3 ms·

The point isn't any license. The point is that's it's not the business of a hoster to decide what people may host. A hoster gets money for hosting things. Ide

The point isn't any license. The point is that's it's not the business of a hoster to decide what people may host. A hoster gets money for hosting things. Ideally the hoster does not even know what he's hosting. (Until there is a problem with that that someone else points out to the hoster; which the hoster should than just ignore in case this someone isn't an authority with a valid court order in hands). As a parallel: Just imagine your ISP would start to filter the web sites you may visit based on some arbitrary ideological believes. That's more or less the same to what's happening on SourceHut, imho.

mariusor 4y ago
I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison. If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic would we have debates about net neutrality, would we need HTTPS?, would VPNs be a thing?, would we need Tor?, would there be a Dark Web? Granted I'm over dramatizing the situation, but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves, or for law enforcement, denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols, injecting content into non-secure content, etc. I can understand one being upset that sourcehut's policy changed "after" paying for an account, but you can just stop paying for the service and move to a different forge. Being butthurt that people have different principles than you is not cool.
- still_grokking 4y ago
  > I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison. Do you have any arguments that would bake this claim? Where's the difference? > If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic […] What are you talking about? This does not happen as it would be illegal. At least in civilized countries. (Given a court order for lawful interception there may be exceptions to that, of course). > net neutrality This term means something else. > we need HTTPS For other reasons. One of them being rogue states that snoop on people's traffic. [Not looking in the direction of north America now]. > VPNs That's similar to HTTPS. Also it circumvents state level censoring, which is needed by now in quite some countries. > Tor That's even more in the direction of hiding form state surveillance. Your ISP usually knows that you're using Tor… > Dark Web That's a very unclear term, btw. And it has nothing to do with anything an ISP does. > but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves Like I said: Not in civilized countries, as this would be a breach of the constitutional right to privacy of correspondence. > law enforcement That's a tangent. Everybody besides a culprit needs to cooperate with law enforcement. > denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols You could do this in theory. But you wouldn't be selling internet access anymore in this case. This would be like AOL or Compuserve back then.

mariusor 4y ago

I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison. If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic would we have debates about net neutrality, would we need HTTPS?, would VPNs be a thing?, would we need Tor?, would there be a Dark Web? Granted I'm over dramatizing the situation, but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves, or for law enforcement, denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols, injecting content into non-secure content, etc. I can understand one being upset that sourcehut's policy changed "after" paying for an account, but you can just stop paying for the service and move to a different forge. Being butthurt that people have different principles than you is not cool.

still_grokking 4y ago
> I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison. Do you have any arguments that would bake this claim? Where's the difference? > If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic […] What are you talking about? This does not happen as it would be illegal. At least in civilized countries. (Given a court order for lawful interception there may be exceptions to that, of course). > net neutrality This term means something else. > we need HTTPS For other reasons. One of them being rogue states that snoop on people's traffic. [Not looking in the direction of north America now]. > VPNs That's similar to HTTPS. Also it circumvents state level censoring, which is needed by now in quite some countries. > Tor That's even more in the direction of hiding form state surveillance. Your ISP usually knows that you're using Tor… > Dark Web That's a very unclear term, btw. And it has nothing to do with anything an ISP does. > but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves Like I said: Not in civilized countries, as this would be a breach of the constitutional right to privacy of correspondence. > law enforcement That's a tangent. Everybody besides a culprit needs to cooperate with law enforcement. > denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols You could do this in theory. But you wouldn't be selling internet access anymore in this case. This would be like AOL or Compuserve back then.