5 ms·

Example?

by thotsBgone 6y ago

Example?

crisper78 6y ago
I have about 30 examples, none of which will ever be shared on the Internet!
cpach 6y ago
For example, I know that Hezbollah had problems finding an ISP back in the 90s.
d1zzy 6y ago
When I worked at an ISP years back, if we had a DDOS attack against a customer the way we handled that was to drop all traffic incoming towards that customer's IP at our external peer level (meaning the bigger ISP we were getting most of the external Internet from). That was necessary so all of that DDOS traffic wasn't eating from the bandwidth available to all other customers that weren't being DDOS-ed. But it also meant that the DDOS-ed customer was losing all Internet access (which wasn't really much of a change considering that they were receiving a DDOS that filled all their allocated bandwidth). Repeat customers that would get DDOS too many times (cybercafes would fall into that category often) would have to either pay more to cover for the cost of the network engineers dealing with the DDOS or get the boot. From what I remember it's quite similar with many service providers, including hosting providers. Their TOS will allow them discretion to stop providing services to anyone that may negatively impact their business, it's not like there's any law that forces them to provide service to a customer.
piyh 6y ago
Goatse
Bayart 6y ago
Back when I was a kid the red-headed step children of the Internet were the warez, neo-nazi, « revolutionary » (read bomb-making), spam and snuff sites. I'm probably missing a few categories. And that's just the contentious stuff. There are things that even the most zealous free speech maniacs would have a hard time convincing themselves should be allowed even a modicum of publicity. Child porn is the most blatant one.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  So you're literally using banning child porn to justify banning political discussion: exactly what free speech advocates predicted when censorship hit the internet.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    Plotting the overthrow of the government isn't political speech
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
actaeon169 6y ago
Although more complicated than just "provider bans speech", this was an interesting case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Technology_Center_v._Netcom_On-Line_Communication_Services,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Technology_Center_v.....
simias 6y ago
Everything to do with warez for one, even sites that didn't directly host IP-infringing content, would very often get the boot because it's a huge hassle for hosts to deal with the amount of trouble these websites generate.

Example?

crisper78 6y ago

I have about 30 examples, none of which will ever be shared on the Internet!

cpach 6y ago

For example, I know that Hezbollah had problems finding an ISP back in the 90s.

d1zzy 6y ago

When I worked at an ISP years back, if we had a DDOS attack against a customer the way we handled that was to drop all traffic incoming towards that customer's IP at our external peer level (meaning the bigger ISP we were getting most of the external Internet from). That was necessary so all of that DDOS traffic wasn't eating from the bandwidth available to all other customers that weren't being DDOS-ed. But it also meant that the DDOS-ed customer was losing all Internet access (which wasn't really much of a change considering that they were receiving a DDOS that filled all their allocated bandwidth). Repeat customers that would get DDOS too many times (cybercafes would fall into that category often) would have to either pay more to cover for the cost of the network engineers dealing with the DDOS or get the boot. From what I remember it's quite similar with many service providers, including hosting providers. Their TOS will allow them discretion to stop providing services to anyone that may negatively impact their business, it's not like there's any law that forces them to provide service to a customer.

piyh 6y ago

Goatse

Bayart 6y ago

Back when I was a kid the red-headed step children of the Internet were the warez, neo-nazi, « revolutionary » (read bomb-making), spam and snuff sites. I'm probably missing a few categories. And that's just the contentious stuff. There are things that even the most zealous free speech maniacs would have a hard time convincing themselves should be allowed even a modicum of publicity. Child porn is the most blatant one.

commandlinefan 6y ago
So you're literally using banning child porn to justify banning political discussion: exactly what free speech advocates predicted when censorship hit the internet.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Plotting the overthrow of the government isn't political speech
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

actaeon169 6y ago

Although more complicated than just "provider bans speech", this was an interesting case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Technology_Center_v._Netcom_On-Line_Communication_Services,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Technology_Center_v.....

simias 6y ago

Everything to do with warez for one, even sites that didn't directly host IP-infringing content, would very often get the boot because it's a huge hassle for hosts to deal with the amount of trouble these websites generate.