4 ms·

Funny how the people who complain the loudest about companies deciding not to associate tend to the be most rabbid free-market anti-government people. Godaddy

Funny how the people who complain the loudest about companies deciding not to associate tend to the be most rabbid free-market anti-government people. Godaddy isn't by any means a monopoly. The barrier of entry into hosting DNS is trivial. I don't see the problem.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lanevorockz 5y ago
So you are openly a supporter of Corporatism. The more money, the more political representation you are allowed to purchase. Congrats.
akudha 5y ago
This is an interesting issue. Lets say all major hosting companies refuse to host this shitty website. Personally I will be okay with it, in this particular case. But what happens if/when the same companies refuse to host something that I support? That will make me unhappy and a hypocrite, I suppose. Not saying Godaddy is right or wrong here. Just that this is a slippery slope.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Why would it make you a hypocrite if you think "bad things shouldn't happen" and "(unrelated) good things should happen" at the same time? Maybe you meant the case where the company uses the exact same legal argument to later ban something you support? But this does not mean you must be a hypocrite, because the company might well employ it in error. Or you might have objected to already the first time it was stated because it was overly broad. Clearly hypocrisy does not follow automatically in the general case. And this is no more a slippery slope than that which you stand on whenever you do any moral judgment. The real problem that godaddy's action calls attention to is rather the arbitrary selectivness by which companies enforce their terms of service.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - skohan 5y ago
    The problem is that there is very little historical evidence that governing in terms of "morality" has any kind of success at creating favorable outcomes. When you rely on subjective standards, you risk very bad outcomes if you have a bad actor making those subjective judgements. It's perfectly reasonable to have concerns over handing over the governance of online life to companies which are not democratically accountable, especially in an era of increasing consolidation in the technology space.
gorwell 5y ago
Godaddy isn't a problem per se. But what about AWS? Or data centers? What if banks and farms and electric companies start doing this? That's where this is going. Companies taking political or ideological approaches is becoming normalized, and if infrastructure follows suit, we are in serious trouble. Godaddy is uncomfortably close to this.
- rvz 5y ago
  Did they already just forget about OnlyFans and the payment providers? The private platform argument applies here as well. The payment providers can refuse to do business with anyone or any individual. Even for political or ideological reasons. Just look at the outrage [0]. The whole point is that, this can happen to anyone. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28337426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28337426
saagarjha 5y ago
I don't see anything in 'Animats's comment that would suggest that they rabidly support a "free-market anti-government".

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lanevorockz 5y ago

So you are openly a supporter of Corporatism. The more money, the more political representation you are allowed to purchase. Congrats.

akudha 5y ago

This is an interesting issue. Lets say all major hosting companies refuse to host this shitty website. Personally I will be okay with it, in this particular case. But what happens if/when the same companies refuse to host something that I support? That will make me unhappy and a hypocrite, I suppose. Not saying Godaddy is right or wrong here. Just that this is a slippery slope.

SiempreViernes 5y ago
Why would it make you a hypocrite if you think "bad things shouldn't happen" and "(unrelated) good things should happen" at the same time? Maybe you meant the case where the company uses the exact same legal argument to later ban something you support? But this does not mean you must be a hypocrite, because the company might well employ it in error. Or you might have objected to already the first time it was stated because it was overly broad. Clearly hypocrisy does not follow automatically in the general case. And this is no more a slippery slope than that which you stand on whenever you do any moral judgment. The real problem that godaddy's action calls attention to is rather the arbitrary selectivness by which companies enforce their terms of service.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- skohan 5y ago
  The problem is that there is very little historical evidence that governing in terms of "morality" has any kind of success at creating favorable outcomes. When you rely on subjective standards, you risk very bad outcomes if you have a bad actor making those subjective judgements. It's perfectly reasonable to have concerns over handing over the governance of online life to companies which are not democratically accountable, especially in an era of increasing consolidation in the technology space.

gorwell 5y ago

Godaddy isn't a problem per se. But what about AWS? Or data centers? What if banks and farms and electric companies start doing this? That's where this is going. Companies taking political or ideological approaches is becoming normalized, and if infrastructure follows suit, we are in serious trouble. Godaddy is uncomfortably close to this.

rvz 5y ago
Did they already just forget about OnlyFans and the payment providers? The private platform argument applies here as well. The payment providers can refuse to do business with anyone or any individual. Even for political or ideological reasons. Just look at the outrage [0]. The whole point is that, this can happen to anyone. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28337426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28337426

saagarjha 5y ago

I don't see anything in 'Animats's comment that would suggest that they rabidly support a "free-market anti-government".