3 ms·

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think it's time for the US government to step up and provide its citizens with minimal tax-funded government-managed h

by daenz 8y ago

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think it's time for the US government to step up and provide its citizens with minimal tax-funded government-managed hosting and domain services, for people to say whatever lawful speech that they want, without being censored. It's becoming clearer that the public sphere for speech is now online, and that space is managed only by private companies. If we want principles like free speech to continue, we need to segment some of that sphere to be funded and protected by the government. I say all this, because I believe both that a) yes, these private companies should be able to do what they want WRT who they associate with and b) online is the new "public space" for voices to be heard, which is currently only occupied by private companies. If you believe private companies shouldn't be able to buy up all the public land, then I think you would support something like this. The internet is the new public land, but it is theoretically infinite, and for some reason it's only occupied and controlled by private companies.

leoh 8y ago
What? By this logic, the government should have funded printing presses. Gab.com is going to find another provider. They are unhinged and no private entity is required to serve them. Also, this XKCD: https://www.xkcd.com/1357/ https://www.xkcd.com/1357/
- regecks 8y ago
  Isn't that the OP's point? What if no accredited .com registrar wants to serve them for fear of being criticized in the media? Gab would be SOL and lose the ability to meaningfully exist on the internet. Why are private companies the gatekeepers to being able to express yourself online, all of a sudden? Domain registration that is immune to knee-jerk responses like GoDaddy's would be nice. I am reminded of the time that GoDaddy revoked that "fake" Stripe EV cert (https://stripe.ian.sh/ https://stripe.ian.sh/) because of media reporting, even though it was acceptable under the CABF EV guidelines. In other words, arbitrary.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    At some point we have to consider that internet exists because of the government. Where that is can be debated, but without government enforcing certain regulations and restrictions, the internet wouldn't exist. The companies that benefit directly from those regulations and restrictions should have the First Amendment apply to them, or else the regulations and restrictions should be removed. Take the physical wires. They only exist spread everywhere because the government forced people to accept them and allowed companies to run wires over or under public land. At that point, the companies not benefiting from those wires are no longer fully private institutes.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    I've been using the internet since 1200bps modems and private companies have always dictated what gets shown on the internet. I have never been free to put child pornography or guides on how to make bombs anywhere I liked.
    - sublupo 8y ago
      That is because those things are illegal. Until saying Nazi ideology becomes illegal there should be a place for them in order to ensure free speech.
  - leoh 8y ago
    No, you are missing my point. The government doesn't need to fund printing presses or domain registrars because (a) there are tons of providers for these services (b) in general it is really cheap (c) you can find providers in nearly all cases. In some cases, a particular registrar won't support you (Go Daddy in this case). But that's their right. And Go Daddy would have continued to support them if Gab.com weren't engaging in particularly harmful activity.
    - regecks 8y ago
      And when Verisign (the registry operator for .com) decide that they no longer want [some undesirable domain] registered at all, where then? Go hopping between TLDs/ccTLDs? What about when ICANN gets dragged into the politics of all of this? Or recursive DNS resolvers like 1.1.1.1/8.8.8.8? I'm not saying I agree exactly with the OP's solution, but domain registration in many ways has the characteristics of a public utility, and I share their concern about it being subject to arbitrary value judgements.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> If we want principles like free speech to continue, we need to segment some of that sphere to be funded and protected by the government This is diametrically opposed to the First Amendment’s intent. Nobody is entitled to spout garbage. Or associate with those who do. What we are entitled to is protection from the government in respect of the garbage we spout. (And, protection from the government for assembling, or choosing not to assemble, with those who spout what we believe to be garbage.)
- daenz 8y ago
  >What we are entitled to is protection from the government in respect of the garbage we spout. With the implication being that only the government can legally stop you while you're in a public space. If there are no public spaces, what does it matter if the government can't legally touch you, if a private entity legally can? We have to ensure publicly-owned spaces exist for free speech to exist.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > only the government can legally stop you while you're in a public space Its meaning is closer to the opposite than to this. > If there are no public spaces The public space is deeper and more easily-accessible than ever before. Nazis aren’t having trouble distributing their message—Gab will find another registrar. Society, on the other hand, is having difficulty responding. The threat from the latter eclipses the former.
    - thucydidesofusa 8y ago
      If you're weighing societal interest in the message, you're not a proponent of free speech.
    - daenz 8y ago
      >The public space is deeper and more easily-accessible than ever before. The internet is not a public space. But the argument I'm making is that part if it should be. The Nazis have only been online with hosting and registrars through the blind eyes of the private company gatekeepers. Actions like what is happening to Gab, while morally and logically defensible ("they're nazis and its private companies"), are proving that these spaces are not public, and owned entirely by private entities with their own rules. Rules that may be in your favor today, but not tomorrow. The internet is a vast resource, and we can all see it's where public discussion actually takes place. Companies can and should run their parts of it. But there should also be a part delegated to citizens and protected by the principles we claim to want to uphold.
wpietri 8y ago
I think he internet is already that public space. Hosting a web page is approximately free already, and if we restore Net Neutrality, then ISPs are obliged to shuffle bits between any two consenting on-net individuals. I think the government should firmly stay out of hosting. If they become a dominant player, then government interference will become a major threat to free speech. And if they don't, then in practice the only people who can't find hosting anywhere will be the worst of the worst, so it will be a government-sponsored 4chan. I have no interest in using my tax dollars to pay to distribute content, as here, from murderous anti-Semites. Freedom of speech just means that the government won't stop you talking. It doesn't mean the government has an obligation to build you a free megaphone.
Waterluvian 8y ago
I think I agree, but I think for somewhat different reasons. I think that the government has a duty to provide the existence of town halls/squares where people are free to gather and talk and collaborate and even be ignored or ridiculed for what they say. I think that providing, at the bare minimum, Internet access and domain registration, might be the 21st century version of this. I don't hold this position strongly. I haven't thought this through a whole lot.
fooey 8y ago
Because the sorts of people posting on Gab are gonna be all over a service literally run by the NSA
djsumdog 8y ago
There is a case going to the supreme court right now, which may help determine if speech is an acceptable protected criteria (you can't refuse to server people based on race or sex if you own a business, except for very specific circumstances, but everything else is pretty much fair game).

