2 ms·

The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements f

The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements for due process and such. By contrast, none of the corporations that host the sites you use daily have any such restrictions. If Google wants to delist your website, that's too bad for you. If AWS no longer wants to host it, you have no recourse. If Comcast decides to block you, there's nothing you can do. Do you want the corporations that control everything you see on the internet to be more neutral? That will require oversite by the government (probably the FCC specifically). If you want to be really cynical, you could say the government is controlled by corporate money... but then what does it matter? IMO, blind cynicism isn't helping anyone, and the government is at least ostensibly supposed to do what's in the interest of the nation, and has some limits about what it can and cannot censor. I'd rather that, than an amoral corporation motivated only by money.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements for due process and such. Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power. > By contrast, none of the corporations that host the sites you use daily have any such restrictions. If Google wants to delist your website, that's too bad for you. If AWS no longer wants to host it, you have no recourse. If Comcast decides to block you, there's nothing you can do. Sure there is - you go elsewhere. Just like 8chan will, just like the Daily Stormer did.
- falcrist 7y ago
  > Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power. Ok, I'll try again. Corporations can actively censor you. The government is more restricted in what speech it can stomp on. > Sure there is - you go elsewhere. How do you "go elsewhere" when Comcast refuses to allow customers to see your website? How do you "go elsewhere" when google delists you? If 8ch gets hosted in a foreign country after being delisted from google and refused by US hosts, that's censorship. That's an infringement on freedom of speech. If you're ok with that freedom of speech, then you are saying that it's ok for corporations to censor. That's a coherent stance... but one with which I vehemently disagree. I don't want ANYONE to have the power to censor, but with multinational mega-corps controlling the vast majority of the internet, that's simply not possible. Considering the fact that internet providers and online services control the vast majority of the content I consume, I'd much rather have some regulation that limits what these companies can do.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > Ok, I'll try again. Corporations can actively censor you. The government is more restricted in what speech it can stomp on. And I'll try again. Responding to "corporations can censor you" by saying "we should therefore break the First Amendment and let government censor" is bizarre if you're pro-free speech. I get "neither should be able to censor" as a position, even if I disagree with it. I don't get "I value free speech and thus want the government to be the speech arbiter" at all. > How do you "go elsewhere" when Comcast refuses to allow customers to see your website? Hang on, we're talking about CDNs. Not ISPs. Where I live, there's only one real choice for broadband ISPs, and I'd argue they should be largely treated as a utility in that scenario. > How do you "go elsewhere" when google delists you? Bing? > If 8ch gets hosted in a foreign country after being delisted from google and refused by US hosts, that's censorship. That's an infringement on freedom of speech. So's me telling my kids to be quiet and eat their dinner. It's thankfully 100% legal.
    - falcrist 7y ago
      > "we should therefore break the First Amendment and let government censor" I never said any such thing. Please don't misrepresent my comments. > we're talking about CDNs. Not ISPs. I'm actively discussing both. Legislation regulating who can censor what must necessarily start with ISPs before we can even think about regulating edge providers. > Bing? You can't move to bing, because you're not the one searching for your website. > So's me telling my kids to be quiet and eat their dinner. It's thankfully 100% legal. I'm saying it shouldn't be legal for corporations to suppress speech in this way.

ceejayoz 7y ago

> The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements for due process and such. Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power. > By contrast, none of the corporations that host the sites you use daily have any such restrictions. If Google wants to delist your website, that's too bad for you. If AWS no longer wants to host it, you have no recourse. If Comcast decides to block you, there's nothing you can do. Sure there is - you go elsewhere. Just like 8chan will, just like the Daily Stormer did.

falcrist 7y ago
> Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power. Ok, I'll try again. Corporations can actively censor you. The government is more restricted in what speech it can stomp on. > Sure there is - you go elsewhere. How do you "go elsewhere" when Comcast refuses to allow customers to see your website? How do you "go elsewhere" when google delists you? If 8ch gets hosted in a foreign country after being delisted from google and refused by US hosts, that's censorship. That's an infringement on freedom of speech. If you're ok with that freedom of speech, then you are saying that it's ok for corporations to censor. That's a coherent stance... but one with which I vehemently disagree. I don't want ANYONE to have the power to censor, but with multinational mega-corps controlling the vast majority of the internet, that's simply not possible. Considering the fact that internet providers and online services control the vast majority of the content I consume, I'd much rather have some regulation that limits what these companies can do.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Ok, I'll try again. Corporations can actively censor you. The government is more restricted in what speech it can stomp on. And I'll try again. Responding to "corporations can censor you" by saying "we should therefore break the First Amendment and let government censor" is bizarre if you're pro-free speech. I get "neither should be able to censor" as a position, even if I disagree with it. I don't get "I value free speech and thus want the government to be the speech arbiter" at all. > How do you "go elsewhere" when Comcast refuses to allow customers to see your website? Hang on, we're talking about CDNs. Not ISPs. Where I live, there's only one real choice for broadband ISPs, and I'd argue they should be largely treated as a utility in that scenario. > How do you "go elsewhere" when google delists you? Bing? > If 8ch gets hosted in a foreign country after being delisted from google and refused by US hosts, that's censorship. That's an infringement on freedom of speech. So's me telling my kids to be quiet and eat their dinner. It's thankfully 100% legal.
  - falcrist 7y ago
    > "we should therefore break the First Amendment and let government censor" I never said any such thing. Please don't misrepresent my comments. > we're talking about CDNs. Not ISPs. I'm actively discussing both. Legislation regulating who can censor what must necessarily start with ISPs before we can even think about regulating edge providers. > Bing? You can't move to bing, because you're not the one searching for your website. > So's me telling my kids to be quiet and eat their dinner. It's thankfully 100% legal. I'm saying it shouldn't be legal for corporations to suppress speech in this way.