8 ms·

I have used nfshost for hosting multiple sites for over a decade. They're a fantastic service that's simple, secure, and provides great, fast support. They rec

I have used nfshost for hosting multiple sites for over a decade. They're a fantastic service that's simple, secure, and provides great, fast support. They recently published this blog post: https://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2021/01/19/free-speech-in-2021/ https://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2021/01/19/free-speech-in-... After reading this, I made the decision to move my hosting elsewhere. I have never hosted content that is even remotely political, and have no intention to do so. I had chosen to patron nearlyfreespeech based upon the belief that their conception of 'freedom of speech' matched my own. I believe 'freedom of speech' is not just a convenient vehicle for expressing my own political ideas, it is an important political idea in and of itself. I believe that the freedom for individuals to express their ideas without censorship is integral to a free and intelligent society. This post of theirs demonstrates that I had clearly misunderstood their beliefs. It's clear that 'freedom of speech' is a controversial notion in today's society. If they market their service based upon their respect for so-called freedom of speech (it's in their name), I don't know what kind of crowd they expect to come. I came not out of a need, but based upon my political views. I imagine I'm a minority. I'm not interested in a host that markets itself in such a way, and then demonstrates that what they _really_ meant was that they want an environment where you're free to agree with their views.

busymom0 6y ago
That blog post was why I decided to not use them too. Specifically their line about > "and we have no interest in living in a sea of mayonnaise." What is that even supposed to mean?? Who refers to people as "mayonnaise"?? While claiming to be against racism??
- ulucs 6y ago
  >Who refers to people as "mayonnaise"?? Racist people I'd guess
- cauthon 6y ago
  I read it as a succinct and derisive dismissal of white supremacist beliefs, particularly racial purity.
  - busymom0 6y ago
    Anyone who refers to people as "mayonnaise" and "curry" are racist themselves.
    - iamacyborg 6y ago
      Won’t someone please think of the white people
      - JacobSuperslav 6y ago
        it's getting harder to be white day by day. /s
        cfcosta 6y ago
        Please both of you refer to the rules, specially the part about assuming good intent.
        iamacyborg 6y ago
        I’m not sure what good intent was meant by calling folks racist.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwaway0x1 6y ago
        >Won’t someone please think of the white people IMAX-level projection. All you can do is neurotically "think of the white people" all day. Remember, soyboy self-loathing is a real, measurable phenomenon, and they're the only group who do it: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/284875/americas-white-saviors https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/284875/am...
  - 6y ago
- ldx77 6y ago
  > Who refers to people as "mayonnaise"?? Self-hating white liberals.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    This reductionism seems like identity politics at its worst. It sounds like you're saying that anyone who identifies as white (regardless of how arbitrary this race is) must avoid using a term you find disrespectful to describe their race, and doing otherwise means that they are hating themselves?
- flippinburgers 6y ago
  The post would have been just as effective without that oddly phrased phrase. It is a strange jab at "whiteness" which, I think, reveals the general attitude of the people running the company. Personally I think they should remove that sentence. It isn't a good look.
toiletfuneral 6y ago
Is that a long winded way of saying you think this company should host illegal or racist content? I think I get your rhetoric but I’m not totally sure what you think that means in actual practice (edit grammar)
deepspace 6y ago
Thank you for pointing out this blog post. I used NFS for many years but moved away a while ago for opportunistic reasons. However, after reading that post, I will make every effort to go back to them. "Freedom of speech" does not include hate speech or racist speech or any speech advocating against a group of people in my worldview, and I therefore agree 100% with NFS's stance. All freedoms have limits, agreed to by reasonable people living in a reasonable society. Freedom of speech,is only 'controversial' to people who think limits on racist speech and the like is unreasonable.
- busymom0 6y ago
  Politically incorrect things get labelled "racist" now a days. I, as a brown immigrant, get to criticize my home country all I want. I can call my home country corrupt, filthy, polluted, no regards for women rights, gay rights, caste system, rapes etc and be totally okay as long as the other person knows I am brown. But suddenly if a white person or someone with the wrong "political affilitation" says the same things about my home country - they get labelled racist/xenophobic etc when they are speaking the truth. If I made a website criticizing the corruption or filth or disregard for women or gay rights in my home country, NFS would take down my site - probably until I dox myself and show that it's a brown person running it - then it might become okay. Political correctness such as this is exactly why the good people in my home country suffer the most. All so that someone in western world or the elite class in my home country can feel morally superior. And I hate to bring my skin color in a debate but that's the only way to explain how political correctness is making things worse for good people back home.
  - hamburglar 6y ago
    White people are allowed to criticize the country in the exact same way here too. That’s not the type of stuff we are talking about.
  - misterkrabs 6y ago
    > Political correctness such as this is exactly why the good people in my home country suffer the most. I think it might be income inequality that makes the good people in your home country suffer the most - but I don't want to assert this because I'm (probably) not from your home country and don't know it quite like you do.
yarcob 6y ago
There's a difference between "freely expressing your ideas" and eg. plotting a vigilante kidnapping. The former should be protected, the latter should be reported to the police. A lot of the people who say they want free speech actually have some kind of anarchist fantasy where they can do whatever they want without consequences. It seems like you care about free speech, not anarchism, so I'm not sure why the blog post offends you so much? As I understood it, the blog post just makes it clear that "free speech" to them does not mean "lawless place where you can hide from the police". Nowhere in the blog post does it say that they will only allow content or opinions that they agree with.
- busymom0 6y ago
  Why are we letting tech companies become self appointed judge and jury, often forced to do so by online mobs? There's a full legal system to take care of those who actually incite violence/plot kidnapping etc. Nobody is talking about defending them.
  - hamburglar 6y ago
    You’re talking about forcing a company like nfshost to help them in their illegal and/or immoral endeavors? Companies have a right to fire customers they don’t like, with a few very well-specified exceptions. You’re trying to take away that right?
  - ajkjk 6y ago
    Well they're not really a judge and jury, they're reporting you to the police who involve the judge and jury. It's not like the web host is sending anyone to jail. They're just refusing to business with crappy people, which is something all business get to do.
  - zeckalpha 6y ago
    The legal system requires companies to do so, not online mobs.
- bluecatswim 6y ago
  Maybe I'm reading too much into it but that blogpost doesn't sound like it's about anarchism or illegal content to me, it's sounds more like them justifying shutting down "problematic" content (like what happened with Gab or Parler). They also have a paragraph towards the end about how they don't want to host "racists".
themolecularman 6y ago
Thanks for sharing their post. As the saying goes there's a difference between hate speech and speech that you hate. It seems like the line between the two is getting murkier everyday with people labeling things that hurt their feelings as micro-aggressions which are a form of "violence" to some people. I prefer not to support businesses that anoint themselves arbiters of morality.
ajkjk 6y ago
Well it did say 'nearly' in the name!
ulucs 6y ago
Funnily enough, arbiters of hate speech are usually quite racist against other minorities but are able to find very nice excuses for themselves and their circle.
JohnBooty 6y ago
After reading this, I made the decision to move my hosting elsewhere. After reading this, I made the decision to use them next time I need a static web host, which is hopefully soon. Thanks.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Your comment is exceedingly political. It’s unfortunate you mistakenly feel you are politically neutral and that you represent “actual” free speech, whereas companies who don’t choose to render services to insurrection-plotting fascists and racists apparently only practice “convenient” free speech. I hope you can step back and evaluate the mistake in your perspective. Number one, you are demonstrating that you care more for politics than for free speech (let alone the fact that your viewpoint literally leads to people being harmed in preventable ways where the prevention methods don’t threaten free speech). Number two, you are trying to define the conversation in a way where you are neutral politically and merely hold up an ideal principle, but that’s very clearly false to huge degree and you’re not admitting the political bias and blinders you are yourself bringing into it.
michaelgrafl 6y ago
It's interesting how free speech is being interpreted and abused for hate speech so often. This isn't as much of a thing in German speaking areas, where it is called freie Meinungsäußerung. Frei ... Free Meinung ... Opinion Äußerung ... Utterance It's the freedom of voicing opinions, not any speech even if it incentivises hate crime.

