4 ms·

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 certai

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.
  - gruez 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. My claim isn't that they didn't face any censorship, but that the scenario is not analogous to utilities, like you proposed earlier. Furthermore, if we're talking about dozens of market players, how is this any different than ye olden days where there's only a few dozen print shops within 1 day horse ride, and all of them refusing to print your pamphlets? It seems like your position is "no businesses shouldn't be able to discriminate on ideology", not just "common infrastructure companies [...] shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people with the 'wrong' opinions" >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. Many payment processors don't want to deal with adult/sex content not because they're puritans, but because it's associated with high rates of fraud. I don't see anything wrong with dropping clients that turn out to be more trouble than they're worth. Furthermore, the problem you describe doesn't really exist. There are processors dedicated to processing adult content however, as evidenced by sites like onlyfans.
    - rndgermandude 6y ago
      >Many payment processors don't want to deal with adult/sex content not because they're puritans, but because it's associated with high rates of fraud. They always claim that, and yet they make billions from it, also by extorting huge premiums (something like 1K upfront + 30%-40% of the revenue as fees and a minimum of fees you have to pay regardless even if your revenue is below that). But I wasn't even talking about people selling adult content. I was talking about people appearing in adult content, aka "porn stars". Even if you're solely a contract porn star working for studios instead of selling your own content directly, you'll be hard pressed to find personal banking once you're discovered to have a job like this (in the US).

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.
- gruez 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. My claim isn't that they didn't face any censorship, but that the scenario is not analogous to utilities, like you proposed earlier. Furthermore, if we're talking about dozens of market players, how is this any different than ye olden days where there's only a few dozen print shops within 1 day horse ride, and all of them refusing to print your pamphlets? It seems like your position is "no businesses shouldn't be able to discriminate on ideology", not just "common infrastructure companies [...] shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people with the 'wrong' opinions" >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. Many payment processors don't want to deal with adult/sex content not because they're puritans, but because it's associated with high rates of fraud. I don't see anything wrong with dropping clients that turn out to be more trouble than they're worth. Furthermore, the problem you describe doesn't really exist. There are processors dedicated to processing adult content however, as evidenced by sites like onlyfans.
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    >Many payment processors don't want to deal with adult/sex content not because they're puritans, but because it's associated with high rates of fraud. They always claim that, and yet they make billions from it, also by extorting huge premiums (something like 1K upfront + 30%-40% of the revenue as fees and a minimum of fees you have to pay regardless even if your revenue is below that). But I wasn't even talking about people selling adult content. I was talking about people appearing in adult content, aka "porn stars". Even if you're solely a contract porn star working for studios instead of selling your own content directly, you'll be hard pressed to find personal banking once you're discovered to have a job like this (in the US).