3 ms·
If you want an Internet where every individual person can contribute then you need safe harbor. The alternative is nobody can contribute because any contributi
by wvenable 8y ago
If you want an Internet where every individual person can contribute then you need safe harbor. The alternative is nobody can contribute because any contribution could potentially be copyrighted by someone else whether it's text, audio, video, game, etc. Making every online space liable for that means that allowing individuals to contribute is simply too dangerous.
I could post all of Harry Potter to HackerNews comments one page at a time and I suppose this site is funded by "big tech" but you have some heavy biases on who this will affect and why they don't want it.
- dingaling 8y ago> where every individual person can contribute then you need safe harbor. Where every individual can contribute to centralised services If we had a personally-hosted, contributor-is-owner Internet then there would be no need for 'safe harbor'. You could post all the Harry Potter content to your own website and when it was taken offline no-one else would be affected. Safe harbor is a magnificent tool for centralising power. Little wonder that the big corps love it.
- wvenable 8y agoYou have to host your content somewhere. On my own dedicated servers I've personally been hit with requests to remove content that were sent directly to my data center. So you're just wrong about no need for no 'safe harbor' for personally-hosted Internet. You always have to host somewhere or get your connection from someone. And that if that someone isn't as safe harbor they will filter or block you.