busymom0 6y ago

That blog post was why I decided to not use them too. Specifically their line about > "and we have no interest in living in a sea of mayonnaise." What is that even supposed to mean?? Who refers to people as "mayonnaise"?? While claiming to be against racism??

ulucs 6y ago
>Who refers to people as "mayonnaise"?? Racist people I'd guess
cauthon 6y ago
I read it as a succinct and derisive dismissal of white supremacist beliefs, particularly racial purity.
- busymom0 6y ago
  Anyone who refers to people as "mayonnaise" and "curry" are racist themselves.
  - iamacyborg 6y ago
    Won’t someone please think of the white people
    - JacobSuperslav 6y ago
      it's getting harder to be white day by day. /s
      - cfcosta 6y ago
        Please both of you refer to the rules, specially the part about assuming good intent.
        iamacyborg 6y ago
        I’m not sure what good intent was meant by calling folks racist.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway0x1 6y ago
      >Won’t someone please think of the white people IMAX-level projection. All you can do is neurotically "think of the white people" all day. Remember, soyboy self-loathing is a real, measurable phenomenon, and they're the only group who do it: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/284875/americas-white-saviors https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/284875/am...
- 6y ago
ldx77 6y ago
> Who refers to people as "mayonnaise"?? Self-hating white liberals.
- vinay427 6y ago
  This reductionism seems like identity politics at its worst. It sounds like you're saying that anyone who identifies as white (regardless of how arbitrary this race is) must avoid using a term you find disrespectful to describe their race, and doing otherwise means that they are hating themselves?
flippinburgers 6y ago
The post would have been just as effective without that oddly phrased phrase. It is a strange jab at "whiteness" which, I think, reveals the general attitude of the people running the company. Personally I think they should remove that sentence. It isn't a good look.

