4 ms·
> If you push that rope you will discover that your capacity to publish anything you want is restricted by the policy of whoever hosts your servers Fair enough
by generalk 6y ago
> If you push that rope you will discover that your capacity to publish anything you want is restricted by the policy of whoever hosts your servers
Fair enough.
My original parent comment asked where you can speak freely online, which for the purposes of my argument I'm equating to US law regarding free speech. (This may not be the angle you're coming from.)
Most hosts will allow you to publish things that fit that description. To take the examples given in this thread: if you want to publish an image of the Confederate flag, or publish something and not have Twitter or Facebook placing ropes around your content, publishing your own website is going to solve that problem for you.
Now, you're not wrong, there are limits to that, but I'm struggling to find out how those limits apply to this conversation in any realistic way.
- marcosdumay 6y agoThe US laws about free speech are greatly liberal (if extended to protect non-citizens). Even something more restrictive like outlawing hate-speech is still a complete no-issue. But privatizing those laws on the hands of a few companies only work as long as (besides other constraints) there isn't a mob pushing those few companies around. So, I'm completely in favor of letting MS police their platform, but the universal ones ought to be declared public services and there should be guarantees of universalization there. 1 - Not only ISPs, as for example an app store on a locked phone is universal to that phone's userbase.