5 ms·

Anyone is free to set up a computer in their basement, install a web server, open up port 80 to the world, and serve to the world whatever blog or forum they wa

Anyone is free to set up a computer in their basement, install a web server, open up port 80 to the world, and serve to the world whatever blog or forum they want. This is the beauty of the web. They can scale it up as traffic grows and deal with all those headaches if they want. I fully support the owners of Parler if they want to do this. Twitter, FB, AWS, Google eventually came along and said “ok, you want to share your ideas or host a community, we can make that really easy with our tools and platforms!” You can post what you want without worrying about servers in your basement. But in exchange for that convenience you have to accept that they reserve the right to terminate the contract at any time. They should not be required to help you promote ideas that they deem harmful or toxic. So Parler can go back to how we used to do things in the 90s...it’s a little harder but not that hard. No one is being censored. This is simply a few companies deciding to terminate a relationship with one of their clients.

birdybird 6y ago
This is quite dishonest. Twitter, FB, AWS, Google condone a constant stream of harmful material, as long as it is either coming from other tech oligarchs or non-conservative outlets. How many BLM / Antifa riots have been organized in Google drive or Gmail? How many inner city gang feuds have spilled over into bloodshed, as a result of Instagram, Twitter or Facebook? How much revenge porn is served on Amazon's CDNs? Since George Floyd died, homicide rates have exploded in the United States -- dwarfing anything the far-right has done. To pretend this is about stopping violence is just a lie.
ffggvv 6y ago
“people can simply drive, i fully support american airlines not letting group X use their airlines” “people can just send letters i fully support att not allowing group X to use their phone lines to spread info.”
- nodamage 6y ago
  This is not the gotcha you think it is. Multiple airlines, for example, have banned passengers from their flights for refusing to wear masks. They are well within their rights to do so.
  - ffggvv 6y ago
    so you’d support them say banning anyone who supports bernie sanders? that’s also a physical threat, not a political idea. so don’t get your point
    - nodamage 6y ago
      That's a pretty silly false equivalence. Supporting Bernie Sanders poses no harm to anyone. Refusing to wear a mask on a plane does. So does planning a terrorist attack.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  You're talking about services that are "common carriers". They have special legal obligations to, within reason, facilitate every legal transaction that comes their way. The scenarios you describe therefore cannot happen with them. If you want internet platforms to have that same level of "anything goes", then you're arguing for them to be classified as common carriers.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    There is such a movement to regulate social giants (and other parts of Internet infrastructure) as common carriers. Apologies if you already knew this and I misunderstood your tone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utili...
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      I figured I wasn't the first one to think of the idea :) I'm not sure how I feel about it though. A "commons" physical space has has an firm upper limit on how many people it can reach. I don't think anyone is entitled to the massive amplification of their words that a large social media platform can provide without recourse to either being moderated or curated the way other broadcast media is done. A person could not perform some analog to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" on those traditional media forms, and I don't see how doing it on the internet should change that. The problem as always is where do you draw the line? Some free speech advocates seem to say it's too difficult so we shouldn't try. That one reasonable step could be the justification for an unreasonable one. I think that's a complete cop out. I think you do the reasonable thing, and then fight against the unreasonable thing. Not give up because it's not easy. It's a hard thing and we need to constantly as a whole and in individual circumstances assess our judgements, but not back away from making them.
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
> Anyone is free to set up a computer in their basement, install a web server, open up port 80 to the world, and serve to the world whatever blog or forum they want. Only until their ISP decides to do the same thing Amazon did (or buckles under the DDoS attacks that will happen). Or their registrar or DNS provider, assuming you don't consider domains optional too.
- jliptzin 6y ago
  Do you have examples of ISPs doing this to companies like Parler?
  - tpolm 6y ago
    8chan
    - nedudal 6y ago
      Ah right the beacon of society with the trinity of childporn, fascists and misagony.
      - tpolm 6y ago
        For some reason was not banned for that, but for something totally different
        nedudal 6y ago
        you are right it was giving a platform to a mass murderer.
  - wmf 6y ago
    Nazi site The Daily Stormer was infamously dropped by GoDaddy, Google, Tucows, Cloudflare, Namecheap, DreamHost, and various others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer#Site_hosting_issues_after_the_2017_Unite_the_Right_rally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer#Site_hosting... 8chan was shut down by Cloudflare, Tucows, Voxility and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan#August_2019_removal_from_clearnet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan#August_2019_removal_from... I'm surprised these sites haven't been disconnected at the BGP level yet; maybe that will happen this year.
buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
I love how every time someone says “company X shouldn’t do this” someone else replies and says “actually, company X is legally aloud to do that“. Yeah.. we know. Nobody is arguing that they can’t do it. Only that they shouldn’t. It’s a fun straw man though
- 3131s 6y ago
  This accounts for like 15% of all comments on political threads here.
3131s 6y ago
> Anyone is free to set up a computer in their basement, install a web server, open up port 80 to the world, and serve to the world whatever blog or forum they want. The internet as it exists for many people all over the world does not always include control over ports, or even a static IP address. Even if you do have a static IP you'll still need to go through a company to register a domain. And as far as I know there's nothing stopping an ISP from refusing service, which could be coordinated just like this app store removal.
cafed00d 6y ago
Not only does Parler have the option to set up their own infra like the old-school days of the web, they even have the option of promoting their speech via modern mobile only apps. It’s not impossible to have the entirety of their community communicate solely via Signal, WhatsApp or iMessage. Or any theoretically equivalent end-to-end encrypted messaging app where the “message group” is the entirety of the current Parler community. Apple, FB or anyone else, have no way to separate those users from others. Of course, one could argue that Apple & Google could institute new policies to prevent the spread of misinformation on apps. But nobody can argue that it is a definitively more difficult problem to solve than on a user-content based, server-driven social network such as Twitter. WhatsApp has implemented feature such as limited forwarding to combat misinformation. But still they haven’t (and technically cannot) prevent Parler users from expressing their views. In other words, I don’t see any instance of Parler users losing their right to free speech anywhere. Sure, they don’t enjoy the luxury of _convenience_ driven speech. But depending on how you define it, none of us have universally convenient means to express our speech.
flippinburgers 6y ago
Absurd. That will scale in no way whatsoever and you know it.
- kuschku 6y ago
  Why not? Half of leftist twitter has their own ASN, is peering with each other, and running kubernetes clusters in racks in their living room. (often because mainstream platforms wouldn't host their content either). That setup works just fine, often to serve significantly higher amounts of traffic than you could afford at any regular hoster, too. Look at the anarchist network setup at chaos camps, serving 100Gbps+ in the middle of rural nowhere, from server racks set up in chemical toilets, powered by geenerators and solar panels.
kypro 6y ago
I mean I guess they could grow their own food too, but at what point does denying services to people with legal, but differing political preferences become wrong? If Amazon said they wouldn't tolerate anyone who supported BLM because of the numerous riots and deaths caused by the movement would we this be okay? It's worth remembering that 50 years ago Amazon would probably morally object to hosting people who were pro-LGBT too. The point of free speech is to protect those with unpopular opinions. This is because the default human response has always been to do the opposite. For years the science and arts were suppressed by people who just thought they were doing the right thing. As a civilization we have learnt from this mistake. Companies with global monopoly should not be empowered or encouraged to repeat it.

