5 ms·

Honestly I doubt there is. So if you co-located in a large ISP, you will still sign a contract which most of the time they put it very generic morality clause

Honestly I doubt there is. So if you co-located in a large ISP, you will still sign a contract which most of the time they put it very generic morality clause for types of content so they can pull your service at a moments notice. So even assume you had enough money to get the infrastructure you need to plug into the net, and you usually do this via co-locating and buying net access. Only way I can think of right now is you'd literally have to go the the length of setting up your own first tier ISP (like Google, Facebook etc do), which is doable but not cost effective. Cause outside of that you are either running on someones cloud (AWS/Azure/GCP) or you are running under a contract of an ISP that has similar terms. Maybe I am missing another avenue, though, always possible.

BitwiseFool 6y ago
This is an excellent point. Every ToS has clauses in it which can easily be interpreted against you.
ars 6y ago
> your own first tier ISP And if other ISP's refuse to peer with you? Maybe we need another kind of law, above and beyond 230, requiring large ISP's and cloud providers to act as common carriers in exchange for certain protections. I don't have a fixed concept on the details here, it's just an idea I had. Think about this: Does Google have a legal or moral right (or responsibility) to delete emails calling for specific and actionable violence against someone? Or is email too private for that?
- walkedaway 6y ago
  > Does Google have a legal or moral right (or responsibility) to delete emails calling for specific and actionable violence against someone? Or is email too private for that? This is the rathole we're in. If someone does plan over gmail, does all of gmail get shut down? What about the ISP that served it? If someone plans a violent attack over the phone, does a company's phone network get shutdown? How far are we willing to go for our rights and privacy?
  - gtirloni 6y ago
    It's very simple and nothing new. If the company receives a court order, they have to act on it. Or they get shutdown. In most countries it's been like that forever. What you're talking about it preemptively policing and taking actions. I'm sure politicians would love that but we're not there (yet).
- geofft 6y ago
  If a spammer tries to use this law to say they're providing valuable information to the public and they're being censored, what's the result?
Youden 6y ago
> So if you co-located in a large ISP, you will still sign a contract which most of the time they put it very generic morality clause for types of content I don't think that's true. Hurricane Electric for example is a major provider and the AUP [0] only prohibits illegal and/or technically damaging behaviour. Some of the others have language like that in their AUPs but it doesn't seem to be universal. [0]: https://www.he.net/aup.html https://www.he.net/aup.html
- davismwfl 6y ago
  I'd argue that in Point 1 of the AUP you linked to gives them all the out they need: "...adversely affects Hurricane's legal interests." and then the two sub bullets, #6 & #7 both give them lots of grey area to terminate hosting. Not to mention they state you will enforce an at least equally strict and enforceable agreement with any of the users utilizing your system. To be fair, I think most reasonable people would say sub points #6 and #7 seem pretty fair, at least on the face of it they do to me. But what one person considers a threat another considers banter and hence we have scenarios where people can easy run afoul of some morality judgement by an employee or exec at the company. It doesn't have to be as blatant as a death threat it could be some banter via an innuendo and suddenly they ban your account. Sure, you can sue, argue your point, but either way your business would be offline. Just the first part I quoted, all they have to say is your content or users affect their legal interests in some way and again subjective and your done.

BitwiseFool 6y ago

This is an excellent point. Every ToS has clauses in it which can easily be interpreted against you.

ars 6y ago

> your own first tier ISP And if other ISP's refuse to peer with you? Maybe we need another kind of law, above and beyond 230, requiring large ISP's and cloud providers to act as common carriers in exchange for certain protections. I don't have a fixed concept on the details here, it's just an idea I had. Think about this: Does Google have a legal or moral right (or responsibility) to delete emails calling for specific and actionable violence against someone? Or is email too private for that?

walkedaway 6y ago
> Does Google have a legal or moral right (or responsibility) to delete emails calling for specific and actionable violence against someone? Or is email too private for that? This is the rathole we're in. If someone does plan over gmail, does all of gmail get shut down? What about the ISP that served it? If someone plans a violent attack over the phone, does a company's phone network get shutdown? How far are we willing to go for our rights and privacy?
- gtirloni 6y ago
  It's very simple and nothing new. If the company receives a court order, they have to act on it. Or they get shutdown. In most countries it's been like that forever. What you're talking about it preemptively policing and taking actions. I'm sure politicians would love that but we're not there (yet).
geofft 6y ago
If a spammer tries to use this law to say they're providing valuable information to the public and they're being censored, what's the result?

Youden 6y ago

> So if you co-located in a large ISP, you will still sign a contract which most of the time they put it very generic morality clause for types of content I don't think that's true. Hurricane Electric for example is a major provider and the AUP [0] only prohibits illegal and/or technically damaging behaviour. Some of the others have language like that in their AUPs but it doesn't seem to be universal. [0]: https://www.he.net/aup.html https://www.he.net/aup.html

davismwfl 6y ago
I'd argue that in Point 1 of the AUP you linked to gives them all the out they need: "...adversely affects Hurricane's legal interests." and then the two sub bullets, #6 & #7 both give them lots of grey area to terminate hosting. Not to mention they state you will enforce an at least equally strict and enforceable agreement with any of the users utilizing your system. To be fair, I think most reasonable people would say sub points #6 and #7 seem pretty fair, at least on the face of it they do to me. But what one person considers a threat another considers banter and hence we have scenarios where people can easy run afoul of some morality judgement by an employee or exec at the company. It doesn't have to be as blatant as a death threat it could be some banter via an innuendo and suddenly they ban your account. Sure, you can sue, argue your point, but either way your business would be offline. Just the first part I quoted, all they have to say is your content or users affect their legal interests in some way and again subjective and your done.