3 ms·

Please don’t downvote ocdtrekkie just because you disagree with him/her… that’s what replies are for. Downvote comments that don’t add to the conversation. I’m

by alanh 9y ago

Please don’t downvote ocdtrekkie just because you disagree with him/her… that’s what replies are for. Downvote comments that don’t add to the conversation. I’m here to say I am uncomfortable with e.g. GoDaddy censoring their users, too. I’m uncomfortable either way. Because I remember when another web host, BlueHost, which happens to be owned by Mormons, decided that it could not in good conscience host (non-pornographic) websites for lesbians, and deleted their accounts without warning. I’m not trying to make a false equivalency, but… should your web host decide whether they approve of your speech? No. OTOH, should companies profit off hate speech or Nazism? No! It's also worth noting that “hate speech” is hard to define! SPLC is the best-known authority here and they have absolutely fucked up and mis-categorized non-hateful religious criticism as “hate speech”. Would you like to see GoDaddy start deleting ex-Muslim bloggers on “hate speech” grounds? Edit 100% not to detract from anything said previously, but it’s valid to say that the line exists at “direct incitement of violence”

mc32 9y ago
>“direct incitement of violence” Doxxing can lead to that no? And there are quite a few quasi-political quasi-religious groups in the US that people outside the groups would consider hateful. Some Baptist, some Islamic, etc. Do we shut those people down? I'm afraid this can go the way of PC speech. First it's really odious stuff, then it's can't say controversial things that might trigger others.
zimpenfish 9y ago
> should your web host decide whether they approve of your speech? Yes. It's the same as any publisher deciding whether they approve of your speech - you have no innate right to a public platform for your speech.
phil21 9y ago
> OTOH, should companies profit off hate speech or Nazism? No! I really hate this point. I was (am) a "webhost" and also happen to be a staunch free speech advocate. My rule when I owned my own company was if I didn't have a court order and the content wasn't blatantly obviously illegal (e.g. child porn or outright specific calls for actionable violence) you stayed on-line and I would vehemently defend that right for you. As expected, as you gain such a reputation you tend to draw some really shitty people. I will tell you that the "problem" customers cost far more than they ever made, and it wasn't even close. These were customers I truly despised, but I would actually be subsidizing their platforms due to those opposed (e.g. ddos attacks, constant support phone calls harassing my staff, fishing expedition warrants that needed to be fought, etc. etc.) intentionally costing me money in an attempt to shut down their speech. I found those actions more contemptible than the content they were opposed to - and much of it truly was vile. This is not a profitable segment of the industry to be in, but I still feel it's an extremely important line to never cross and am saddened by the state of telecommunications as a neutral platform/common carrier today. We've lost so much in less than a generation.

by alanh 9y ago

mc32 9y ago

>“direct incitement of violence” Doxxing can lead to that no? And there are quite a few quasi-political quasi-religious groups in the US that people outside the groups would consider hateful. Some Baptist, some Islamic, etc. Do we shut those people down? I'm afraid this can go the way of PC speech. First it's really odious stuff, then it's can't say controversial things that might trigger others.

zimpenfish 9y ago

> should your web host decide whether they approve of your speech? Yes. It's the same as any publisher deciding whether they approve of your speech - you have no innate right to a public platform for your speech.

phil21 9y ago

> OTOH, should companies profit off hate speech or Nazism? No! I really hate this point. I was (am) a "webhost" and also happen to be a staunch free speech advocate. My rule when I owned my own company was if I didn't have a court order and the content wasn't blatantly obviously illegal (e.g. child porn or outright specific calls for actionable violence) you stayed on-line and I would vehemently defend that right for you. As expected, as you gain such a reputation you tend to draw some really shitty people. I will tell you that the "problem" customers cost far more than they ever made, and it wasn't even close. These were customers I truly despised, but I would actually be subsidizing their platforms due to those opposed (e.g. ddos attacks, constant support phone calls harassing my staff, fishing expedition warrants that needed to be fought, etc. etc.) intentionally costing me money in an attempt to shut down their speech. I found those actions more contemptible than the content they were opposed to - and much of it truly was vile. This is not a profitable segment of the industry to be in, but I still feel it's an extremely important line to never cross and am saddened by the state of telecommunications as a neutral platform/common carrier today. We've lost so much in less than a generation.