3 ms·

Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? If so, would you also agree that said access should include some platform where one is e

by KGIII 9y ago

Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? If so, would you also agree that said access should include some platform where one is entitled to ownership and thus the freedom of expression - within the bounds of the law? I really dislike Nazis, but I love the liberty of free speech more. It's hard to stand up for them, but it's not 'correct' speech that needs protection. And no, no I don't have realistic answers - other than to suggest we consider adding those protections to domain registry and regulate ISPs to ensure the ability of hosting private servers. I'm okay with saying nobody needs to host it. I'm not really okay with the domain not being allowed to be registered. There should be a solution for this. If I don't stand up for the freedom of expression for the lowliest of views, then I didn't stand for it at all. Edited to add: I posted it below, but I think it salient here - even if just for contrast. I am not white. I'm pretty sure these Nazis hate me. Given the chance, they'd probably harm me. Until they make an overt threat, or attempt, to do so - I am still not okay with depriving them of basic human rights. Yes, I feel that strongly about the freedom of expression. They don't scare me. I will never live in fear, nor will I ask that someone's rights be taken away without due process. My principles apply to more than speech which agree with.

tyleraldrich 9y ago
The platform isn't being taken away, they can have their free speech hosted in some guys garage and accessible at x.x.x.x I'm not accusing you of acting this way, but there are many "regulation is bad!" folks who now seem to think when it comes to hosting content on the internet, maybe it should be regulated so that private companies can't block people from doing basic things like registering a domain name if the company doesn't like it. This is the free market at work, and if the free market decides some speech is wrong, that's the free market America signed up for.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Presenting using only the IP address as a solution is intellectually dishonest. Additionally, I'm unsure of why you'd suggest there was a specific group of people and simultaneously assert that they are irrelevant to my comment. Feel free to levy any accusations about me that you want. However, I think my comment history stands as evidence. I'm not asserting that this is a right. I'm asserting that it should be a right.
pnathan 9y ago
> Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? I would neither disagree nor agree. Different theories of what a right is exist, and I don't believe it's a settled question enough to even claim that a $newer_thing is a right. > If I don't stand up for the freedom of expression for the lowliest of views, then I didn't stand for it at all. I understand this viewpoint. This is the "free speech maximalist" position. I disagree with it. I think there are bounds "beyond the usual pale" where no private institution should be asked to or forced to host it. It may be that the proper solution is for the US government, as the duly appointed host of the Public Space by long-standing tradition, to create a Public Forum for such things.

by KGIII 9y ago

tyleraldrich 9y ago

The platform isn't being taken away, they can have their free speech hosted in some guys garage and accessible at x.x.x.x I'm not accusing you of acting this way, but there are many "regulation is bad!" folks who now seem to think when it comes to hosting content on the internet, maybe it should be regulated so that private companies can't block people from doing basic things like registering a domain name if the company doesn't like it. This is the free market at work, and if the free market decides some speech is wrong, that's the free market America signed up for.

KGIII 9y ago
Presenting using only the IP address as a solution is intellectually dishonest. Additionally, I'm unsure of why you'd suggest there was a specific group of people and simultaneously assert that they are irrelevant to my comment. Feel free to levy any accusations about me that you want. However, I think my comment history stands as evidence. I'm not asserting that this is a right. I'm asserting that it should be a right.

pnathan 9y ago

> Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? I would neither disagree nor agree. Different theories of what a right is exist, and I don't believe it's a settled question enough to even claim that a $newer_thing is a right. > If I don't stand up for the freedom of expression for the lowliest of views, then I didn't stand for it at all. I understand this viewpoint. This is the "free speech maximalist" position. I disagree with it. I think there are bounds "beyond the usual pale" where no private institution should be asked to or forced to host it. It may be that the proper solution is for the US government, as the duly appointed host of the Public Space by long-standing tradition, to create a Public Forum for such things.