7 ms·
> Or Parlour can just distribute as a web app. Okay. Then hosting providers refuse to host. Payment processors refuse to process your payments for web servic
by SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
> Or Parlour can just distribute as a web app.
Okay.
Then hosting providers refuse to host.
Payment processors refuse to process your payments for web services.
Your domains are revoked.
Your SSL certs are revoked.
Where does this end? If they have the power to, and they've justified it this far, why wouldn't they keep going?
- FDSGSG 6y agoIf nobody wants to do business with you, maybe you are the problem?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- adkadskhj 6y agoThis is the natural possibility of closed systems we all subscribe to. Your ISP is only one government call away from disconnecting you. The answer is relying on corporate sponsored freedoms is not enough. Open source tools and communication technologies need to be available.
- valuearb 6y agoOpen source can’t solve the problem if government control exists.
- adkadskhj 6y agoIf government can control everything then why are we even discussing anything? Clearly this discussion is in the realm of citizens having _some_ free will. Rather, we're talking about whether or not the government should forcibly allow/deny corporations from supporting extremists. This has nothing to do with government control, imo.
- fireeyed 6y agoYou just described the coordinated takedown of Alex Jones from Apple, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Cloudflare et al in less than 2 hours.
- valuearb 6y agoInfowars is still up.
- mbreese 6y agoA {hosting, domain, ssl} company doesn’t have to accept another company as a customer. What about the hosting company’s freedom of speech rights? If a hosting company doesn’t want to host your site, that’s their decision. If they don’t want to be associated with a site or app or spend their resources, that’s their decision. These aren’t regulated monopolies that have to serve all customers. Now, if you want to claim that they should be a regulated market — that’s a whole other discussion.
- SpaceRaccoon 6y agoThat's interesting. Do you feel the same way about a company refusing to serve Jews or Blacks? Is it their right?
- jude- 6y agoUnder the current anti-discrimination laws, political affiliation is not a protected class. Religion, race, sexuality, etc., however, are.
- SpaceRaccoon 6y agoSo as we soon as we pass law making it a protected class, that argument will be null and void, correct? Great, I cannot wait!
- jude- 6y agoI wouldn't hold your breath.
- SpaceRaccoon 6y agoThat's alright, I'm sure you would have said the same to civil rights advocates in the '60s, too.
- jude- 6y ago
- valuearb 6y agoThis isn’t possible without government control of the underlying components of the web, such as domain system. Otherwise private persons and companies can always create their own domain providers. Yet you seem to advocate more government control. You see the dichotomy in your thoughts?
- SpaceRaccoon 6y agoHasn't breaking up monopolies been a central tenet of ensuring a free market since forever? Suddenly you defend monopolies. Interesting, isn't it?
- FDSGSG 6y agoThere is no hosting monopoly, there is no payment processing monopoly, there is no domain registration monopoly, there is no SSL CA monopoly.
- SpaceRaccoon 6y agoIt's sufficient to push undesirables to services which are more expensive, more inconvenient, unreliable, and so on. Relegate them to their internet ghetto. However, there clearly is a small number of players in mobile platforms, cloud, and payment, and they act in a unified way. It has been sufficient.
- FDSGSG 6y ago>mobile platforms Sure, there are in fact only a small number of players in this space. >cloud There are vast amounts of hosting providers. A quick google suggests over 300k, but that sounds somewhat unlikely. >payment There are a thousands of banks in the world, most of Europe manages just fine using bank transfers for payments without involving external payment processors. >It's sufficient to push undesirables to services which are more expensive, more inconvenient, unreliable, and so on. Relegate them to their internet ghetto. Is this really a problem? That's just the inherent nature of being undesirable.
- 6y ago
- FridgeSeal 6y agoIs this not “the market” deciding it doesn’t want to entertain this business? As a society it’s totally reasonable for us to draw the line at intolerable behaviour, we’re not obliged to put up with platforms that enable hate and vitriol, just as we don’t tolerate violence in the street. If a business closes because nobody is interested in buying their products, or a club disbands because nobody is interested in joining, or a pub bars a patron who’s starting fights and nobody blinks an eye. The same thing happens on the internet and suddenly it’s the end of the world.
- OCASM 6y agoIn those cases it's the business owner who decides. What happens when the decision comes after a mob puts pressure on the owner to drop that costumer or else?
- bjustin 6y agoIf there is a market for it, presumably some business out of reach of the mob in question will take up the mantle for the money. If there's no money in it, then the market is deciding that the market doesn't want the opinions in question. The market still decides in the end.
- OCASM 6y agoUnless they're too scared of harrassment by the mob, specially a state-induced one: https://nitter.net/AOC/status/1347679332014161920#m https://nitter.net/AOC/status/1347679332014161920#m
- dang 6y agoWe've banned this account for continuing to do political flamewar after we specifically asked you not to. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695444
- 6y ago