4 ms·

Insofar as radio frequencies, internet domains, cable infrastructure and the like are effectively government induced oligolpolies, they are protected media as w

Insofar as radio frequencies, internet domains, cable infrastructure and the like are effectively government induced oligolpolies, they are protected media as well. In general though, yes, you have no right to have a particular editorial published in the new york times on your behalf. What the press deigns to publish is protected. You're also free to start your own paper, or blog, or whatever.

falcolas 7y ago
> or blog That's exactly what this discussion is about - you're not free to start a blog. Running any form of web site on the internet requires the support of multiple private companies, which can and do shut sites down at their whims.
- jknoepfler 7y ago
  It requires exactly access to a DNS and an ISP, both of which do have an obligation to enable fair access. Access to some blog-hosting SaSS is another issue entirely. I'm content to provide my own stack from the server up. There is no realistic scenario where I can be deplatformed from purchasing hardware sufficient to host a blog.
- belltaco 7y ago
  If it's just a blog couldn't you host it on a home internet connection using an ip address? I doubt ISPs would easily cut someone's home internet off. Is there precedent for that?
  - tareqak 7y ago
    1. Some ISPs have provisions separating home use and business use and are priced accordingly. 2. Some ISPs (possibly overlapping 1. or not) explicitly disallow hosting of any service on their Internet plans that they categorize for home use in their Terms of Service.
    - belltaco 7y ago
      I don't think hosting a personal blog would count as business use.
      - dragonsngoblins 7y ago
        Hosting a personal blog is beyond the reach of a lot of people. I feel like a large number of the general public wouldn't really ever have it occur to them as an idea in the first place, and of those that do a surprisingly large number might find it too complex for them.
apostacy 7y ago
> You're also free to start your own paper, or blog, or whatever. NO, you really aren't free to do that. If every means of communication is in private hands, and access is denied to you, then you effectively have no free speech. I am really depressed by the radical libertarian corporatism here on HN. If an oil company brought all the land around your house, and put up a wall on all sides, and refused to let you leave, I feel like people here would defend that. Because you are not entitled to be on other people's private property or what ever. And it was your fault for living in the center of the land they brought, and no freedom from consequences. And the first mediums of mass communication were 100% private, so to reiterate what I said before, everyone should be cool with them systematically excluding people they consider to be "nazis". To them, union organizers and journalists are a dangerous threat to public order... Shut up journalist, you are not entitled to use their private telegraphs that were subsidized by the government. You were banned because of your hateful speech against our corporation. No freedom from consequences, loser. Go whine about muh freeze peach elsewhere.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > private telegraphs that were subsidized by the government The post you replied to said that those things would have to carry you. What are you even ranting about at this point? > If every means of communication is in private hands, and access is denied to you, then you effectively have no free speech. Which is a theoretical risk only. But I'd say the answer is that you can buy whatever size internet connection you want and then host it yourself, in the exceptionally unlikely situation that no data center in a thousand miles will rent you space. (This would require 'common carrier' rules to be broadened very slightly, I'm aware things aren't perfect.)

falcolas 7y ago

> or blog That's exactly what this discussion is about - you're not free to start a blog. Running any form of web site on the internet requires the support of multiple private companies, which can and do shut sites down at their whims.

jknoepfler 7y ago
It requires exactly access to a DNS and an ISP, both of which do have an obligation to enable fair access. Access to some blog-hosting SaSS is another issue entirely. I'm content to provide my own stack from the server up. There is no realistic scenario where I can be deplatformed from purchasing hardware sufficient to host a blog.
belltaco 7y ago
If it's just a blog couldn't you host it on a home internet connection using an ip address? I doubt ISPs would easily cut someone's home internet off. Is there precedent for that?
- tareqak 7y ago
  1. Some ISPs have provisions separating home use and business use and are priced accordingly. 2. Some ISPs (possibly overlapping 1. or not) explicitly disallow hosting of any service on their Internet plans that they categorize for home use in their Terms of Service.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    I don't think hosting a personal blog would count as business use.
    - dragonsngoblins 7y ago
      Hosting a personal blog is beyond the reach of a lot of people. I feel like a large number of the general public wouldn't really ever have it occur to them as an idea in the first place, and of those that do a surprisingly large number might find it too complex for them.

apostacy 7y ago

> You're also free to start your own paper, or blog, or whatever. NO, you really aren't free to do that. If every means of communication is in private hands, and access is denied to you, then you effectively have no free speech. I am really depressed by the radical libertarian corporatism here on HN. If an oil company brought all the land around your house, and put up a wall on all sides, and refused to let you leave, I feel like people here would defend that. Because you are not entitled to be on other people's private property or what ever. And it was your fault for living in the center of the land they brought, and no freedom from consequences. And the first mediums of mass communication were 100% private, so to reiterate what I said before, everyone should be cool with them systematically excluding people they consider to be "nazis". To them, union organizers and journalists are a dangerous threat to public order... Shut up journalist, you are not entitled to use their private telegraphs that were subsidized by the government. You were banned because of your hateful speech against our corporation. No freedom from consequences, loser. Go whine about muh freeze peach elsewhere.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> private telegraphs that were subsidized by the government The post you replied to said that those things would have to carry you. What are you even ranting about at this point? > If every means of communication is in private hands, and access is denied to you, then you effectively have no free speech. Which is a theoretical risk only. But I'd say the answer is that you can buy whatever size internet connection you want and then host it yourself, in the exceptionally unlikely situation that no data center in a thousand miles will rent you space. (This would require 'common carrier' rules to be broadened very slightly, I'm aware things aren't perfect.)