3 ms·

Obviously this was a business decision. Handling inquiries costs money, BitMitigate was generating lots of them. If BitMitigate had been paying enough, Voxilit

Obviously this was a business decision. Handling inquiries costs money, BitMitigate was generating lots of them. If BitMitigate had been paying enough, Voxility would be contractually obligated to keep them up. I can’t imagine why the relationship between 8chan and its users would matter at all in this conversation.

setr 7y ago
>I can’t imagine why the relationship between 8chan and its users would matter at all in this conversation. I was responding to "Hosting controversial content poses significant operational costs, nobody will do it for free"; no one in the story was hosting controversial content for free, except for 8chan, which was doing exactly that (at no cost to the users posting it). Other than that relationship, I don't see anyone in this tale that would expect free hosting for controversial content. >If BitMitigate had been paying enough, Voxility would be contractually obligated to keep them up. Right; my point is that if this was a normal event, Voxility would have simply increased fees to match the increased costs of hosting. BitMitigate would then increase its fees, and so on. Thats just the dynamics of business. Suddenly dropping service, and publicly promising to block all content (and I suppose reading between the lines, not rehosting even if BitMitigate ponied up), is hardly the natural monetarily-driven reaction to such an event. The SLA would have prevented this from happening suddenly... but I find it hard to not see this as a fairly unique and directed response... perhaps to a nonunique problem (was Voxility called out when Daily Stormer moved? Was it even really called out in this instance, beyond the tweet referenced in the article?)
- ryanlol 7y ago
  >I don't see anyone in this tale that would expect free hosting for controversial content. BitMitigate was presumably paying Voxility for normal hosting, not for the bulletproof hosting BM was marketing. Those are two quite different services. It appears that BM may have expected free bulletproof hosting from Voxility. (Or maybe not, perhaps they expected to get kicked out) If I pay you to wash my car that doesn’t mean I’m paying you to clean my house. >Right; my point is that if this was a normal event, Voxility would have simply increased fees to match the increased costs of hosting. Bullshit. They’d have terminated the relationship because the customer was not being upfront with them. Besides, going “hey pay us more or you’re going offline” has a real bad vibe to it, I doubt many sane companies would want to do that. This is completely standard practice in the hosting industry. I’ve been kicked out of tens of datacenters (including Voxility!), I know exactly how this works.

setr 7y ago

>I can’t imagine why the relationship between 8chan and its users would matter at all in this conversation. I was responding to "Hosting controversial content poses significant operational costs, nobody will do it for free"; no one in the story was hosting controversial content for free, except for 8chan, which was doing exactly that (at no cost to the users posting it). Other than that relationship, I don't see anyone in this tale that would expect free hosting for controversial content. >If BitMitigate had been paying enough, Voxility would be contractually obligated to keep them up. Right; my point is that if this was a normal event, Voxility would have simply increased fees to match the increased costs of hosting. BitMitigate would then increase its fees, and so on. Thats just the dynamics of business. Suddenly dropping service, and publicly promising to block all content (and I suppose reading between the lines, not rehosting even if BitMitigate ponied up), is hardly the natural monetarily-driven reaction to such an event. The SLA would have prevented this from happening suddenly... but I find it hard to not see this as a fairly unique and directed response... perhaps to a nonunique problem (was Voxility called out when Daily Stormer moved? Was it even really called out in this instance, beyond the tweet referenced in the article?)

ryanlol 7y ago
>I don't see anyone in this tale that would expect free hosting for controversial content. BitMitigate was presumably paying Voxility for normal hosting, not for the bulletproof hosting BM was marketing. Those are two quite different services. It appears that BM may have expected free bulletproof hosting from Voxility. (Or maybe not, perhaps they expected to get kicked out) If I pay you to wash my car that doesn’t mean I’m paying you to clean my house. >Right; my point is that if this was a normal event, Voxility would have simply increased fees to match the increased costs of hosting. Bullshit. They’d have terminated the relationship because the customer was not being upfront with them. Besides, going “hey pay us more or you’re going offline” has a real bad vibe to it, I doubt many sane companies would want to do that. This is completely standard practice in the hosting industry. I’ve been kicked out of tens of datacenters (including Voxility!), I know exactly how this works.