5 ms·
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 cas
by 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 agoWhy 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 agoThe 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.