4 ms·

Some would argue it should be up to government/democracy to decide which speech is and isn't allowed.

by skohan 5y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
If I understand what you're saying, whenever anyone allows others to use something they own, storage space, web servers, their car, etc. You want the government to be the sole arbiter of what it can and cannot be used for? So like, if you sell web hosting on servers in your basement and one of them ends up being the most popular page on the white supremacist webring, you're totally ok with the government saying you have no right to cancel that account?
- skohan 5y ago
  No certainly not. I would say that common carrier regulation should be reserved for things which behave like utilities, especially if there are very few comparable players in the market. The precedent would be something like the railroads: if you want to move freight, your options are quite limited, and your business might live or die depending on access to the rail system, so rail providers are not allowed to pick favorites as this would give them undue influence on the economy as a whole. I think it should be fairly simple to draw a common-sense distinction between small business and the tech-giants which gate keep the internet. If you are not allowed to host your site on the server in my basement, nobody is going out of business because of that. If you cannot use AWS, GCP and Azure, there's a significant possibility your business will not be able to survive in today's market. To counter your analogy, if I am the CEO of one of the largest mobile carriers in the country, and I believe you hold unacceptable opinions, should I be able to deny you access to my network and prevent you from making phone calls?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    No, and I think this is the difference: I don't consider social media and web hosting as utilities the way phone companies and ISPs are. There are a lot of competitors in those spaces and it's relatively easy to spin up new ones, which is not true of things like the phones and internet service. > If you cannot use AWS, GCP and Azure, there's a significant possibility your business will not be able to survive in today's market. ...I contend that this is ridiculous. I work for a company that doesn't use any of these services, I know of many companies not using these services, and in fact I'd say most of the companies using these services really don't need them because they'll never scale large enough to make them worthwhile, it's just that it's currently the fad of our industry.

Some would argue it should be up to government/democracy to decide which speech is and isn't allowed.

by skohan 5y ago

Some would argue it should be up to government/democracy to decide which speech is and isn't allowed.

If I understand what you're saying, whenever anyone allows others to use something they own, storage space, web servers, their car, etc. You want the government to be the sole arbiter of what it can and cannot be used for? So like, if you sell web hosting on servers in your basement and one of them ends up being the most popular page on the white supremacist webring, you're totally ok with the government saying you have no right to cancel that account?

skohan 5y ago
No certainly not. I would say that common carrier regulation should be reserved for things which behave like utilities, especially if there are very few comparable players in the market. The precedent would be something like the railroads: if you want to move freight, your options are quite limited, and your business might live or die depending on access to the rail system, so rail providers are not allowed to pick favorites as this would give them undue influence on the economy as a whole. I think it should be fairly simple to draw a common-sense distinction between small business and the tech-giants which gate keep the internet. If you are not allowed to host your site on the server in my basement, nobody is going out of business because of that. If you cannot use AWS, GCP and Azure, there's a significant possibility your business will not be able to survive in today's market. To counter your analogy, if I am the CEO of one of the largest mobile carriers in the country, and I believe you hold unacceptable opinions, should I be able to deny you access to my network and prevent you from making phone calls?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  No, and I think this is the difference: I don't consider social media and web hosting as utilities the way phone companies and ISPs are. There are a lot of competitors in those spaces and it's relatively easy to spin up new ones, which is not true of things like the phones and internet service. > If you cannot use AWS, GCP and Azure, there's a significant possibility your business will not be able to survive in today's market. ...I contend that this is ridiculous. I work for a company that doesn't use any of these services, I know of many companies not using these services, and in fact I'd say most of the companies using these services really don't need them because they'll never scale large enough to make them worthwhile, it's just that it's currently the fad of our industry.