4 ms·

The network layer is the concrete that is there, the public sidewalk, the concept of a free speech stage on that concrete, the thing you see, and put ideas onto

The network layer is the concrete that is there, the public sidewalk, the concept of a free speech stage on that concrete, the thing you see, and put ideas onto, is more application layer IMO. If the sidewalk concept stops at the network layer, then free speech stops at being able to make a VOIP call, not very useful to the concept of free speech at all To hold a sign up that has my message, one to many over a time period (stateful), is application layer, IMO - - - > You're not entitled to have platforms carry and amplify your speech, if they believe it's harmful to their other customers. Hence why I referenced the NAP

triceratops 5y ago
> then free speech stops at being able to make a VOIP call Or host a web server, or IRC server, or seed a torrent, or a million other things. You can "hold up a sign" that has your message on all of these mediums.
- okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
  DDoS, systematic spam, et al. End up preventing those aspects. And most ISPs don't "allow" home hosting on personal plans, so you have to pay extra, hosting on any other platform once again subjects you to extra rules to restrict your speech, etc etc. for something that is the right of every citizen, and needs to be in the reach of every citizen. This is not a good approach IMO
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > DDoS Buy DDoS protection. Maybe put DDoS protection providers under the umbrella of net neutrality. > most ISPs don't "allow" home hosting on personal plans, so you have to pay extra And? If you want to stand on the sidewalk with a sign, you have to buy some cardboard. If you want to hand out leaflets, you need a printing press or a laser printer. Seeding a torrent is free, as is shouting at the top of your lungs on a sidewalk (and with the latter, you may be busted for "breach of peace" or some BS like that). > hosting on any other platform once again subjects you to extra rules to restrict your speech That's kinda the point. If you host your own platform, such as a PhpBB board, you get to make your own rules. You've pointed me to the NAP, but from a libertarian point of view I don't see any argument to allow someone to use my property against my will - even if it's to exercise their "free speech". It's not free for me.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The network layer is the concrete Even were one to accept that, it is an argument for net neutrality, not compelled carry of content to providers on the application layer. I disagree with the claim that currently any one provider of the type typically characterized as a platform is sufficiently dominant in information control in any scope other for their control of their platform content to be equivalent to state censorship, and the argument for limiting their First Amendment rights is consistently that they don't sufficiently represent a viewpoint preferred by the government officials pushing to curtail their liberty. This isn’t government acting to restore free speech, is government acting to promote a partisan viewpoint by curtailing freedom of speech.

triceratops 5y ago

> then free speech stops at being able to make a VOIP call Or host a web server, or IRC server, or seed a torrent, or a million other things. You can "hold up a sign" that has your message on all of these mediums.

okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
DDoS, systematic spam, et al. End up preventing those aspects. And most ISPs don't "allow" home hosting on personal plans, so you have to pay extra, hosting on any other platform once again subjects you to extra rules to restrict your speech, etc etc. for something that is the right of every citizen, and needs to be in the reach of every citizen. This is not a good approach IMO
- triceratops 5y ago
  > DDoS Buy DDoS protection. Maybe put DDoS protection providers under the umbrella of net neutrality. > most ISPs don't "allow" home hosting on personal plans, so you have to pay extra And? If you want to stand on the sidewalk with a sign, you have to buy some cardboard. If you want to hand out leaflets, you need a printing press or a laser printer. Seeding a torrent is free, as is shouting at the top of your lungs on a sidewalk (and with the latter, you may be busted for "breach of peace" or some BS like that). > hosting on any other platform once again subjects you to extra rules to restrict your speech That's kinda the point. If you host your own platform, such as a PhpBB board, you get to make your own rules. You've pointed me to the NAP, but from a libertarian point of view I don't see any argument to allow someone to use my property against my will - even if it's to exercise their "free speech". It's not free for me.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The network layer is the concrete Even were one to accept that, it is an argument for net neutrality, not compelled carry of content to providers on the application layer. I disagree with the claim that currently any one provider of the type typically characterized as a platform is sufficiently dominant in information control in any scope other for their control of their platform content to be equivalent to state censorship, and the argument for limiting their First Amendment rights is consistently that they don't sufficiently represent a viewpoint preferred by the government officials pushing to curtail their liberty. This isn’t government acting to restore free speech, is government acting to promote a partisan viewpoint by curtailing freedom of speech.