6 ms·

I was really considering moving from AWS to DO until I noticed this: https://www.digitalocean.com/company/contact/#abuse https://www.digitalocean.com/company/co

by jtdev 6y ago

I was really considering moving from AWS to DO until I noticed this: https://www.digitalocean.com/company/contact/#abuse https://www.digitalocean.com/company/contact/#abuse So anyone who's offended by content you might host on DO can report your site and some identity politics obsessed bureauocrat decides if you're cancelled or not...? The public cloud has turned into an Orwellian nightmare.

1f60c 6y ago
From your link: > Report abuse: > > - DMCA Takedown > - Trademark Infringement > - Spam > - Phishing > - Malware > - Botnet > - Intrusion/exploit attempts (Bruteforce, Scans etc) > - Child Abuse > - Violent Threats and Harassment > - Other That seems like a reasonable list of stuff I wouldn't want to have my platform be used for, either. Though, one might reasonably take issue with that "Other" category, but note that--at least in the US--web hosts cannot be forced to host any content they don't want to.
- jtdev 6y ago
  I think you’re downplaying the “Other” category, which literally gives DO carte blanche in cancelling those they don’t approve of, or worse who the mob pressures DO to cancel. Do you not see how problematic this is? I agree with all of the other categories wholeheartedly, but even then, application of the policies of these organizations should be uniform, i.e., if both right wing and left wing websites publishes “Violent Threats and Harrassment”, both should be taken down. That’s not what we’re seeing in practice from the major cloud providers.
  - 1f60c 6y ago
    > Do you not see how problematic this is? Their platform, their rules.
    - jtdev 6y ago
      “Their platform” has become the public square. If you think allowing unfettered control of such a utility by a small number of mega corporations - with political biases that change to suit their bottom line - is a good thing then I’m not sure we’re on the same page, in the same book, on the same planet.
      - timdev2 6y ago
        These companies, and the systems and platforms they own, have not become "the public square" any more than a widely read newspaper, or the only Kinkos in town have. Nor are they utilities. You're using words and phrases with significant legal implications to characterize things that don't meet the well-understood legal definitions. I don't think you're being dishonest, but I fear you've been bamboozled by the dishonest arguments of others, and are now parroting them. I may not like the decisions made by private companies, but private companies doing things I don't like w/r/t hosting speech is preferable to getting state power involved. I don't like Nazi's marching in Skokie. And I don't like what the right insists of calling "cancel culture". But both of those things are constitutionally protected for good reason, and those rights are worth defending.
        jtdev 6y ago
        Section 230 is woefully naive and written for a bygone era. Censorship of speech by a small group of kleptocrat mega corporations on the greatest communication medium ever known to mankind is antithetical to everything America stands for.
        timdev2 6y ago
        Have you considered that your problem is not with Section 230, but with the First Amendment?
        jtdev 6y ago
        Yes, I have considered that. But, no, that’s not my “problem”; I understand that this is not covered by the constitution. I believe that Section 230 should be updated and the clearly vague “otherwise objectionable” language should be removed in favor of specific language regarding where, when, and why content can be taken down, i.e., only when that content is unlawful. I understand that some are still basking in electoral victories that were without question aided by the ambiguity in Section 230; this euphoria shouldn’t be confused with righteousness.
berniemadoff69 6y ago
If you are worried about 'offending people', moving away from AWS sounds like a good idea. AWS's 'Acceptable Use Policy' [0] states: You may not use [...] the Services [...] to [...] display [...] content that is [...] offensive. However, moving to D.O. is a bad idea, because they have virtually the same policies. They can pull the plug if they want to, because it's their service. [0] https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ https://aws.amazon.com/aup/
riffic 6y ago
you do realize that the folks upstream to DigitalOcean, meaning the ISP and data centers, have their own AUP that DigitalOcean is required to meet in order to be their customer? Every ISP has an abuse process, this isn't very unique here.
Sebguer 6y ago
Are you mad about abuse@ emails on Whois lookups, too?
- jtdev 6y ago
  Those haven’t been used by the cancel culture mobs, so no. It seems that the WHOIS abuse process is unbiased and not rife with conflicts of interest.
  - Sebguer 6y ago
    Wow, you have metrics on how all of the WHOIS abuse process is used? That's impressive!

