5 ms·

I don't understand why anyone deserves server space and labor resources. They are free to express themselves, but the cost of running a service is not free, an

I don't understand why anyone deserves server space and labor resources. They are free to express themselves, but the cost of running a service is not free, and they have no right to those costs. They can stand in a public square and say what they like. They can have debates in their own living room. They can print up manifestos on their own dime. They have a right to do all of that, and nobody's arguing against that.

KGIII 9y ago
It's a bit of a problem, really. They take URLs away, they refuse to host them, etc... So, I'd say what good are rights if you can't reasonably exercise them? Don't get me wrong, I really don't like Nazis. They are pretty much the definition of bad people. So, I try to empathize. We all want to belong to something. They like firearms. Me too. I love a good explosion, though I'd much prefer it not actually hurt anyone. If I can humanize them, I can understand that they too deserve basic human rights.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  Reddit is not a basic human right. You have a right to free speech, but society has no obligation to provide you a megaphone and a soapbox.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    You didn't read what I wrote. Reddit is absolutely free to do this. Voat exists, if they want a place to speak.
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      I did read what you wrote. You are not arguing for the right to free speech, you are arguing for a right to a platform (yet referring to such as an appeal to free speech). And there is no such thing. There is no right to a platform for your speech. You are allowed to say it, but nobody has any obligation to repeat, produce, disseminate or validate your speech.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        Again, I ask what good is a right if one can not reasonably exercise it? I also suggest we are veering too far from the topic. To be very, very clear - Reddit is under no obligation to allow anything they do not wish to allow.
        uoaei 9y ago
        No one's rights are being infringed upon. The right to free speech is certainly still in their hands. Their audience is then anyone within earshot. Your question seems to me to be a red herring, and doesn't seem relevant in the discussion surrounding web-based fora. While "the internet" in some abstract form could be construed as a human right in this modern technological world of ours, the World Wide Web as it stands today very much is not that. The infrastructure is privately maintained, and as such is not granted the protections that the 1st amendment provides. Likewise the services that are built upon the physical infrastructure, namely websites and data-transmission services, are not obligated to enforce rights.
        KGIII 9y ago
        Let's try something. Do you believe that the Internet should be a basic human right, that affordable access should be made reasonably available for everyone on the planet?
        uoaei 9y ago
        The question is, access to what? Access to encyclopedic knowledge? Sure. Access to academic literature? Would definitely be a net positive. Access to the ramblings of every human in existence? Not sure why this would be so necessary. Quick edit to add: anything that requires instantiation to justify said "right" doesn't seem like it vibes well with the definition of the word "right." For instance, how could the right to internet exist if the internet didn't exist? This is opposed to people's need to communicate (free speech), their need for a safe place to sleep, or to satiate their hunger and nutritional needs. All of these problems exist by nature of us being human, and are inescapable in life by definition. Thus the rights, that we have today to protect people from succumbing to painful and undignified suffering when these needs aren't met, are justified. The same cannot be said of a recent technological invention. No one needs the internet to live.
0x4f3759df 9y ago
A group could set up their own server, but then their DNS provider drops them, so they solicit funds but then payment processors drop them. Sometimes the post stops delivering physical mail to your house because you wrote a book they don't like. There are a lot of choke-points.

KGIII 9y ago

It's a bit of a problem, really. They take URLs away, they refuse to host them, etc... So, I'd say what good are rights if you can't reasonably exercise them? Don't get me wrong, I really don't like Nazis. They are pretty much the definition of bad people. So, I try to empathize. We all want to belong to something. They like firearms. Me too. I love a good explosion, though I'd much prefer it not actually hurt anyone. If I can humanize them, I can understand that they too deserve basic human rights.

michaelchisari 9y ago
Reddit is not a basic human right. You have a right to free speech, but society has no obligation to provide you a megaphone and a soapbox.
- KGIII 9y ago
  You didn't read what I wrote. Reddit is absolutely free to do this. Voat exists, if they want a place to speak.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    I did read what you wrote. You are not arguing for the right to free speech, you are arguing for a right to a platform (yet referring to such as an appeal to free speech). And there is no such thing. There is no right to a platform for your speech. You are allowed to say it, but nobody has any obligation to repeat, produce, disseminate or validate your speech.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Again, I ask what good is a right if one can not reasonably exercise it? I also suggest we are veering too far from the topic. To be very, very clear - Reddit is under no obligation to allow anything they do not wish to allow.
      - uoaei 9y ago
        No one's rights are being infringed upon. The right to free speech is certainly still in their hands. Their audience is then anyone within earshot. Your question seems to me to be a red herring, and doesn't seem relevant in the discussion surrounding web-based fora. While "the internet" in some abstract form could be construed as a human right in this modern technological world of ours, the World Wide Web as it stands today very much is not that. The infrastructure is privately maintained, and as such is not granted the protections that the 1st amendment provides. Likewise the services that are built upon the physical infrastructure, namely websites and data-transmission services, are not obligated to enforce rights.
        KGIII 9y ago
        Let's try something. Do you believe that the Internet should be a basic human right, that affordable access should be made reasonably available for everyone on the planet?
        uoaei 9y ago
        The question is, access to what? Access to encyclopedic knowledge? Sure. Access to academic literature? Would definitely be a net positive. Access to the ramblings of every human in existence? Not sure why this would be so necessary. Quick edit to add: anything that requires instantiation to justify said "right" doesn't seem like it vibes well with the definition of the word "right." For instance, how could the right to internet exist if the internet didn't exist? This is opposed to people's need to communicate (free speech), their need for a safe place to sleep, or to satiate their hunger and nutritional needs. All of these problems exist by nature of us being human, and are inescapable in life by definition. Thus the rights, that we have today to protect people from succumbing to painful and undignified suffering when these needs aren't met, are justified. The same cannot be said of a recent technological invention. No one needs the internet to live.

0x4f3759df 9y ago

A group could set up their own server, but then their DNS provider drops them, so they solicit funds but then payment processors drop them. Sometimes the post stops delivering physical mail to your house because you wrote a book they don't like. There are a lot of choke-points.