5 ms·

Are people still able to download a web server and host their own content? What does anyone need a host for? If a bunch of angry racists want to start their own

Are people still able to download a web server and host their own content? What does anyone need a host for? If a bunch of angry racists want to start their own social network, they could build it, if they really wanted a place to spew their hate. Is anyone really stopping them from connecting to the internet?

moduspol 8y ago
Is that the point? There are a lot of people here completely in support of this, and it's not hard to trace an IP address to an ISP. When brigades start calling for ISPs to stop serving these sites, do you really think that's when they'll stand up for free speech? Keep in mind in the span of just a few days, we've seen the jump from application platforms (Facebook, Google) to now infrastructure providers. The leap to ISPs is not that far, and something tells me when it happens, supporters will simply move the bar again.
- wmf 8y ago
  Historically if you have your own AS number it's very very hard to get kicked off the Internet. But maybe Nazis are revolting enough to make it happen.
  - moduspol 8y ago
    That misses the point. As long as there is an ISP that can be publicly pressured to block the source of content, and the source of that content can be easily differentiated (to avoid blocking other content), we're one Twitter mob away from "existing on the Internet" not being enough to avoid censorship. And it doesn't even need to be their ISP. It could be yours or mine.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  We already have organized brigades demanding ISPs stop providing service to certain people. That is to say, people who spam on an industrial scale. Do you think ISPs should instead be required to host spammers? Perhaps even to provide them extra resources to help them overcome the unfair way people's spam filters censor their valuable free speech?
  - moduspol 8y ago
    I'm open to simply acknowledging the Internet is no place for free speech. My point is that ISPs are just as vulnerable to brigading as Facebook or Microsoft, so arguing that it's not a big problem because they're still free to host content on their own hardware is missing the point. It just seems odd how rabidly pro-Net Neutrality places like this were only to make cases like yours a few months later when free speech on the net actually arrives on the chopping block. How long will it take before my ISP blocks Netflix ostensibly because of complaints of offensive content? But besides that, it's easy to draw a pretty clear distinction between allowing someone's web site to be accessible as compared to being actively compelled to send whatever outgoing transmissions a group likes. Packets are packets, but just as we don't allow screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre, freedom of speech is still incredibly important even if not absolute.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      I'd argue that the pipe -- that is, the entity which owns and controls the physical fiber/wires/etc. through which the packets flow -- should operate under a certain level of enforced neutrality, in the sense that if A and B each are customers of C paying for access to the pipe, C shouldn't decide to disallow, filter, or throttle traffic between them. C (the ISP) should only be able to choose whether or not to take on or keep a particular customer, and to charge fees according to usage. The net neutrality debate is basically over whether to allow C to double dip by refusing to provide the paid-for service unless it's paid for again (and again, and again...). But that says nothing about whether an ISP should be forced to accept any and all people as paying customers. And it's very far from saying that particular web sites should be forced to accept any and all users and any and all behaviors from those users. Which means you've basically failed in your quest to label people as hypocrites. Would you like to try again? (also, you may want to learn a bit more about First Amendment jurisprudence if your go-to is "fire in a crowded theater" -- it makes you look about as well-informed as someone who genuinely insists "the internet is a series of tubes")
      - moduspol 8y ago
        That you can selectively interpret net neutrality to justify ISPs arbitrarily blocking access to content is unsurprising, but nonetheless irrelevant.
Ajedi32 8y ago
Could they? Couldn't an ISP decide they don't want to serve that hateful content over their pipes and disconnect them? Or what if the domain name registrar decides they don't want to do business with an angry racist? Or what if an upstream backbone provider decides they could get some good PR by blackholing their IP? These days, private companies have a _lot_ of power over what speech is allowed to be heard. Perhaps even more so than the government.

moduspol 8y ago

Is that the point? There are a lot of people here completely in support of this, and it's not hard to trace an IP address to an ISP. When brigades start calling for ISPs to stop serving these sites, do you really think that's when they'll stand up for free speech? Keep in mind in the span of just a few days, we've seen the jump from application platforms (Facebook, Google) to now infrastructure providers. The leap to ISPs is not that far, and something tells me when it happens, supporters will simply move the bar again.

wmf 8y ago
Historically if you have your own AS number it's very very hard to get kicked off the Internet. But maybe Nazis are revolting enough to make it happen.
- moduspol 8y ago
  That misses the point. As long as there is an ISP that can be publicly pressured to block the source of content, and the source of that content can be easily differentiated (to avoid blocking other content), we're one Twitter mob away from "existing on the Internet" not being enough to avoid censorship. And it doesn't even need to be their ISP. It could be yours or mine.
ubernostrum 8y ago
We already have organized brigades demanding ISPs stop providing service to certain people. That is to say, people who spam on an industrial scale. Do you think ISPs should instead be required to host spammers? Perhaps even to provide them extra resources to help them overcome the unfair way people's spam filters censor their valuable free speech?
- moduspol 8y ago
  I'm open to simply acknowledging the Internet is no place for free speech. My point is that ISPs are just as vulnerable to brigading as Facebook or Microsoft, so arguing that it's not a big problem because they're still free to host content on their own hardware is missing the point. It just seems odd how rabidly pro-Net Neutrality places like this were only to make cases like yours a few months later when free speech on the net actually arrives on the chopping block. How long will it take before my ISP blocks Netflix ostensibly because of complaints of offensive content? But besides that, it's easy to draw a pretty clear distinction between allowing someone's web site to be accessible as compared to being actively compelled to send whatever outgoing transmissions a group likes. Packets are packets, but just as we don't allow screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre, freedom of speech is still incredibly important even if not absolute.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    I'd argue that the pipe -- that is, the entity which owns and controls the physical fiber/wires/etc. through which the packets flow -- should operate under a certain level of enforced neutrality, in the sense that if A and B each are customers of C paying for access to the pipe, C shouldn't decide to disallow, filter, or throttle traffic between them. C (the ISP) should only be able to choose whether or not to take on or keep a particular customer, and to charge fees according to usage. The net neutrality debate is basically over whether to allow C to double dip by refusing to provide the paid-for service unless it's paid for again (and again, and again...). But that says nothing about whether an ISP should be forced to accept any and all people as paying customers. And it's very far from saying that particular web sites should be forced to accept any and all users and any and all behaviors from those users. Which means you've basically failed in your quest to label people as hypocrites. Would you like to try again? (also, you may want to learn a bit more about First Amendment jurisprudence if your go-to is "fire in a crowded theater" -- it makes you look about as well-informed as someone who genuinely insists "the internet is a series of tubes")
    - moduspol 8y ago
      That you can selectively interpret net neutrality to justify ISPs arbitrarily blocking access to content is unsurprising, but nonetheless irrelevant.

Ajedi32 8y ago

Could they? Couldn't an ISP decide they don't want to serve that hateful content over their pipes and disconnect them? Or what if the domain name registrar decides they don't want to do business with an angry racist? Or what if an upstream backbone provider decides they could get some good PR by blackholing their IP? These days, private companies have a _lot_ of power over what speech is allowed to be heard. Perhaps even more so than the government.