3 ms·

> there's nothing holding Americans back from going elsewhere Except for platform providers, such as AWS deplatforming customers, duopoly app stores doing the

> there's nothing holding Americans back from going elsewhere Except for platform providers, such as AWS deplatforming customers, duopoly app stores doing the same, and even core infrastructure providers like cloudflare making editorial decisions. There's a real problem here, and I don't know what the solution is. I believe in the right of private companies to refuse service. However, the Orwellian silencing of dissenting opinions from qualified health care professionals during covid illustrated in the most stark way possible, that the public has an interest in free expression on the internet. I have no idea how that's achieved though, or how you balance the rights of all parties. I guess that's why we hire congress critters - to figure all that out. Whatever they come up with will inevitably make a lot of people unhappy, though.

rstat1 4y ago
> Except for platform providers, such as AWS deplatforming customers, duopoly app stores doing the same, and even core infrastructure providers like cloudflare making editorial decisions. I have absolutely 0 issue with people being "deplatformed" for pushing very obvious messages of hate. These providers have rules you must follow or you get banned. Literally no different than any business with a physical presence. The exact same thing would happen outside the internet if some idiot decided to grab a megaphone and take up a prime location in your local town to push their hate. In fact in that instance they might actually ended up being arrested. This really isn't that hard to understand.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  > This really isn't that hard to understand. Then you aren't thinking critically. It's incredibly complex. Here, simple question then. Define "obvious messages of hate". I know some people who define that as disagreeing with same sex marriage. I know people who define it as supporting Israel. I've also heard CRT and discussion of white privilege described as hateful. But I'm certain you can do it in a way that effectively balances society's interest in free expression with the interest of all parties to be protected from reputational harm, while protecting the rights of private citizens, owners of businesses and taking into consideration hundreds of years of legal precedent and Constitutional protections. So it's easy, right? Super simple. Everyone that's grappling with these issues and balancing limits on free expression must be pretty dumb, I guess. Including the framers and most Supreme Court justices that have been trying to figure it out for hundreds of years [1], I suppose. [1] https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/ https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-s...
mrguyorama 4y ago
Oddly enough, AWS didn't invent the internet, and the old ways still work. Mastadon exists, truth social exists, Gab and voat existed, r/conservative exists, the laptop sitting right next to me serving my website exists. There are PLENTY of programmers who have vile opinions, and they will happily take your money to make a scalable and robust controversial opinion platform. Fucks sake, infowars still runs. If people are too lazy or stupid to search out your platform that isn't on youtube or facebook, that's not youtube or facebook's fault. You do not have a right to use the most effective means of communication that is owned, created, and operated by a private entity. The government should not be obligated to provide an industry scale PA system for whatever protest you want.
- rektide 4y ago
  This is dead on. Well said. I want to just muse a bit though, because while I think the current axe grinding is facetiously bad, I can see things getting worse & do want to at least recognize some threats where I feel like the government might really have a role in mandating service. Right now I'm at two cases, both of which I can see from different angles & feel differently about. 1. The idea of social media platforms that would filter (or, heavens, modify) conversations between consenting DM'ing folk scares me a bit, and this is absolutely an active situation in the authoritarian countries of the world and it doesn't sit well and right now I feel like some kind of democratic principles have a compelling stake even against private companies (& especially against the government itself, but that's whole nother enchilada). 2. Literally no one being willing to peer/transit you. When CloudFlare or AWS says no to KiwiFarms or Stormfront, I have zero sympathy. These are service providers. They ought not have their name tainted by affiliation, association with folks they don't want to host. I'm fine with that, because those are not critical services to getting or being online: they are convenient service providers, but fundamentally, being on the internet is just having some computers in a rack, and having interconnect and peerage and transit so people can talk to your servers. This is a much lower-level bar. If we start getting to the place where setting up your own servers starts to become impossible (which so far has never been a real circumstance), I start to get alarmed. But also... transit is a service. Being in a data-center with an Internet Exchange (IX) (or having fiber to an IX switch in such a place) is a service. A much much lower level service though. Yet there's only a matter of degrees between CloudFlare refusing service & these fundamental internet connectivities saying: no, we refuse service. Democracy's/government's ability to navigate what is an essential connectivity service- which must necessarily to a high degree be content neutral- with higher-order providers is a key struggle that I see as enormously difficult. Which is to say, I do think there is a very real case for Hurricane Electric, I do think there is a case for Layer7 to be government mandated essential service providers, who don't get to pick who they carry. And there must be some kind of not-totally-unreasonable rate charged. There has to be some Postal Service of the internet, be it public or private. Someone who is content neutral, private or the government itself as a provider of last resort; but to me, it is extremely low layer of essential services that must be broadly available. And that itself opens up the reciprocal can of worms. There's definitely some kind of line somewhere we shut off essential services. It'd be interesting to know some case law about who the post office or other public utilities can claim exception to giving service, where they say, no, you're a proven problem, you're on your own, we no longer will help you. There is interesting situations I want to consider. Just, absolutely nothing remotely interesting whatsoever to me about any of the current whining aggrieved political man-children of politics who bitch & moan & whine & are completely f-ing off their rocker wrong. So far, cyberspace has done an admiral job of navigating challenges & I have no complaints, even if I think

