8 ms·

>KF supporters and users are free to say whatever they want in their own forums. Thats exactly what is no longer the case. We just created the method to even p

>KF supporters and users are free to say whatever they want in their own forums. Thats exactly what is no longer the case. We just created the method to even prevent self hosting. edit: Its also why this is such a big deal. They were a canary and with how they were dealt with its extremely likely that that was a domino. Because there is nothing stopping people from exploiting this now that its here. How ever justified or well intentioned this was, it wont matter for the cases to come.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Oh, they can self-host. They just have to go the long way around to get their message to anybody because the internet is a network. They can send paper letters and provide dialup BBS. Networks always imply at least two parties. What they don't have the privilege of is access to a carrier willing to devote their privately-owned bandwidth to transceiving the message. The fact you're publishing a paper doesn't imply that paperboys will carry it for free. Or that they'll even take your money to carry it. Now, the notion they can self-publish (via mail) and self-host (via BBS) does rely on common-carrier protections (and mail anonymity). One can make the case (as EFF does) that by extrapolation we should give the same general-use protections to the Internet. I'm not inclined to agree-by-extrapolation. The Internet is far more powerful and far harder to regulate. I think the burden is on those who think it should be a common-carrier system to justify why that's societally beneficial (over the status quo of "it's a federated network of peers, with service provision balanced between people's freedom to carry or not carry traffic and the incentives to get paid to carry").
- Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
  > think it should be a common-carrier system The law in the state they operate _literally defines_ it as a common carrier system. That's the basis of the case being argued here (that the ISPs blocking is literally unlawful due to the common carrier legislation which prevails in the state in which they're operating.)
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    I'm not generally inclined to assume laws are passed on sound philosophical backing (I've seen too many laws passed that aren't only poorly-grounded, but actually grounded in counterfactual to believe one follows from the other). But from a mechanical standpoint that is an interesting fact and I'll be intrigued to see how HE defends itself here, should the regulators choose to step in. (They may not. The text of the law says HE may not drop lawful traffic. To a cursory read, it's unclear if that means they can't drop lawful traffic bundled with unlawful traffic, i.e. if criminals start slipping criminal activity into lawful activity, is the whole channel drop-worthy?)
    - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
      I think it's good to get a case like this on the books and a precedent established because I think the enthusiasm with which some entities are embracing 'deplatforming' is a bit disturbing and some pushback is well overdue.
- cf141q5325 3y ago
  We arent discussing technicalities here but actual consequences. >I think the burden is on those who think it should be a common-carrier system to justify why that's societally beneficial Thats a really easy way out of having to address how this isnt going to end in a totalitarian echo chamber. Unfortunately just ignoring it and feeling right isnt a promising strategy.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Because an organization can always keep seeking someone who will host them. And if nobody will host them, it's not a totalitarian echo chamber, it's just "the people's will." There is some risk of cleaving along ideological lines (so you end up with, like, "corporate Internet" and "KF-friendly internet"). I expect that process is currently in progress and I'm not convinced it's a bad thing. Maybe putting everyone on the planet on a flat communications plane was never an experiment that was going to succeed. Maybe we have countries and individual and collective ideologies for a reason.
    - cf141q5325 3y ago
      >And if nobody will host them, it's not a totalitarian echo chamber, it's just "the people's will." Thats framing that doesnt change the end result. There wont be any cleaving but anything differing from dominant doctrine no longer available. With no regard for who determines that other then the currently loudest screaming mob. That describes a totalitarian society in which truth has lost all meaning because people favor signaling despite knowing better. I find it highly irresponsible to push for defacto censorship with a complete disregard for very clear threat, namely the power to censor not only getting abused but being by its very nature uncontrollable. Especially in this form. Nobody being able to even describe how this could function without ending in tragedy means its likely impossible. Which should surprise nobody. edit: China described it as the peoples will as well if i am not mistaken. Which meant having a set ratio of the population that had to confess their reactionary thoughts in front of a screaming mob before being thrown into Gulags.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
- chipsa 3y ago
  How to host an unpopular forum: 1. Run your own server, because you've been pressured out existing sites. 2. Run your own data center, because you've been pressured out of existing data centers. 3. Run your own ISP, because that's the only way you can get connectivity. 4. Run your own payment processor, because you can't get a bank to serve you. 5. Run your own government, because you can't just start up your own bank. 6. ??? 7. Profit? Wait, I think that started when you took control of the government. If you run infrastructure, not a destination, then you should be a common carrier. Because freedom of speech is more than just the First Amendment. It's not just the government can't tell you what not to say (that's just the 1A). It's not just the ability to speak, but also the ability to be heard. Because for infrastructure, only loons would believe that you actually are responsible for the speech that you care across your lines.

