4 ms·

Well I am not you, but Brian Krebs' opening paragraph proudly ends with; "Watkins suggested the outage was somehow related to the work of the committee, but the

Well I am not you, but Brian Krebs' opening paragraph proudly ends with; "Watkins suggested the outage was somehow related to the work of the committee, but the truth is KrebsOnSecurity was responsible and the timing was pure coincidence." So to me it appears that Krebs is working against Internet freedom. Also, I have never visited any 8kun sites or consumed any of their content. I have no stake in their existence, but I believe that they should be allowed to exist. If crimes have been committed by people using their service, the criminals should be dealt with and afforded due process according to the law, instead of removing the entire platform.

jjulius 4y ago
>Well I am not you, but Brian Krebs' opening paragraph proudly ends with; "Watkins suggested the outage was somehow related to the work of the committee, but the truth is KrebsOnSecurity was responsible and the timing was pure coincidence." >So to me it appears that Krebs is working against Internet freedom. No, it appears that Krebs called up and asked if Psychz Networks knew what they were hosting. Psychz looked into it and decided, "Oh, we didn't know and we'd rather not host this, and it's within the terms for us to pull the plug, so we're pulling the plug." Psychz could've just as easily told him to go kick rocks and kept it online. In that regard, Krebs is only indirectly responsible for the outage despite his statement otherwise. Your ire should be directed towards Psychz. >Also, I have never visited any 8kun sites or consumed any of their content. If you've spent any chunk of your time on the internet, or paid attention to the news, for the past five or six years, you have absolutely "consumed their content", in that it has trickled it's way down to you in one form of another. >I have no stake in their existence, but I believe that they should be allowed to exist. If crimes have been committed by people using their service, the criminals should be dealt with and afforded due process according to the law, instead of removing the entire platform. Sure. But just as the moderators of 8kun patrol their platform for content they don't want on it, hosting providers are under no obligation to host content they don't want to host. All Psychz did here was exercise their own free speech. C'est la vie.
- anonymousiam 4y ago
  Providers such as Psychz may soon be unable to censor customer content like this. See: https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/are-internet-companies-common-carriers-content-courts-diverge-key-question-2022-05-31/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/are-internet-com...

jjulius 4y ago

>Well I am not you, but Brian Krebs' opening paragraph proudly ends with; "Watkins suggested the outage was somehow related to the work of the committee, but the truth is KrebsOnSecurity was responsible and the timing was pure coincidence." >So to me it appears that Krebs is working against Internet freedom. No, it appears that Krebs called up and asked if Psychz Networks knew what they were hosting. Psychz looked into it and decided, "Oh, we didn't know and we'd rather not host this, and it's within the terms for us to pull the plug, so we're pulling the plug." Psychz could've just as easily told him to go kick rocks and kept it online. In that regard, Krebs is only indirectly responsible for the outage despite his statement otherwise. Your ire should be directed towards Psychz. >Also, I have never visited any 8kun sites or consumed any of their content. If you've spent any chunk of your time on the internet, or paid attention to the news, for the past five or six years, you have absolutely "consumed their content", in that it has trickled it's way down to you in one form of another. >I have no stake in their existence, but I believe that they should be allowed to exist. If crimes have been committed by people using their service, the criminals should be dealt with and afforded due process according to the law, instead of removing the entire platform. Sure. But just as the moderators of 8kun patrol their platform for content they don't want on it, hosting providers are under no obligation to host content they don't want to host. All Psychz did here was exercise their own free speech. C'est la vie.

anonymousiam 4y ago
Providers such as Psychz may soon be unable to censor customer content like this. See: https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/are-internet-companies-common-carriers-content-courts-diverge-key-question-2022-05-31/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/are-internet-com...