toiletfuneral 6y ago

Is that a long winded way of saying you think this company should host illegal or racist content? I think I get your rhetoric but I’m not totally sure what you think that means in actual practice (edit grammar)

deepspace 6y ago

Thank you for pointing out this blog post. I used NFS for many years but moved away a while ago for opportunistic reasons. However, after reading that post, I will make every effort to go back to them. "Freedom of speech" does not include hate speech or racist speech or any speech advocating against a group of people in my worldview, and I therefore agree 100% with NFS's stance. All freedoms have limits, agreed to by reasonable people living in a reasonable society. Freedom of speech,is only 'controversial' to people who think limits on racist speech and the like is unreasonable.

busymom0 6y ago
Politically incorrect things get labelled "racist" now a days. I, as a brown immigrant, get to criticize my home country all I want. I can call my home country corrupt, filthy, polluted, no regards for women rights, gay rights, caste system, rapes etc and be totally okay as long as the other person knows I am brown. But suddenly if a white person or someone with the wrong "political affilitation" says the same things about my home country - they get labelled racist/xenophobic etc when they are speaking the truth. If I made a website criticizing the corruption or filth or disregard for women or gay rights in my home country, NFS would take down my site - probably until I dox myself and show that it's a brown person running it - then it might become okay. Political correctness such as this is exactly why the good people in my home country suffer the most. All so that someone in western world or the elite class in my home country can feel morally superior. And I hate to bring my skin color in a debate but that's the only way to explain how political correctness is making things worse for good people back home.
- hamburglar 6y ago
  White people are allowed to criticize the country in the exact same way here too. That’s not the type of stuff we are talking about.
- misterkrabs 6y ago
  > Political correctness such as this is exactly why the good people in my home country suffer the most. I think it might be income inequality that makes the good people in your home country suffer the most - but I don't want to assert this because I'm (probably) not from your home country and don't know it quite like you do.

yarcob 6y ago

There's a difference between "freely expressing your ideas" and eg. plotting a vigilante kidnapping. The former should be protected, the latter should be reported to the police. A lot of the people who say they want free speech actually have some kind of anarchist fantasy where they can do whatever they want without consequences. It seems like you care about free speech, not anarchism, so I'm not sure why the blog post offends you so much? As I understood it, the blog post just makes it clear that "free speech" to them does not mean "lawless place where you can hide from the police". Nowhere in the blog post does it say that they will only allow content or opinions that they agree with.

busymom0 6y ago
Why are we letting tech companies become self appointed judge and jury, often forced to do so by online mobs? There's a full legal system to take care of those who actually incite violence/plot kidnapping etc. Nobody is talking about defending them.
- hamburglar 6y ago
  You’re talking about forcing a company like nfshost to help them in their illegal and/or immoral endeavors? Companies have a right to fire customers they don’t like, with a few very well-specified exceptions. You’re trying to take away that right?
- ajkjk 6y ago
  Well they're not really a judge and jury, they're reporting you to the police who involve the judge and jury. It's not like the web host is sending anyone to jail. They're just refusing to business with crappy people, which is something all business get to do.
- zeckalpha 6y ago
  The legal system requires companies to do so, not online mobs.
bluecatswim 6y ago
Maybe I'm reading too much into it but that blogpost doesn't sound like it's about anarchism or illegal content to me, it's sounds more like them justifying shutting down "problematic" content (like what happened with Gab or Parler). They also have a paragraph towards the end about how they don't want to host "racists".

themolecularman 6y ago

Thanks for sharing their post. As the saying goes there's a difference between hate speech and speech that you hate. It seems like the line between the two is getting murkier everyday with people labeling things that hurt their feelings as micro-aggressions which are a form of "violence" to some people. I prefer not to support businesses that anoint themselves arbiters of morality.

ajkjk 6y ago

Well it did say 'nearly' in the name!

ulucs 6y ago

Funnily enough, arbiters of hate speech are usually quite racist against other minorities but are able to find very nice excuses for themselves and their circle.

JohnBooty 6y ago

After reading this, I made the decision to move my hosting elsewhere. After reading this, I made the decision to use them next time I need a static web host, which is hopefully soon. Thanks.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

Your comment is exceedingly political. It’s unfortunate you mistakenly feel you are politically neutral and that you represent “actual” free speech, whereas companies who don’t choose to render services to insurrection-plotting fascists and racists apparently only practice “convenient” free speech. I hope you can step back and evaluate the mistake in your perspective. Number one, you are demonstrating that you care more for politics than for free speech (let alone the fact that your viewpoint literally leads to people being harmed in preventable ways where the prevention methods don’t threaten free speech). Number two, you are trying to define the conversation in a way where you are neutral politically and merely hold up an ideal principle, but that’s very clearly false to huge degree and you’re not admitting the political bias and blinders you are yourself bringing into it.

michaelgrafl 6y ago

It's interesting how free speech is being interpreted and abused for hate speech so often. This isn't as much of a thing in German speaking areas, where it is called freie Meinungsäußerung. Frei ... Free Meinung ... Opinion Äußerung ... Utterance It's the freedom of voicing opinions, not any speech even if it incentivises hate crime.