to receive the content on request, the other side wants to be able to say they're entitled to refuse to answer that request..

bogomipz 9y ago

>"You call it the "public internet" but it's most definitely not a public space or anything like it." How is it not a "pubic space"? They publish publicly visible A records for their site as well as route their public IP space to transit providers in order for the public to be able to reach their site.

umanwizard 9y ago
If I publicly distribute posters about a party in my apartment and leave the door unlocked, do I still have the right to kick out anyone I don't like?
- bogomipz 9y ago
  That's a pretty diengenuous strawman. A more accurate comparison would be that you put up an advertisement on a billboard along a busy street and then decided to tell people who passed by that they weren't allowed to take a picture of it. And to continue with this absurdity you feel entitled to enforce who can or can not look at your billboard because despite it being publicly viewable its your advertisement on the billboard.
  - sbarre 9y ago
    That's also not accurate. There is no "public space" on the Internet.. There's no un-owned territory or resource that is free to use or metaphorically "stand around" in to take those pictures from. You are consuming privately-owned resources in all your online activities, and as such some will argue that they can decide to limit your consumption of those resources at their own discretion. Again, I am not siding with either party here, just trying to dispel this notion that "public space" - in the way we understand public space to exist in the physical world - exists on the internet. In your example, no one is controlling your right to take photos or stand around and look in any direction you choose. When you use the Internet, a private entity is allowing you to transit through their network and access sites, a different entity is allowing you to access and receive their content, etc.. LinkedIn owns the server you are accessing when you (or others) go to their site, and they are spending resources servicing those requests, and - they claim - can decide how and when they choose to do that..