3 ms·
> If you're going to have a policy of what is and what is not allowed, the reason why it will be so difficult is because you need to enforce the policy on every
by stordoff 9y ago
> If you're going to have a policy of what is and what is not allowed, the reason why it will be so difficult is because you need to enforce the policy on every website equally. You cannot cherry-pick one website, cite the policy, and then forget that it exists.
Is perfect enforcement necessary? Of course you need to be _consistent_, but only acting when the content becomes known to you doesn't seem wholely unworkable.
That said, I much prefer it if registrars remained neutral on content (with the possible exception of the domain itself being the problem - consider, e.g., assassinateUSPrez2018[.]com).
e: typo fix "prefer registrars remain" -> "prefer it if registrars remained"
- ve55 9y agoPerfect enforcement is ideal, but definitely impossible, especially based on arbitrary policy statements like 'incites violence'. In practice they will act when content becomes known to them, but a problem with this is that it will lead to them taking down content when the Internet mobs demand it (as they will spam support tickets, emails, twitter accounts, and so on, demanding the offending website be taken down), instead of focusing on the real problems. Just like people love getting their political enemies fired from work, now they will start to realize maybe they can do even better, and can get them wiped off of the Internet as well. Every time an attack like this is made, it will further radicalize the other side, giving them further resolve to attack back and with more strength. I just can't see this ending with anything good.