4 ms·

Self-hosted servers are already against Comcast TOS, they tolerate them for casual use but any significant traffic is going to result in a service interruption.

umvi 6y ago
How does one self host their own online speech then? Whatever your answer is, that thing should not be controlled by a private company.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > How does one self host their own online speech then Pay for hosting. > that thing should not be controlled by a private company How would this be possible in a capitalist country?
  - umvi 6y ago
    > Pay for hosting. And what's to stop whichever company is hosting me from dropping hosting at the first whiff of a Twitter mob? > How would this be possible in a capitalist country? So you are saying free speech on the internet is incompatible with a capitalist economy?
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > And what's to stop whichever company is hosting me from dropping hosting at the first whiff of a Twitter mob? Money that you pay them for the service. This is almost always enough since that's all any of these companies actually care about. There are very rare exceptions where high-profile nazi groups have had their service contracts rescinded, but this isn't a real problem in practice. Nobody is having their service contract rescinded because their website is made up of conservatives, which is usually the implied subtext in these discussions. > So you are saying free speech on the internet is incompatible with a capitalist economy? No. I'm asking you how you envision people owning their own websites without any private companies involved, in an economy built around the concepts of corporate ownership.
      - umvi 6y ago
        > Money that you pay them for the service. This is almost always enough since that's all any of these companies actually care about. "almost always" is not a guarantee of free speech. > There are very rare exceptions where high-profile nazi groups have had their service contracts rescinded, but this isn't a real problem in practice. ...yet. What is "very rare" today can become "more common" tomorrow if there aren't strong legal protections. > No. I'm asking you how you envision people owning their own websites without any private companies involved, in an economy built around the concepts of corporate ownership. IANAL, but clearly there needs to be stronger legal protections in this arena. My ISP should not be able to disconnect me from the internet on the basis of speech. They should be like a utility company. My power company can't disconnect my electricity if I use the electricity to charge batteries for a megaphone that I then use to spread hate speech. My ISP/server host should be the same. Charge me for the compute resources I use, do not attempt to disconnect my service on moral or ethical grounds. Leave that to a higher layer in the stack.
        root_axis 6y ago
        > "almost always" is not a guarantee of free speech. There is no such guarantee with respect to someone else's private property. > What is "very rare" today can become "more common" tomorrow if there aren't strong legal protections. Yes, that's the slippery slope fallacy. I could make a similarly flawed argument in reverse, e.g. allowing Nazi propaganda to flourish unchecked is what lead to the rise of Hitler, so we should make Nazi ideas illegal before the acceptance of nazi ideas in wider society becomes "more common". Just to be clear, I am not actually arguing this position, only demonstrating why this reasoning is fallacious. Simply pointing to the existence of a rare event is not evidence that it will become more common. > My ISP should not be able to disconnect me from the internet on the basis of speech I agree, but only because ISPs control a shared, finite, public resource (the physical ISP lines, paid for in large part by the tax-payer). > server host should be the same No they shouldn't because they're not at all the same.
        amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        ISP’s should be classified as common carriers. Unfortunately the Trump administration disagrees with that view.
- cambalache 6y ago
  You dont, that's the point. The people saying that are being disingenuous, they know what they final goal is. If any of the measures, would have been taken against people they agree ideologically with they would be up in arms. Compare the reactions to the case when a gay couple drove hundreds of miles to specifically ask to a well known bakery owned by conservatives to make them a gay wedding cake, the guys refused btw silly thing and all the mainstream media wouldnt shut up about censorship. When the same thing is done to right-wingers you get OP's reaction, "stop complaining and create your own Visa, Amazon and Youtube"
lozaning 6y ago
Last I checked this was only applicable to residential service. If you pay for their business solution you can do whatever you want.

umvi 6y ago

How does one self host their own online speech then? Whatever your answer is, that thing should not be controlled by a private company.

root_axis 6y ago
> How does one self host their own online speech then Pay for hosting. > that thing should not be controlled by a private company How would this be possible in a capitalist country?
- umvi 6y ago
  > Pay for hosting. And what's to stop whichever company is hosting me from dropping hosting at the first whiff of a Twitter mob? > How would this be possible in a capitalist country? So you are saying free speech on the internet is incompatible with a capitalist economy?
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > And what's to stop whichever company is hosting me from dropping hosting at the first whiff of a Twitter mob? Money that you pay them for the service. This is almost always enough since that's all any of these companies actually care about. There are very rare exceptions where high-profile nazi groups have had their service contracts rescinded, but this isn't a real problem in practice. Nobody is having their service contract rescinded because their website is made up of conservatives, which is usually the implied subtext in these discussions. > So you are saying free speech on the internet is incompatible with a capitalist economy? No. I'm asking you how you envision people owning their own websites without any private companies involved, in an economy built around the concepts of corporate ownership.
    - umvi 6y ago
      > Money that you pay them for the service. This is almost always enough since that's all any of these companies actually care about. "almost always" is not a guarantee of free speech. > There are very rare exceptions where high-profile nazi groups have had their service contracts rescinded, but this isn't a real problem in practice. ...yet. What is "very rare" today can become "more common" tomorrow if there aren't strong legal protections. > No. I'm asking you how you envision people owning their own websites without any private companies involved, in an economy built around the concepts of corporate ownership. IANAL, but clearly there needs to be stronger legal protections in this arena. My ISP should not be able to disconnect me from the internet on the basis of speech. They should be like a utility company. My power company can't disconnect my electricity if I use the electricity to charge batteries for a megaphone that I then use to spread hate speech. My ISP/server host should be the same. Charge me for the compute resources I use, do not attempt to disconnect my service on moral or ethical grounds. Leave that to a higher layer in the stack.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        > "almost always" is not a guarantee of free speech. There is no such guarantee with respect to someone else's private property. > What is "very rare" today can become "more common" tomorrow if there aren't strong legal protections. Yes, that's the slippery slope fallacy. I could make a similarly flawed argument in reverse, e.g. allowing Nazi propaganda to flourish unchecked is what lead to the rise of Hitler, so we should make Nazi ideas illegal before the acceptance of nazi ideas in wider society becomes "more common". Just to be clear, I am not actually arguing this position, only demonstrating why this reasoning is fallacious. Simply pointing to the existence of a rare event is not evidence that it will become more common. > My ISP should not be able to disconnect me from the internet on the basis of speech I agree, but only because ISPs control a shared, finite, public resource (the physical ISP lines, paid for in large part by the tax-payer). > server host should be the same No they shouldn't because they're not at all the same.
      - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        ISP’s should be classified as common carriers. Unfortunately the Trump administration disagrees with that view.
cambalache 6y ago
You dont, that's the point. The people saying that are being disingenuous, they know what they final goal is. If any of the measures, would have been taken against people they agree ideologically with they would be up in arms. Compare the reactions to the case when a gay couple drove hundreds of miles to specifically ask to a well known bakery owned by conservatives to make them a gay wedding cake, the guys refused btw silly thing and all the mainstream media wouldnt shut up about censorship. When the same thing is done to right-wingers you get OP's reaction, "stop complaining and create your own Visa, Amazon and Youtube"

lozaning 6y ago

Last I checked this was only applicable to residential service. If you pay for their business solution you can do whatever you want.