3 ms·

If it's illegal, the governments should take care to punish the reponsible ones via the court system. If it's legal, the service provides should have no say.

If it's illegal, the governments should take care to punish the reponsible ones via the court system. If it's legal, the service provides should have no say. This is like christan toll-bridge operator not allowing people to pass the bridge, if they drove in from the direction of a brothel.

snowwrestler 5y ago
> the service provides should have no say Who’s the censor in this conversation again? I’m having a hard time squaring the idea of free speech maximalism with “a certain group of people should have no say.”
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Service providers should act as an utility, such as roads, waterworks, sewers, etc. We have laws set in place where we decide who can drive on roads using which kinds of vehicles, and road operators and owners (not sure how road system works in USA, in my country, some roads are country-owned, some are owned by the municipality, and some private ones can join the road system - eg. the long road from the main street to the IKEA entrance), and if the driver has a licence and a stret legal vehicle, s/he can drive on all those roads, even if he carries gay porn and anal dildos, and the municipality is full of christian/muslim radicalists. So, as long as the content is legal (regarding the laws of the country), no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content. that's not how it really works. what you are describing is a totally nuclear society, where everyone is on their own and mind their own business. if in the car you've mentioned in your example there's a kid sitting in the back, I would alert the authorities. Not because it's illegal to dive kids in a car full of gay porn and dildos, not because the content is for gay people or because dildos are not toys for kids, it's not even because I believe in some weird story about magic eternal beings that have nothing better to do that dictate books to their disciples about what I should or should not do, but because it should ring a bell to everybody.
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    What effect do you feel your policy might have on service providers such as HN?
riidom 5y ago
That's an oddly specific example, did this happen somewhere?
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  It was just an example of a public utility blocking access to a service they disagree with, but the service is still legal. The first idea was EU blocking rt.com (and some other russian sites), even though their content is perfectly legal, but EU doesn't want the people to look at that content there.
  - Steltek 5y ago
    I doubt you're going to win your argument using RT as an example. We're one whoopsie away from war. That's very different than regular censorship.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      We're always one whoopsie away from a war, and some of us (i'm from the balkans) have had a few whoopsies not that long ago here and not that far from my location. Globally speaking, in the same time, US (and nato and other "allies") attacked quite a few other countries, iraq, afghanistan, syria, libya, they're bombing somalia, bombed pakistan, etc., and none of the media was blocked back then. Even the taliban are allowed to maintain their twitter accounts ( https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-maintain-142546810.html?guccounter=1 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-ma... ). And now, we're blocking RT, for what?
  - jermaustin1 5y ago
    EU was sanctioning Russia, and cut off sources of income (advertising and eyeballs) to a Russian state media organization. Not because they didn't want people to look at the content, but because they are going along with sanctions.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> If it's illegal, the governments should take care to punish the reponsible ones via the court system if it's abusive of the people patience and potentially dangerous, the government can and should shut it down. it's not illegal to carry arms in most of the US, but in some places they can ban you if you carry one, because they don't want to deal with you or be responsible for what you could do with it. it's not illegal to drink in many parts of the Globe, but some people could not want you to drink in the children's playground at 9 in the morning and if you don't leave on your own they might call the police. society has rules other than legal/illegal. it's the perk of living in what's called "a free country".
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Yes, and some parents influence the schools to ban harry potter, because of anti-god magic, and those parents then organize book burnings (yes, this year - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/04/book-burning-harry-potter-twilight-us-pastor-tennessee https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/04/book-burning... ) Some of us consider this a bad thing, even though it's still done in some societies (eg. USA). If someone starts a harry potter microbloging platform, and the content there is legal, and the technology works in a way, where a want-to-be-offended pastor has to actively type in the url/name in the browser, to see the content and get offended, this should not be a reason to ban that platform. The same with eg. not being able to disallow customers of the shop that sells harry potter to use public roads. Internet services and payment processors should be treated the same as other utilities... as long as it's legal, the services/processors should not be able to deny service due to political reasons, because they believe harry potter is against gods will.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > Some of us consider this a bad thing, even though it's still done in some societies (eg. USA). it's not good or bad. it's the price of freedom. what's the alternative? having the police to beat those people burning the books? silence them? kick them out the society/country? > Internet services and payment processors should be treated the same as other utilities I'm of the opinion that depending on the service they should have much more responsibilities than service providers. For example social networks that algorithmically propose content should be considered editors/publishers and be treated as such, including being responsible for the content they publish.
throwmeariver1 5y ago
Yeah, you don't want that because if they get regulated that either their user must be identifiable or that they are responsible for what's written on the platform there won't be a platform for much longer or with serious restriction on what you can topics are allowed on these platforms and as long as corps have one incentive alone and that's maximising profits they will subdue unpopular but loud minorities.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

snowwrestler 5y ago

> the service provides should have no say Who’s the censor in this conversation again? I’m having a hard time squaring the idea of free speech maximalism with “a certain group of people should have no say.”

