4 ms·

>The proper thing to do for Gab.com is to become their own domain registrar ...and payment processor & bank, and hosting provider, and internet access provider

by dexen 8y ago

>The proper thing to do for Gab.com is to become their own domain registrar ...and payment processor & bank, and hosting provider, and internet access provider. Still could be blocked on DNS resolution level and IP routing level, so better build out alt-Internet while at it. At some point it becomes more cost-efficient to skip the grind of fighting-or-building every service provider tier, and go lobby the legislators for some protections. I, and many others, don't like Gab's speech, going by the 2nd hand accounts of it. Which is exactly why it needs free speech protections from various pressure groups.

vfclists 8y ago
The fact is that service providers in the desire to control content are distorting what an internet connection actually is in the courts, especially when that corporate shill Ajit Pai insists on claiming that internet providers are information service providers rather than providers of dumb pipes who are supposed to link the customers wherever they want to go. Blocking at the DNS level and routing level is technically a breach of the contract with the customer, because an internet service is simply an agreement to connect your equipment to an IP address, and the providers are in breach of contract when they do that.
- dexen 8y ago
  >Blocking at the DNS level and routing level is technically a breach of the contract with the customer, (...) A salient point. Throw in "False advertising", because they advertise providing providing Internet access but instead provide their own "walled garden internet" access. I would add that it should also strip the ISPs of their safe harbor protections[1] if they choose to perform editorial function of the Internet's content, instead of being providers of dumb pipes. If they want to editorialize, sure, by all means, go for it - but play by the relevant legal rules. How about this: when an ISP is found to have excercised editorial control of the internet, we penalize the ISP by stripping of save harbor protections[1] for 1 years into the future, and also deem them to have willingly rescinded the save harbor protections[1] during the whole period they were making editorial choices? Effectively making the editorializing ISPs liable for every single copyright infringement, libel, and any other relevant transgression that went on their platform while they were performing editorializing, and would be otherwise shielded from if they were proper dumb pipes. Let the ISPs decide whethey they want editorial control, or safe harbor protections. No more Schrödinger's ISPs holding on to both privileges that are supposed to be mutually exclusive. [1] DMCA 512, aka Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, and any other relevant.

by dexen 8y ago

vfclists 8y ago

The fact is that service providers in the desire to control content are distorting what an internet connection actually is in the courts, especially when that corporate shill Ajit Pai insists on claiming that internet providers are information service providers rather than providers of dumb pipes who are supposed to link the customers wherever they want to go. Blocking at the DNS level and routing level is technically a breach of the contract with the customer, because an internet service is simply an agreement to connect your equipment to an IP address, and the providers are in breach of contract when they do that.

dexen 8y ago
>Blocking at the DNS level and routing level is technically a breach of the contract with the customer, (...) A salient point. Throw in "False advertising", because they advertise providing providing Internet access but instead provide their own "walled garden internet" access. I would add that it should also strip the ISPs of their safe harbor protections[1] if they choose to perform editorial function of the Internet's content, instead of being providers of dumb pipes. If they want to editorialize, sure, by all means, go for it - but play by the relevant legal rules. How about this: when an ISP is found to have excercised editorial control of the internet, we penalize the ISP by stripping of save harbor protections[1] for 1 years into the future, and also deem them to have willingly rescinded the save harbor protections[1] during the whole period they were making editorial choices? Effectively making the editorializing ISPs liable for every single copyright infringement, libel, and any other relevant transgression that went on their platform while they were performing editorializing, and would be otherwise shielded from if they were proper dumb pipes. Let the ISPs decide whethey they want editorial control, or safe harbor protections. No more Schrödinger's ISPs holding on to both privileges that are supposed to be mutually exclusive. [1] DMCA 512, aka Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, and any other relevant.