birdybird 6y ago

This is quite dishonest. Twitter, FB, AWS, Google condone a constant stream of harmful material, as long as it is either coming from other tech oligarchs or non-conservative outlets. How many BLM / Antifa riots have been organized in Google drive or Gmail? How many inner city gang feuds have spilled over into bloodshed, as a result of Instagram, Twitter or Facebook? How much revenge porn is served on Amazon's CDNs? Since George Floyd died, homicide rates have exploded in the United States -- dwarfing anything the far-right has done. To pretend this is about stopping violence is just a lie.

ffggvv 6y ago

“people can simply drive, i fully support american airlines not letting group X use their airlines” “people can just send letters i fully support att not allowing group X to use their phone lines to spread info.”

nodamage 6y ago
This is not the gotcha you think it is. Multiple airlines, for example, have banned passengers from their flights for refusing to wear masks. They are well within their rights to do so.
- ffggvv 6y ago
  so you’d support them say banning anyone who supports bernie sanders? that’s also a physical threat, not a political idea. so don’t get your point
  - nodamage 6y ago
    That's a pretty silly false equivalence. Supporting Bernie Sanders poses no harm to anyone. Refusing to wear a mask on a plane does. So does planning a terrorist attack.
ineedasername 6y ago
You're talking about services that are "common carriers". They have special legal obligations to, within reason, facilitate every legal transaction that comes their way. The scenarios you describe therefore cannot happen with them. If you want internet platforms to have that same level of "anything goes", then you're arguing for them to be classified as common carriers.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  There is such a movement to regulate social giants (and other parts of Internet infrastructure) as common carriers. Apologies if you already knew this and I misunderstood your tone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utili...
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    I figured I wasn't the first one to think of the idea :) I'm not sure how I feel about it though. A "commons" physical space has has an firm upper limit on how many people it can reach. I don't think anyone is entitled to the massive amplification of their words that a large social media platform can provide without recourse to either being moderated or curated the way other broadcast media is done. A person could not perform some analog to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" on those traditional media forms, and I don't see how doing it on the internet should change that. The problem as always is where do you draw the line? Some free speech advocates seem to say it's too difficult so we shouldn't try. That one reasonable step could be the justification for an unreasonable one. I think that's a complete cop out. I think you do the reasonable thing, and then fight against the unreasonable thing. Not give up because it's not easy. It's a hard thing and we need to constantly as a whole and in individual circumstances assess our judgements, but not back away from making them.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

