6 ms·

The problem with this narrow definition is that in it you don't have the right to create your own website, nobody is forced to sell you the IP, hostname or band

The problem with this narrow definition is that in it you don't have the right to create your own website, nobody is forced to sell you the IP, hostname or bandwidth, and to the extent that they are it's because letting private companies dictate public discourse is a bad idea. There's a fine line between not amplifying someone and silencing them, and when the choices of very few privately run websites affect who gets heard and who not then we should be wary about them amplifying harmful speech and equally wary about them silencing speech harmfully.

sidlls 5y ago
We don't consider something a right based on whether it costs money or not.
- judge2020 5y ago
  I think they're saying that private companies aren't forced to actually rent you out a server, in which they aren't, but that's simply those companies' own free speech at work allowing them to choose who to associate with. The same freedom to not rent out servers to some racist/twitter canceled person gives them the freedom to not associate with people who want to host vile and disgusting porn on their servers.
cmatthias 5y ago
I reject the notion that this is a narrow definition. In the US, it's the _standard_ definition that was widely accepted until the recent advent of the "but muh free speech" people on twitter and other social media. I'm also quite skeptical of the "slippery slope"-style argument regarding IP connectivity. The number of available ISPs, web hosts, domain registrars, etc is pretty large. There are even web hosts that have an explicit policy of letting you host _any_ content you want as long as it's not against the law in their jurisdiction[0]. And they'll even host it on a subdomain of theirs, if for some reason you have trouble getting a hostname for your hateful or crazy (but legally protected from censorship by the government) blog. And if laws are ever made restricting what those web hosts can do, then we're getting into the realm of the government restricting free speech, which is a different conversation entirely. Regarding your second paragraph, the right to "get heard" is not a right guaranteed to anyone, at least not in the US. If you are spewing garbage, no one should be forced to hear it. (caveat: I'm in the US, so my opinions are US-centric) [0] for example, https://nearlyfreespeech.net https://nearlyfreespeech.net
- moduspol 5y ago
  > I'm also quite skeptical of the "slippery slope"-style argument regarding IP connectivity. The number of available ISPs, web hosts, domain registrars, etc is pretty large. We've already seen the goalposts move when AWS and CDNs were dropping politically unpopular clients. If it helps, we're already pretty close to the end of the slope. There's a very limited number of last-mile ISPs, so we're only one Twitter mob / protest away from Comcast / Verizon / Cox / AT&T holding press conferences about how they're blocking politically problematic domains and IP addresses. Then it'll only be tech-savvy users with VPNs that can access "free speech," at least until those become the target of the mob, too.
  - cmatthias 5y ago
    I disagree that we're close to the end of the slope, but I guess if you're right we'll find out soon enough. I'm not a libertarian by any means but I do have some amount of faith that if what you're describing comes to pass, the free market will provide alternatives, if demand exists. VPNs are one such alternative. I truly believe that it's harmful to society to guarantee free reach to everyone. It's kind of like the paradox of tolerance, if you've heard of that -- if private entities are barred from moderating content on their systems, the discourse will devolve more than it already has into conspiracy, hate, and other forms of unwanted content.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      I don't think that the argument is that no platforms should be able to moderate. Moderation is a high value activity that is hard to do well. The argument is that moderation should be done by publishing companies and who face liability for their content. It should not be done poorly, en-mass by platform companies who do it at scale using automation and don't face legal liability when they mess up. The only exception I see to this is to allow community organized and run moderation for noncommercial communities.
      - themitigating 5y ago
        If publishing companies were liable for their content wouldn't they censor more?

sidlls 5y ago

We don't consider something a right based on whether it costs money or not.

judge2020 5y ago
I think they're saying that private companies aren't forced to actually rent you out a server, in which they aren't, but that's simply those companies' own free speech at work allowing them to choose who to associate with. The same freedom to not rent out servers to some racist/twitter canceled person gives them the freedom to not associate with people who want to host vile and disgusting porn on their servers.

cmatthias 5y ago

I reject the notion that this is a narrow definition. In the US, it's the _standard_ definition that was widely accepted until the recent advent of the "but muh free speech" people on twitter and other social media. I'm also quite skeptical of the "slippery slope"-style argument regarding IP connectivity. The number of available ISPs, web hosts, domain registrars, etc is pretty large. There are even web hosts that have an explicit policy of letting you host _any_ content you want as long as it's not against the law in their jurisdiction[0]. And they'll even host it on a subdomain of theirs, if for some reason you have trouble getting a hostname for your hateful or crazy (but legally protected from censorship by the government) blog. And if laws are ever made restricting what those web hosts can do, then we're getting into the realm of the government restricting free speech, which is a different conversation entirely. Regarding your second paragraph, the right to "get heard" is not a right guaranteed to anyone, at least not in the US. If you are spewing garbage, no one should be forced to hear it. (caveat: I'm in the US, so my opinions are US-centric) [0] for example, https://nearlyfreespeech.net https://nearlyfreespeech.net

moduspol 5y ago
> I'm also quite skeptical of the "slippery slope"-style argument regarding IP connectivity. The number of available ISPs, web hosts, domain registrars, etc is pretty large. We've already seen the goalposts move when AWS and CDNs were dropping politically unpopular clients. If it helps, we're already pretty close to the end of the slope. There's a very limited number of last-mile ISPs, so we're only one Twitter mob / protest away from Comcast / Verizon / Cox / AT&T holding press conferences about how they're blocking politically problematic domains and IP addresses. Then it'll only be tech-savvy users with VPNs that can access "free speech," at least until those become the target of the mob, too.
- cmatthias 5y ago
  I disagree that we're close to the end of the slope, but I guess if you're right we'll find out soon enough. I'm not a libertarian by any means but I do have some amount of faith that if what you're describing comes to pass, the free market will provide alternatives, if demand exists. VPNs are one such alternative. I truly believe that it's harmful to society to guarantee free reach to everyone. It's kind of like the paradox of tolerance, if you've heard of that -- if private entities are barred from moderating content on their systems, the discourse will devolve more than it already has into conspiracy, hate, and other forms of unwanted content.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    I don't think that the argument is that no platforms should be able to moderate. Moderation is a high value activity that is hard to do well. The argument is that moderation should be done by publishing companies and who face liability for their content. It should not be done poorly, en-mass by platform companies who do it at scale using automation and don't face legal liability when they mess up. The only exception I see to this is to allow community organized and run moderation for noncommercial communities.
    - themitigating 5y ago
      If publishing companies were liable for their content wouldn't they censor more?