3 ms·

>If you post on someone else's domain, then it's their content, and they're in control of it, not you. No matter what is claimed otherwise. Likewise, if you ar

by Funes- 6y ago

>If you post on someone else's domain, then it's their content, and they're in control of it, not you. No matter what is claimed otherwise. Likewise, if you are paying for hosting and a domain to any corporation, they effectively control your published content. Isn't that so? A hosting company can remove your account; a domain registrar can ban you, too. Isn't that what had been happening to Gab? The only way you can be in full control of your own content is publishing a hidden service on Tor, an eepsite on I2P, a site on ZeroNet--provided you use it with Tor--, etcetera. Sure, it's availability at the expense of visibility, but that's how it is right now.

theshrike79 6y ago
Yes, but if you have the content and maybe even a static site generated by Hugo or something on a computer you control, it doesn't take more than few minutes to deploy the whole site to a new host and transfer the domain to point to the new address.
- Funes- 6y ago
  What if your content is deemed too controversial or "problematic"? Will any company host it? Any domain registrar? Many topics now considered unpublishable weren't, not that long ago. And that's a slippery slope I wouldn't dare to test. The free flow of information must prevail if we want to preserve our freedom. I don't think anyone's capacity to publish anything online should rely on trust nor gatekeepers.
  - tasogare 6y ago
    Consider hosting in a country less politicized on the said issues. I think for example you could host most traditional views without the any issue in Japan, for three reasons: freedeom of speech is guaranteed by constitution, they likely won’t bother with foreign language and the said views are mainstream here. Given how the problem of free expression is becoming in the West, there is a business opportunity on medium-term I think.
  - M2Ys4U 6y ago
    Given your initial example was Gab, I'd say that if we want to preserve freedom we must have the ability to make those things unpublishable. To quote Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
    - Funes- 6y ago
      I don't think it was necessary to quote anyone in order to make such a simplistic point across, though I get why anyone would do that--to appeal to authority, of course. In any case, and even though I'm not advocating here for "unlimited tolerance"--only freedom of speech, which is not one and the same--I'll bite: >But we should claim the right to suppress them [the "intolerant"] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument. Who is "we" and "us", here? Who gets to decide which community or group, which kind of action or speech, do "we" have the right to supress, "even by force"? What criteria are "we" going to use to do so? Will it be chosen through a majority vote? Sociocratic consensus? A deliberative process, perhaps? Where do we put the limit on when to act? There may be groups of people or ideas that "we" could consider dangerous enough to supress them long in advance--you know, take some risks with potentially innocent people. Let's supress political dissidents, as well; "they" could be dangerous for "us". Look, most of what is deemed "intolerant" or "offensive" isn't a clear-cut example of an existential threat to anyone or an evident danger one has to extirpate before it's too late. Moreover, the criteria is highly unstable, prone to rapidly change over media manipulation, corporations' interests, historical circumstances, culture, etcetera. I'd prefer letting everyone speak and act freely, acting with the full force of law when anyone's integrity is clearly and directly at risk, and never before.

by Funes- 6y ago

theshrike79 6y ago

Yes, but if you have the content and maybe even a static site generated by Hugo or something on a computer you control, it doesn't take more than few minutes to deploy the whole site to a new host and transfer the domain to point to the new address.

Funes- 6y ago
What if your content is deemed too controversial or "problematic"? Will any company host it? Any domain registrar? Many topics now considered unpublishable weren't, not that long ago. And that's a slippery slope I wouldn't dare to test. The free flow of information must prevail if we want to preserve our freedom. I don't think anyone's capacity to publish anything online should rely on trust nor gatekeepers.
- tasogare 6y ago
  Consider hosting in a country less politicized on the said issues. I think for example you could host most traditional views without the any issue in Japan, for three reasons: freedeom of speech is guaranteed by constitution, they likely won’t bother with foreign language and the said views are mainstream here. Given how the problem of free expression is becoming in the West, there is a business opportunity on medium-term I think.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  Given your initial example was Gab, I'd say that if we want to preserve freedom we must have the ability to make those things unpublishable. To quote Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
  - Funes- 6y ago
    I don't think it was necessary to quote anyone in order to make such a simplistic point across, though I get why anyone would do that--to appeal to authority, of course. In any case, and even though I'm not advocating here for "unlimited tolerance"--only freedom of speech, which is not one and the same--I'll bite: >But we should claim the right to suppress them [the "intolerant"] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument. Who is "we" and "us", here? Who gets to decide which community or group, which kind of action or speech, do "we" have the right to supress, "even by force"? What criteria are "we" going to use to do so? Will it be chosen through a majority vote? Sociocratic consensus? A deliberative process, perhaps? Where do we put the limit on when to act? There may be groups of people or ideas that "we" could consider dangerous enough to supress them long in advance--you know, take some risks with potentially innocent people. Let's supress political dissidents, as well; "they" could be dangerous for "us". Look, most of what is deemed "intolerant" or "offensive" isn't a clear-cut example of an existential threat to anyone or an evident danger one has to extirpate before it's too late. Moreover, the criteria is highly unstable, prone to rapidly change over media manipulation, corporations' interests, historical circumstances, culture, etcetera. I'd prefer letting everyone speak and act freely, acting with the full force of law when anyone's integrity is clearly and directly at risk, and never before.