by jtdev 6y ago

1f60c 6y ago

From your link: > Report abuse: > > - DMCA Takedown > - Trademark Infringement > - Spam > - Phishing > - Malware > - Botnet > - Intrusion/exploit attempts (Bruteforce, Scans etc) > - Child Abuse > - Violent Threats and Harassment > - Other That seems like a reasonable list of stuff I wouldn't want to have my platform be used for, either. Though, one might reasonably take issue with that "Other" category, but note that--at least in the US--web hosts cannot be forced to host any content they don't want to.

jtdev 6y ago
I think you’re downplaying the “Other” category, which literally gives DO carte blanche in cancelling those they don’t approve of, or worse who the mob pressures DO to cancel. Do you not see how problematic this is? I agree with all of the other categories wholeheartedly, but even then, application of the policies of these organizations should be uniform, i.e., if both right wing and left wing websites publishes “Violent Threats and Harrassment”, both should be taken down. That’s not what we’re seeing in practice from the major cloud providers.
- 1f60c 6y ago
  > Do you not see how problematic this is? Their platform, their rules.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    “Their platform” has become the public square. If you think allowing unfettered control of such a utility by a small number of mega corporations - with political biases that change to suit their bottom line - is a good thing then I’m not sure we’re on the same page, in the same book, on the same planet.
    - timdev2 6y ago
      These companies, and the systems and platforms they own, have not become "the public square" any more than a widely read newspaper, or the only Kinkos in town have. Nor are they utilities. You're using words and phrases with significant legal implications to characterize things that don't meet the well-understood legal definitions. I don't think you're being dishonest, but I fear you've been bamboozled by the dishonest arguments of others, and are now parroting them. I may not like the decisions made by private companies, but private companies doing things I don't like w/r/t hosting speech is preferable to getting state power involved. I don't like Nazi's marching in Skokie. And I don't like what the right insists of calling "cancel culture". But both of those things are constitutionally protected for good reason, and those rights are worth defending.
      - jtdev 6y ago
        Section 230 is woefully naive and written for a bygone era. Censorship of speech by a small group of kleptocrat mega corporations on the greatest communication medium ever known to mankind is antithetical to everything America stands for.
        timdev2 6y ago
        Have you considered that your problem is not with Section 230, but with the First Amendment?
        jtdev 6y ago
        Yes, I have considered that. But, no, that’s not my “problem”; I understand that this is not covered by the constitution. I believe that Section 230 should be updated and the clearly vague “otherwise objectionable” language should be removed in favor of specific language regarding where, when, and why content can be taken down, i.e., only when that content is unlawful. I understand that some are still basking in electoral victories that were without question aided by the ambiguity in Section 230; this euphoria shouldn’t be confused with righteousness.

berniemadoff69 6y ago

If you are worried about 'offending people', moving away from AWS sounds like a good idea. AWS's 'Acceptable Use Policy' [0] states: You may not use [...] the Services [...] to [...] display [...] content that is [...] offensive. However, moving to D.O. is a bad idea, because they have virtually the same policies. They can pull the plug if they want to, because it's their service. [0] https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ https://aws.amazon.com/aup/

riffic 6y ago

you do realize that the folks upstream to DigitalOcean, meaning the ISP and data centers, have their own AUP that DigitalOcean is required to meet in order to be their customer? Every ISP has an abuse process, this isn't very unique here.

Sebguer 6y ago

Are you mad about abuse@ emails on Whois lookups, too?

jtdev 6y ago
Those haven’t been used by the cancel culture mobs, so no. It seems that the WHOIS abuse process is unbiased and not rife with conflicts of interest.
- Sebguer 6y ago
  Wow, you have metrics on how all of the WHOIS abuse process is used? That's impressive!