by daenz 8y ago

leoh 8y ago

What? By this logic, the government should have funded printing presses. Gab.com is going to find another provider. They are unhinged and no private entity is required to serve them. Also, this XKCD: https://www.xkcd.com/1357/ https://www.xkcd.com/1357/

regecks 8y ago
Isn't that the OP's point? What if no accredited .com registrar wants to serve them for fear of being criticized in the media? Gab would be SOL and lose the ability to meaningfully exist on the internet. Why are private companies the gatekeepers to being able to express yourself online, all of a sudden? Domain registration that is immune to knee-jerk responses like GoDaddy's would be nice. I am reminded of the time that GoDaddy revoked that "fake" Stripe EV cert (https://stripe.ian.sh/ https://stripe.ian.sh/) because of media reporting, even though it was acceptable under the CABF EV guidelines. In other words, arbitrary.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  At some point we have to consider that internet exists because of the government. Where that is can be debated, but without government enforcing certain regulations and restrictions, the internet wouldn't exist. The companies that benefit directly from those regulations and restrictions should have the First Amendment apply to them, or else the regulations and restrictions should be removed. Take the physical wires. They only exist spread everywhere because the government forced people to accept them and allowed companies to run wires over or under public land. At that point, the companies not benefiting from those wires are no longer fully private institutes.
- threeseed 8y ago
  I've been using the internet since 1200bps modems and private companies have always dictated what gets shown on the internet. I have never been free to put child pornography or guides on how to make bombs anywhere I liked.
  - sublupo 8y ago
    That is because those things are illegal. Until saying Nazi ideology becomes illegal there should be a place for them in order to ensure free speech.
- leoh 8y ago
  No, you are missing my point. The government doesn't need to fund printing presses or domain registrars because (a) there are tons of providers for these services (b) in general it is really cheap (c) you can find providers in nearly all cases. In some cases, a particular registrar won't support you (Go Daddy in this case). But that's their right. And Go Daddy would have continued to support them if Gab.com weren't engaging in particularly harmful activity.
  - regecks 8y ago
    And when Verisign (the registry operator for .com) decide that they no longer want [some undesirable domain] registered at all, where then? Go hopping between TLDs/ccTLDs? What about when ICANN gets dragged into the politics of all of this? Or recursive DNS resolvers like 1.1.1.1/8.8.8.8? I'm not saying I agree exactly with the OP's solution, but domain registration in many ways has the characteristics of a public utility, and I share their concern about it being subject to arbitrary value judgements.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> If we want principles like free speech to continue, we need to segment some of that sphere to be funded and protected by the government This is diametrically opposed to the First Amendment’s intent. Nobody is entitled to spout garbage. Or associate with those who do. What we are entitled to is protection from the government in respect of the garbage we spout. (And, protection from the government for assembling, or choosing not to assemble, with those who spout what we believe to be garbage.)

