4 ms·

"ties to the government?" Even if that were more than vague and nebulous, it's still not "actually the government." Private companies terminating accounts of th

"ties to the government?" Even if that were more than vague and nebulous, it's still not "actually the government." Private companies terminating accounts of their own volition is not censorship.

gruez 6y ago
>Private companies terminating accounts of their own volition is not censorship. Are you conflating 1st amendment protections with "censorship"? Definition of censorship: >The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated. (emphasis mine)
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  Indeed, companies may have the legal right to censor like this, but it's censorship regardless.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    You can draw the definition as widely as you like: not even the ACLU says that censorship carried out by private citizens is illegal or that the right response to it is more laws.
    - rndgermandude 6y ago
      I didn't say either, I didn't say it was illegal - quite the opposite - or that the right response is more laws. However, I did say in the past, that in certain circumstances I do think the right response is laws. There are laws e.g. prohibiting utility companies from refusing customers they do not like like people who criticize the company or nazis and "nazis". I do think that common infrastructure companies (analog to the utilities companies, just essential digital services) such as cloudflare, dns registrars, hosting and cloud providers shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people with the "wrong" opinions. And even "social media" companies of a certain size/marketshare/market power should be severely limited in what they can censor (e.g. banning nudity and porn and gore etc is OK in my opinion, banning speech inciting violence is too, if narrowly defined, banning people because they belong to a certain political party or stream is not). Yeah, here be dragons; it would be hard to find a good balance, but given the alternative of a few (social) media companies right now growing ever more powerful it still would be the right thing to do.
      - gruez 6y ago
        >I do think that common infrastructure companies (analog to the utilities companies, just essential digital services) such as cloudflare, dns registrars, hosting and cloud providers shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people with the "wrong" opinions. I don't think that's a good analog. In your area there's only one electric/water/gas company, and 2-3 wired telecoms (eg. phone, cable, maybe fiber). You don't really have much of a choice there. However, there are dozens of CDNs, domain name registrars/dns providers, and hosting providers.
        rndgermandude 6y ago
        It doesn't matter if there are dozens of CDNs. Look at what happened to dailystormer, they were unable to find a CDN. Yes, they are bad nazis and are pretty much underserving of anybody's pity, but it still shows how easily those few market players (and an angry twitter mob) can banish stuff from the internet, driven by some public outrage. There is a handful of CC companies and payment processors. Look at what happened to adult performers and sex workers (even the ones operating completely within the law): they cannot even get a bank account once they are found out to be in those businesses. Want to run a legal dispensary selling legal weed? Though luck, no banking for you either, and even finding a datacenter that will take your servers will be tough. The market position of the big players, network effects and also often the regulatory capture makes sure you cannot just "build your own" in a lot of areas. And even if there is competition - like there is with hosting - you'd be hard pressed to find a hoster that will have you. And even once you found such a hoster, it probably will not last because angry mobs start to write emails to that hoster, or DDoS it.
        NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        >Want to run a legal dispensary selling legal weed? Though luck, no banking for you either, and even finding a datacenter that will take your servers will be tough. If we're talking about the U.S., Federal law still maintains that marijuana is a Schedule I drug. It is hardly surprising that banks and other service providers are hesitant to form relationships with customers whose primary business is "illegal drug trafficking" from a U.S. government perspective.

"ties to the government?" Even if that were more than vague and nebulous, it's still not "actually the government." Private companies terminating accounts of their own volition is not censorship.

gruez 6y ago

>Private companies terminating accounts of their own volition is not censorship. Are you conflating 1st amendment protections with "censorship"? Definition of censorship: >The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated. (emphasis mine)

rndgermandude 6y ago
Indeed, companies may have the legal right to censor like this, but it's censorship regardless.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  You can draw the definition as widely as you like: not even the ACLU says that censorship carried out by private citizens is illegal or that the right response to it is more laws.
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    I didn't say either, I didn't say it was illegal - quite the opposite - or that the right response is more laws. However, I did say in the past, that in certain circumstances I do think the right response is laws. There are laws e.g. prohibiting utility companies from refusing customers they do not like like people who criticize the company or nazis and "nazis". I do think that common infrastructure companies (analog to the utilities companies, just essential digital services) such as cloudflare, dns registrars, hosting and cloud providers shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people with the "wrong" opinions. And even "social media" companies of a certain size/marketshare/market power should be severely limited in what they can censor (e.g. banning nudity and porn and gore etc is OK in my opinion, banning speech inciting violence is too, if narrowly defined, banning people because they belong to a certain political party or stream is not). Yeah, here be dragons; it would be hard to find a good balance, but given the alternative of a few (social) media companies right now growing ever more powerful it still would be the right thing to do.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >I do think that common infrastructure companies (analog to the utilities companies, just essential digital services) such as cloudflare, dns registrars, hosting and cloud providers shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people with the "wrong" opinions. I don't think that's a good analog. In your area there's only one electric/water/gas company, and 2-3 wired telecoms (eg. phone, cable, maybe fiber). You don't really have much of a choice there. However, there are dozens of CDNs, domain name registrars/dns providers, and hosting providers.
      - rndgermandude 6y ago
        It doesn't matter if there are dozens of CDNs. Look at what happened to dailystormer, they were unable to find a CDN. Yes, they are bad nazis and are pretty much underserving of anybody's pity, but it still shows how easily those few market players (and an angry twitter mob) can banish stuff from the internet, driven by some public outrage. There is a handful of CC companies and payment processors. Look at what happened to adult performers and sex workers (even the ones operating completely within the law): they cannot even get a bank account once they are found out to be in those businesses. Want to run a legal dispensary selling legal weed? Though luck, no banking for you either, and even finding a datacenter that will take your servers will be tough. The market position of the big players, network effects and also often the regulatory capture makes sure you cannot just "build your own" in a lot of areas. And even if there is competition - like there is with hosting - you'd be hard pressed to find a hoster that will have you. And even once you found such a hoster, it probably will not last because angry mobs start to write emails to that hoster, or DDoS it.
        NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        >Want to run a legal dispensary selling legal weed? Though luck, no banking for you either, and even finding a datacenter that will take your servers will be tough. If we're talking about the U.S., Federal law still maintains that marijuana is a Schedule I drug. It is hardly surprising that banks and other service providers are hesitant to form relationships with customers whose primary business is "illegal drug trafficking" from a U.S. government perspective.