rstat1 4y ago

> Except for platform providers, such as AWS deplatforming customers, duopoly app stores doing the same, and even core infrastructure providers like cloudflare making editorial decisions. I have absolutely 0 issue with people being "deplatformed" for pushing very obvious messages of hate. These providers have rules you must follow or you get banned. Literally no different than any business with a physical presence. The exact same thing would happen outside the internet if some idiot decided to grab a megaphone and take up a prime location in your local town to push their hate. In fact in that instance they might actually ended up being arrested. This really isn't that hard to understand.

claytongulick 4y ago
> This really isn't that hard to understand. Then you aren't thinking critically. It's incredibly complex. Here, simple question then. Define "obvious messages of hate". I know some people who define that as disagreeing with same sex marriage. I know people who define it as supporting Israel. I've also heard CRT and discussion of white privilege described as hateful. But I'm certain you can do it in a way that effectively balances society's interest in free expression with the interest of all parties to be protected from reputational harm, while protecting the rights of private citizens, owners of businesses and taking into consideration hundreds of years of legal precedent and Constitutional protections. So it's easy, right? Super simple. Everyone that's grappling with these issues and balancing limits on free expression must be pretty dumb, I guess. Including the framers and most Supreme Court justices that have been trying to figure it out for hundreds of years [1], I suppose. [1] https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/ https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-s...

mrguyorama 4y ago

Oddly enough, AWS didn't invent the internet, and the old ways still work. Mastadon exists, truth social exists, Gab and voat existed, r/conservative exists, the laptop sitting right next to me serving my website exists. There are PLENTY of programmers who have vile opinions, and they will happily take your money to make a scalable and robust controversial opinion platform. Fucks sake, infowars still runs. If people are too lazy or stupid to search out your platform that isn't on youtube or facebook, that's not youtube or facebook's fault. You do not have a right to use the most effective means of communication that is owned, created, and operated by a private entity. The government should not be obligated to provide an industry scale PA system for whatever protest you want.

rektide 4y ago
This is dead on. Well said. I want to just muse a bit though, because while I think the current axe grinding is facetiously bad, I can see things getting worse & do want to at least recognize some threats where I feel like the government might really have a role in mandating service. Right now I'm at two cases, both of which I can see from different angles & feel differently about. 1. The idea of social media platforms that would filter (or, heavens, modify) conversations between consenting DM'ing folk scares me a bit, and this is absolutely an active situation in the authoritarian countries of the world and it doesn't sit well and right now I feel like some kind of democratic principles have a compelling stake even against private companies (& especially against the government itself, but that's whole nother enchilada). 2. Literally no one being willing to peer/transit you. When CloudFlare or AWS says no to KiwiFarms or Stormfront, I have zero sympathy. These are service providers. They ought not have their name tainted by affiliation, association with folks they don't want to host. I'm fine with that, because those are not critical services to getting or being online: they are convenient service providers, but fundamentally, being on the internet is just having some computers in a rack, and having interconnect and peerage and transit so people can talk to your servers. This is a much lower-level bar. If we start getting to the place where setting up your own servers starts to become impossible (which so far has never been a real circumstance), I start to get alarmed. But also... transit is a service. Being in a data-center with an Internet Exchange (IX) (or having fiber to an IX switch in such a place) is a service. A much much lower level service though. Yet there's only a matter of degrees between CloudFlare refusing service & these fundamental internet connectivities saying: no, we refuse service. Democracy's/government's ability to navigate what is an essential connectivity service- which must necessarily to a high degree be content neutral- with higher-order providers is a key struggle that I see as enormously difficult. Which is to say, I do think there is a very real case for Hurricane Electric, I do think there is a case for Layer7 to be government mandated essential service providers, who don't get to pick who they carry. And there must be some kind of not-totally-unreasonable rate charged. There has to be some Postal Service of the internet, be it public or private. Someone who is content neutral, private or the government itself as a provider of last resort; but to me, it is extremely low layer of essential services that must be broadly available. And that itself opens up the reciprocal can of worms. There's definitely some kind of line somewhere we shut off essential services. It'd be interesting to know some case law about who the post office or other public utilities can claim exception to giving service, where they say, no, you're a proven problem, you're on your own, we no longer will help you. There is interesting situations I want to consider. Just, absolutely nothing remotely interesting whatsoever to me about any of the current whining aggrieved political man-children of politics who bitch & moan & whine & are completely f-ing off their rocker wrong. So far, cyberspace has done an admiral job of navigating challenges & I have no complaints, even if I think