shadowgovt 3y ago

Oh, they can self-host. They just have to go the long way around to get their message to anybody because the internet is a network. They can send paper letters and provide dialup BBS. Networks always imply at least two parties. What they don't have the privilege of is access to a carrier willing to devote their privately-owned bandwidth to transceiving the message. The fact you're publishing a paper doesn't imply that paperboys will carry it for free. Or that they'll even take your money to carry it. Now, the notion they can self-publish (via mail) and self-host (via BBS) does rely on common-carrier protections (and mail anonymity). One can make the case (as EFF does) that by extrapolation we should give the same general-use protections to the Internet. I'm not inclined to agree-by-extrapolation. The Internet is far more powerful and far harder to regulate. I think the burden is on those who think it should be a common-carrier system to justify why that's societally beneficial (over the status quo of "it's a federated network of peers, with service provision balanced between people's freedom to carry or not carry traffic and the incentives to get paid to carry").

Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> think it should be a common-carrier system The law in the state they operate _literally defines_ it as a common carrier system. That's the basis of the case being argued here (that the ISPs blocking is literally unlawful due to the common carrier legislation which prevails in the state in which they're operating.)
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  I'm not generally inclined to assume laws are passed on sound philosophical backing (I've seen too many laws passed that aren't only poorly-grounded, but actually grounded in counterfactual to believe one follows from the other). But from a mechanical standpoint that is an interesting fact and I'll be intrigued to see how HE defends itself here, should the regulators choose to step in. (They may not. The text of the law says HE may not drop lawful traffic. To a cursory read, it's unclear if that means they can't drop lawful traffic bundled with unlawful traffic, i.e. if criminals start slipping criminal activity into lawful activity, is the whole channel drop-worthy?)
  - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
    I think it's good to get a case like this on the books and a precedent established because I think the enthusiasm with which some entities are embracing 'deplatforming' is a bit disturbing and some pushback is well overdue.
cf141q5325 3y ago
We arent discussing technicalities here but actual consequences. >I think the burden is on those who think it should be a common-carrier system to justify why that's societally beneficial Thats a really easy way out of having to address how this isnt going to end in a totalitarian echo chamber. Unfortunately just ignoring it and feeling right isnt a promising strategy.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Because an organization can always keep seeking someone who will host them. And if nobody will host them, it's not a totalitarian echo chamber, it's just "the people's will." There is some risk of cleaving along ideological lines (so you end up with, like, "corporate Internet" and "KF-friendly internet"). I expect that process is currently in progress and I'm not convinced it's a bad thing. Maybe putting everyone on the planet on a flat communications plane was never an experiment that was going to succeed. Maybe we have countries and individual and collective ideologies for a reason.
  - cf141q5325 3y ago
    >And if nobody will host them, it's not a totalitarian echo chamber, it's just "the people's will." Thats framing that doesnt change the end result. There wont be any cleaving but anything differing from dominant doctrine no longer available. With no regard for who determines that other then the currently loudest screaming mob. That describes a totalitarian society in which truth has lost all meaning because people favor signaling despite knowing better. I find it highly irresponsible to push for defacto censorship with a complete disregard for very clear threat, namely the power to censor not only getting abused but being by its very nature uncontrollable. Especially in this form. Nobody being able to even describe how this could function without ending in tragedy means its likely impossible. Which should surprise nobody. edit: China described it as the peoples will as well if i am not mistaken. Which meant having a set ratio of the population that had to confess their reactionary thoughts in front of a screaming mob before being thrown into Gulags.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
chipsa 3y ago
How to host an unpopular forum: 1. Run your own server, because you've been pressured out existing sites. 2. Run your own data center, because you've been pressured out of existing data centers. 3. Run your own ISP, because that's the only way you can get connectivity. 4. Run your own payment processor, because you can't get a bank to serve you. 5. Run your own government, because you can't just start up your own bank. 6. ??? 7. Profit? Wait, I think that started when you took control of the government. If you run infrastructure, not a destination, then you should be a common carrier. Because freedom of speech is more than just the First Amendment. It's not just the government can't tell you what not to say (that's just the 1A). It's not just the ability to speak, but also the ability to be heard. Because for infrastructure, only loons would believe that you actually are responsible for the speech that you care across your lines.