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Service providers should act as an utility, such as roads, waterworks, sewers, etc. We have laws set in place where we decide who can drive on roads using which kinds of vehicles, and road operators and owners (not sure how road system works in USA, in my country, some roads are country-owned, some are owned by the municipality, and some private ones can join the road system - eg. the long road from the main street to the IKEA entrance), and if the driver has a licence and a stret legal vehicle, s/he can drive on all those roads, even if he carries gay porn and anal dildos, and the municipality is full of christian/muslim radicalists. So, as long as the content is legal (regarding the laws of the country), no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content. that's not how it really works. what you are describing is a totally nuclear society, where everyone is on their own and mind their own business. if in the car you've mentioned in your example there's a kid sitting in the back, I would alert the authorities. Not because it's illegal to dive kids in a car full of gay porn and dildos, not because the content is for gay people or because dildos are not toys for kids, it's not even because I believe in some weird story about magic eternal beings that have nothing better to do that dictate books to their disciples about what I should or should not do, but because it should ring a bell to everybody.
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  What effect do you feel your policy might have on service providers such as HN?

riidom 5y ago

That's an oddly specific example, did this happen somewhere?

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
It was just an example of a public utility blocking access to a service they disagree with, but the service is still legal. The first idea was EU blocking rt.com (and some other russian sites), even though their content is perfectly legal, but EU doesn't want the people to look at that content there.
- Steltek 5y ago
  I doubt you're going to win your argument using RT as an example. We're one whoopsie away from war. That's very different than regular censorship.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    We're always one whoopsie away from a war, and some of us (i'm from the balkans) have had a few whoopsies not that long ago here and not that far from my location. Globally speaking, in the same time, US (and nato and other "allies") attacked quite a few other countries, iraq, afghanistan, syria, libya, they're bombing somalia, bombed pakistan, etc., and none of the media was blocked back then. Even the taliban are allowed to maintain their twitter accounts ( https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-maintain-142546810.html?guccounter=1 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-ma... ). And now, we're blocking RT, for what?
- jermaustin1 5y ago
  EU was sanctioning Russia, and cut off sources of income (advertising and eyeballs) to a Russian state media organization. Not because they didn't want people to look at the content, but because they are going along with sanctions.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago

peoplefromibiza 5y ago

> If it's illegal, the governments should take care to punish the reponsible ones via the court system if it's abusive of the people patience and potentially dangerous, the government can and should shut it down. it's not illegal to carry arms in most of the US, but in some places they can ban you if you carry one, because they don't want to deal with you or be responsible for what you could do with it. it's not illegal to drink in many parts of the Globe, but some people could not want you to drink in the children's playground at 9 in the morning and if you don't leave on your own they might call the police. society has rules other than legal/illegal. it's the perk of living in what's called "a free country".

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Yes, and some parents influence the schools to ban harry potter, because of anti-god magic, and those parents then organize book burnings (yes, this year - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/04/book-burning-harry-potter-twilight-us-pastor-tennessee https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/04/book-burning... ) Some of us consider this a bad thing, even though it's still done in some societies (eg. USA). If someone starts a harry potter microbloging platform, and the content there is legal, and the technology works in a way, where a want-to-be-offended pastor has to actively type in the url/name in the browser, to see the content and get offended, this should not be a reason to ban that platform. The same with eg. not being able to disallow customers of the shop that sells harry potter to use public roads. Internet services and payment processors should be treated the same as other utilities... as long as it's legal, the services/processors should not be able to deny service due to political reasons, because they believe harry potter is against gods will.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > Some of us consider this a bad thing, even though it's still done in some societies (eg. USA). it's not good or bad. it's the price of freedom. what's the alternative? having the police to beat those people burning the books? silence them? kick them out the society/country? > Internet services and payment processors should be treated the same as other utilities I'm of the opinion that depending on the service they should have much more responsibilities than service providers. For example social networks that algorithmically propose content should be considered editors/publishers and be treated as such, including being responsible for the content they publish.

throwmeariver1 5y ago

Yeah, you don't want that because if they get regulated that either their user must be identifiable or that they are responsible for what's written on the platform there won't be a platform for much longer or with serious restriction on what you can topics are allowed on these platforms and as long as corps have one incentive alone and that's maximising profits they will subdue unpopular but loud minorities.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]