3 ms·

Between ISP's, Proxies, and Payment processors there are lots of extra legal ways to shut down anything you would like to on the web. All it takes is enough mo

Between ISP's, Proxies, and Payment processors there are lots of extra legal ways to shut down anything you would like to on the web. All it takes is enough money and/or political power. The thing is this isn't new. Traditional publishing had throttles at the publisher, the seller and the library. Freedom of speech is not requirement to broadcast.

77pt77 4y ago
> Freedom of speech is not requirement to broadcast. The USSR's constitution specified that not only was there freedom of speech but also freedom/right to "broadcast". The state would give anyone access to a printing press to disseminate speech. In practice it was a bit different though.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  An American man and a Russian man were arguing about which country was freer. The American said "I am so free I can walk up to the gates of the white house and scream 'down with Reagan, he stinks'". "I have that freedom too" responds the Soviet man, "I could walk over to the Kremlin right now and yell 'Down with Reagan he stinks'"
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Yep. At banks it has slowly gotten particularly bad since lately EU EBA had to issue guidance on how to tackle 'regulatory expectations and[..] unwarranted derisking'. US Treasury did not offer a guideline yet, but one of its higher up recently had a speech that touched on it too. This is what happens when your system is not dumb pipes and can be massaged based on who is currently doing the bossing part. And this is why I roll my eyes at anyone who tells me 'just do it yourself'. Do what at this point? Roll foundational infrastructure that should be dumb pipes? Coffee did not kick in yet, but the game is rigged and whatever ideals existed with the emergence of early internet have been gone for a long time now. We are just seeing some of its more visible effects.
- kyrra 4y ago
  And more concrete example for the banking system is a recent bank failures. The Fed and FDIC have effectively given notice to the banking system that crypto is disfavored. See: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/signatures-seized-assets-sold-without-105833351.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/signatures-seized-assets-sold... > FDIC had told potential bidders that "any buyer of Signature must agree to give up all the crypto business at the bank." And one of the members of Signature Banks board also claimed the FDIC shut them down without the bank being insolvent. See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/signature-bank-new-york-community-bancorp-flagstar-bank-crypto-barney-frank-fdic-9b825e2e https://www.wsj.com/articles/signature-bank-new-york-communi... You can bet banks will be avoiding crypto.
  - brookst 4y ago
    I’m not sure it’s surprising or undesirable for heavily regulated banks that rely on government support in both good and bad times are avoiding a highly speculative and unregulated asset class that has a history of ponzu schemes and other frauds.
DANmode 4y ago
extralegal
account42 4y ago
We're not talking about broadcasting here but about making speech (i.e. a website) available to those who seek it.
falcrist 4y ago
I really wish the messaging about Net Neutrality focused less on the idea that ISPs were going to be able to charge you for access to specific services or throttle competing services (which is a terrible idea), and more on the freedom of speech issue. AFAIK there's no way to say anything on the internet without permission from at least an ISP and DNS... and usually also a webhost and website you don't own. It would be nice to have some legal protections from at least some of those entities.

77pt77 4y ago

> Freedom of speech is not requirement to broadcast. The USSR's constitution specified that not only was there freedom of speech but also freedom/right to "broadcast". The state would give anyone access to a printing press to disseminate speech. In practice it was a bit different though.

kneebonian 4y ago
An American man and a Russian man were arguing about which country was freer. The American said "I am so free I can walk up to the gates of the white house and scream 'down with Reagan, he stinks'". "I have that freedom too" responds the Soviet man, "I could walk over to the Kremlin right now and yell 'Down with Reagan he stinks'"

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

Yep. At banks it has slowly gotten particularly bad since lately EU EBA had to issue guidance on how to tackle 'regulatory expectations and[..] unwarranted derisking'. US Treasury did not offer a guideline yet, but one of its higher up recently had a speech that touched on it too. This is what happens when your system is not dumb pipes and can be massaged based on who is currently doing the bossing part. And this is why I roll my eyes at anyone who tells me 'just do it yourself'. Do what at this point? Roll foundational infrastructure that should be dumb pipes? Coffee did not kick in yet, but the game is rigged and whatever ideals existed with the emergence of early internet have been gone for a long time now. We are just seeing some of its more visible effects.

kyrra 4y ago
And more concrete example for the banking system is a recent bank failures. The Fed and FDIC have effectively given notice to the banking system that crypto is disfavored. See: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/signatures-seized-assets-sold-without-105833351.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/signatures-seized-assets-sold... > FDIC had told potential bidders that "any buyer of Signature must agree to give up all the crypto business at the bank." And one of the members of Signature Banks board also claimed the FDIC shut them down without the bank being insolvent. See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/signature-bank-new-york-community-bancorp-flagstar-bank-crypto-barney-frank-fdic-9b825e2e https://www.wsj.com/articles/signature-bank-new-york-communi... You can bet banks will be avoiding crypto.
- brookst 4y ago
  I’m not sure it’s surprising or undesirable for heavily regulated banks that rely on government support in both good and bad times are avoiding a highly speculative and unregulated asset class that has a history of ponzu schemes and other frauds.

DANmode 4y ago

extralegal

account42 4y ago

We're not talking about broadcasting here but about making speech (i.e. a website) available to those who seek it.

falcrist 4y ago

I really wish the messaging about Net Neutrality focused less on the idea that ISPs were going to be able to charge you for access to specific services or throttle competing services (which is a terrible idea), and more on the freedom of speech issue. AFAIK there's no way to say anything on the internet without permission from at least an ISP and DNS... and usually also a webhost and website you don't own. It would be nice to have some legal protections from at least some of those entities.