4 ms·

Little's posts on Gab are awful, and Microsoft is in his rights to refuse service to anyone. However they don't have the capacity to do a fair manual triage of

Little's posts on Gab are awful, and Microsoft is in his rights to refuse service to anyone. However they don't have the capacity to do a fair manual triage of all the services they are hosting, and they should avoid doing it until legally constrained.

Someguywhatever 8y ago
Too lazy to actually look it up but I think that MS are getting ahead of the lawsuit from Europe. Europe will fine you X dollars for every second / minute / hour or something that a bad post is left online. So even if GAB does not comply with EU regs then Azure surely will and EU will go after the weakest link. MS knows this, and they don't care about GAB or Free Speech or whatever so they're going to shut them down if they don't comply. IMO Europes rules are designed this way on purpose, they are sort of exporting their rules, and eventually if that's allowed to continue the internet will devolve to the lowest common denominator. Whomever has the biggest most enforceable fines rules the internet.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  I don’t think there is a pan-European set of free speech laws. These are per country.
eli 8y ago
I don't follow your reasoning. Why is it wrong to refuse service to "bad" customers as they come to your attention, but it's ok to do it if you review everyone at once?
- hartator 8y ago
  DMCA process is far from perfect, but is a good example. Everyone can fill a DMCA, but if DMCA are abused, you can sue back. Banning Gab for what one of their user did seems outside of any process.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> However they don't have the capacity to do a fair manual triage of all the services they are hosting Perhaps, but that's not really an argument against complaint-based ToS enforcement. The US (or any other) government may lack the ability for a complete and fair manual triage of all behavior subject to their jurisdiction, but few people argue that complaint-based enforcement of criminal law is therefore unacceptable.
zamalek 8y ago
> Little’s posts had advocated for physically harming Jews. Fighting words are not covered by the first amendment according to the established supreme court interpretation. Regardless of your views on freedom of speech, it is not in any way relevant to the posts in question. The court would certainly uphold Microsoft's decision to step in.

Someguywhatever 8y ago

Too lazy to actually look it up but I think that MS are getting ahead of the lawsuit from Europe. Europe will fine you X dollars for every second / minute / hour or something that a bad post is left online. So even if GAB does not comply with EU regs then Azure surely will and EU will go after the weakest link. MS knows this, and they don't care about GAB or Free Speech or whatever so they're going to shut them down if they don't comply. IMO Europes rules are designed this way on purpose, they are sort of exporting their rules, and eventually if that's allowed to continue the internet will devolve to the lowest common denominator. Whomever has the biggest most enforceable fines rules the internet.

alkonaut 8y ago
I don’t think there is a pan-European set of free speech laws. These are per country.

eli 8y ago

I don't follow your reasoning. Why is it wrong to refuse service to "bad" customers as they come to your attention, but it's ok to do it if you review everyone at once?

hartator 8y ago
DMCA process is far from perfect, but is a good example. Everyone can fill a DMCA, but if DMCA are abused, you can sue back. Banning Gab for what one of their user did seems outside of any process.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> However they don't have the capacity to do a fair manual triage of all the services they are hosting Perhaps, but that's not really an argument against complaint-based ToS enforcement. The US (or any other) government may lack the ability for a complete and fair manual triage of all behavior subject to their jurisdiction, but few people argue that complaint-based enforcement of criminal law is therefore unacceptable.

zamalek 8y ago

> Little’s posts had advocated for physically harming Jews. Fighting words are not covered by the first amendment according to the established supreme court interpretation. Regardless of your views on freedom of speech, it is not in any way relevant to the posts in question. The court would certainly uphold Microsoft's decision to step in.