> Anyone is free to set up a computer in their basement, install a web server, open up port 80 to the world, and serve to the world whatever blog or forum they want. Only until their ISP decides to do the same thing Amazon did (or buckles under the DDoS attacks that will happen). Or their registrar or DNS provider, assuming you don't consider domains optional too.

jliptzin 6y ago
Do you have examples of ISPs doing this to companies like Parler?
- tpolm 6y ago
  8chan
  - nedudal 6y ago
    Ah right the beacon of society with the trinity of childporn, fascists and misagony.
    - tpolm 6y ago
      For some reason was not banned for that, but for something totally different
      - nedudal 6y ago
        you are right it was giving a platform to a mass murderer.
- wmf 6y ago
  Nazi site The Daily Stormer was infamously dropped by GoDaddy, Google, Tucows, Cloudflare, Namecheap, DreamHost, and various others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer#Site_hosting_issues_after_the_2017_Unite_the_Right_rally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer#Site_hosting... 8chan was shut down by Cloudflare, Tucows, Voxility and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan#August_2019_removal_from_clearnet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan#August_2019_removal_from... I'm surprised these sites haven't been disconnected at the BGP level yet; maybe that will happen this year.

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago

I love how every time someone says “company X shouldn’t do this” someone else replies and says “actually, company X is legally aloud to do that“. Yeah.. we know. Nobody is arguing that they can’t do it. Only that they shouldn’t. It’s a fun straw man though

3131s 6y ago
This accounts for like 15% of all comments on political threads here.

3131s 6y ago

> Anyone is free to set up a computer in their basement, install a web server, open up port 80 to the world, and serve to the world whatever blog or forum they want. The internet as it exists for many people all over the world does not always include control over ports, or even a static IP address. Even if you do have a static IP you'll still need to go through a company to register a domain. And as far as I know there's nothing stopping an ISP from refusing service, which could be coordinated just like this app store removal.

cafed00d 6y ago

Not only does Parler have the option to set up their own infra like the old-school days of the web, they even have the option of promoting their speech via modern mobile only apps. It’s not impossible to have the entirety of their community communicate solely via Signal, WhatsApp or iMessage. Or any theoretically equivalent end-to-end encrypted messaging app where the “message group” is the entirety of the current Parler community. Apple, FB or anyone else, have no way to separate those users from others. Of course, one could argue that Apple & Google could institute new policies to prevent the spread of misinformation on apps. But nobody can argue that it is a definitively more difficult problem to solve than on a user-content based, server-driven social network such as Twitter. WhatsApp has implemented feature such as limited forwarding to combat misinformation. But still they haven’t (and technically cannot) prevent Parler users from expressing their views. In other words, I don’t see any instance of Parler users losing their right to free speech anywhere. Sure, they don’t enjoy the luxury of _convenience_ driven speech. But depending on how you define it, none of us have universally convenient means to express our speech.

flippinburgers 6y ago

Absurd. That will scale in no way whatsoever and you know it.

kuschku 6y ago
Why not? Half of leftist twitter has their own ASN, is peering with each other, and running kubernetes clusters in racks in their living room. (often because mainstream platforms wouldn't host their content either). That setup works just fine, often to serve significantly higher amounts of traffic than you could afford at any regular hoster, too. Look at the anarchist network setup at chaos camps, serving 100Gbps+ in the middle of rural nowhere, from server racks set up in chemical toilets, powered by geenerators and solar panels.

kypro 6y ago

I mean I guess they could grow their own food too, but at what point does denying services to people with legal, but differing political preferences become wrong? If Amazon said they wouldn't tolerate anyone who supported BLM because of the numerous riots and deaths caused by the movement would we this be okay? It's worth remembering that 50 years ago Amazon would probably morally object to hosting people who were pro-LGBT too. The point of free speech is to protect those with unpopular opinions. This is because the default human response has always been to do the opposite. For years the science and arts were suppressed by people who just thought they were doing the right thing. As a civilization we have learnt from this mistake. Companies with global monopoly should not be empowered or encouraged to repeat it.