daenz 8y ago
>What we are entitled to is protection from the government in respect of the garbage we spout. With the implication being that only the government can legally stop you while you're in a public space. If there are no public spaces, what does it matter if the government can't legally touch you, if a private entity legally can? We have to ensure publicly-owned spaces exist for free speech to exist.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > only the government can legally stop you while you're in a public space Its meaning is closer to the opposite than to this. > If there are no public spaces The public space is deeper and more easily-accessible than ever before. Nazis aren’t having trouble distributing their message—Gab will find another registrar. Society, on the other hand, is having difficulty responding. The threat from the latter eclipses the former.
  - thucydidesofusa 8y ago
    If you're weighing societal interest in the message, you're not a proponent of free speech.
  - daenz 8y ago
    >The public space is deeper and more easily-accessible than ever before. The internet is not a public space. But the argument I'm making is that part if it should be. The Nazis have only been online with hosting and registrars through the blind eyes of the private company gatekeepers. Actions like what is happening to Gab, while morally and logically defensible ("they're nazis and its private companies"), are proving that these spaces are not public, and owned entirely by private entities with their own rules. Rules that may be in your favor today, but not tomorrow. The internet is a vast resource, and we can all see it's where public discussion actually takes place. Companies can and should run their parts of it. But there should also be a part delegated to citizens and protected by the principles we claim to want to uphold.

wpietri 8y ago

I think he internet is already that public space. Hosting a web page is approximately free already, and if we restore Net Neutrality, then ISPs are obliged to shuffle bits between any two consenting on-net individuals. I think the government should firmly stay out of hosting. If they become a dominant player, then government interference will become a major threat to free speech. And if they don't, then in practice the only people who can't find hosting anywhere will be the worst of the worst, so it will be a government-sponsored 4chan. I have no interest in using my tax dollars to pay to distribute content, as here, from murderous anti-Semites. Freedom of speech just means that the government won't stop you talking. It doesn't mean the government has an obligation to build you a free megaphone.

Waterluvian 8y ago

I think I agree, but I think for somewhat different reasons. I think that the government has a duty to provide the existence of town halls/squares where people are free to gather and talk and collaborate and even be ignored or ridiculed for what they say. I think that providing, at the bare minimum, Internet access and domain registration, might be the 21st century version of this. I don't hold this position strongly. I haven't thought this through a whole lot.

fooey 8y ago

Because the sorts of people posting on Gab are gonna be all over a service literally run by the NSA

djsumdog 8y ago

There is a case going to the supreme court right now, which may help determine if speech is an acceptable protected criteria (you can't refuse to server people based on race or sex if you own a business, except for very specific circumstances, but everything else is pretty much fair game).