3 ms·
Wasn't this [1] such an event in practice? It's not government action, but it's certainly co-ordinated and one step up from a "grassroots" campaign. (I personal
by amscanne 5y ago
Wasn't this [1] such an event in practice? It's not government action, but it's certainly co-ordinated and one step up from a "grassroots" campaign. (I personally don't have much of an opinion on the event, I'm just noting that it seems to match what you were wondering about.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993
- zamadatix 5y agoSimilar but also very different. Refusal to host is not the same thing as a ban, Parler continues to work just fine in the US and is accessible from PC, Android, and iOS devices. To make it really the same thing you'd need to have these companies blocking access not just refusing to host or provide access as part of their business.
- Mezzie 5y agoThe main difference to me is that 'banned in X country' implies availability outside of that country. The Parler situation was about the viability of the site as a whole. 'Weibo banned in the USA' is very different.
- antifa 5y agoCategorically it's far less of a problem, but it does bring to light that we do need some kind of digital bill of rights. I believe Twitter and AWS should have seperately defined rights as to who they can kick off and why. My domain provider or webhost should have very limited and specific scenarios/structured protocols in regards to people asking for my contact information, how they can treat me when receiving any random unverified DMCA requests, etc. There should be no part of the protocol where they hand out my information without my knowledge, and without my consent, and without verifying the requestor, without fully informing me of every step they take before they do it, and without my right to object.