6 ms·

You can still do it, you don't need to use cloudflare, you don't need to use that registrar. You don't even need to use the Internet, paint it on a sign and wa

• tristor 6y ago
  > If you want free speech go to your door, walk outside, start taking. You got your free speech. Everything else is a bonus. This argument is reductio ad absurdum, except executed against an argument you support. De-platforming online is in opposition to free speech, and the fact you can walk out your front door with a sign does not mitigate the loss of equal power behind your speech that others enjoy by using Internet services. You standing on the street with a sign is in no way equivalent in character or reach to writing what your sign says on Twitter. So here we are, the Internet is a thing, it exists, and so do digital platforms. Free and open access to web platforms is a core philosophical requirement to ensure freedom of speech, and de-platforming people damages that. It's okay to be opposed to freedom of speech, it's okay to be opposed to the open web, but don't act as if you are not while advocating de-platforming as being an acceptable behavior.
  • core-questions 6y ago
    Well, here's the thing: their actual opposition is not truly to _free speech_ per se, it's to particular ideas that they want to quash. Whether or not there's a legitimate reason to dissuade people from thinking about those ideas is a different question.
    • cortesoft 6y ago
      It's not always about dissuading people from thinking about those ideas, it is about me not wanting to hear them.
      • yeetfaraway 6y ago
        Then run some blocking software locally on your own devices. If that's not enough, then it's obvious your concern is more about preventing everyone else from hearing opinions you don't approve of.
        • cortesoft 6y ago
          Good in theory, but I don't know of any software that can block just racist content from a website effectively.
  • ilikehurdles 6y ago
    > the fact you can walk out your front door with a sign does not mitigate the loss of equal power behind your speech that others enjoy by using Internet services. You standing on the street with a sign is in no way equivalent in character or reach to writing what your sign says on Twitter Maybe the answer is obvious to you, but it is not to me: why should these things be equivalent? Why should you be entitled to twitter's channel for your views that twitter does not want to host? If Twitter is making the decision on its own -- that is, it's not coerced by the state, and if you are still capable of getting your information online by some other means, then Twitter is making its own free speech decision to curate its own website like you would your own site or your own store. Free and accessible doesn't and shouldn't mean that you get to hold the platform for ransom with your content. That is, Twitter shouldn't be chained to indefinitely dedicating hosting specifically for any one kind of unpopular content. Your definition for the "open web" sounds to me like, honestly, very severe state control of private enterprise. You, a member of the open web, not being permitted to choose what content belongs on your own website just defeats the purpose of any kind of experiment of free expression online. A government telling you that you must always carry this or that particular view is totally antithetical to the First Amendment that establishes the Freedom of Speech. Getting kicked out of the bowling club for sharing highly offensive statements has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Losing your job over them has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Being banned from twitter has not prevented you from sharing those statements. I really do mean to be absolute about this -- your freedom of speech would not have been impeded _at all_, no matter how many hosts or bans or jobs you go through. If you're reduced to screaming your opinions from a street corner in order to have anyone hear them, and you're still being ignored by people, well you've still got 100% of your freedom of speech -- it's just that the speech isn't resonating and the government isn't some despotic, Orwellian regime that would force audiences to listen to those views.
    • heartbeats 6y ago
      Losing my job over them definitely dissuades me from sharing them in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech. If you're saying that you're not physically prevented from saying whatever you'd like, but with that being the limit, it seems like just about any infringement becomes acceptable. > Being put to death by the government has not prevented you from sharing those statements.
• heartbeats 6y ago
  You do need to use CloudFlare, or your site will get DDoSed into oblivion.
  • wlll 6y ago
    So set up your own "racism allowed" alternative to Cloudflare. At some point, yes, you're going to be basically reduced to shouting at people in the street because mst people think what you're saying is repugnant, but that's (mostly) up to them. It's not their duty to host your stuff.
    • heartbeats 6y ago
      What if my "racism allowed" alternative to CloudFlare gets depeered by, say, AT&T?
• Dylan16807 6y ago
  Payment processor bans are a legitimate free speech problem, in my opinion. Well, in the US.