4 ms·

Are we having this conversation for the millionth time? Free speech doesn't mean everyone is required to give you a platform.

elmerfud 3y ago
An example was asked for and given where there is an ideological based denial of service. Because a registrar doesn't host or display any information that is objectionable it's simply registers some glue records. They are not giving anyone a platform. Your same attitude means that I'm not required to sell cakes to people I don't like, but I bet you were on the other side of that debate. And that is the fundamental danger of using ideology to justify denying someone a place in society. It has been used throughout history to deny a minority a place in a society that the majority didn't want. That is not the kind of world we should strive to have where the majority can deny the minority based on an ideology and lock them out of society.
toast0 3y ago
A domain registrar and a domain registry should really be acting as a common carrier. If it's not legal in their relevant jurisdictions, fine. Otherwise, my registrar is hardly endorsing my content. Website hosting, sure, they've got wide latitude to exercise editorial control. DNS services, yeah, I guess. If your registrar doesn't like your content, maybe they should disallow you to use ancillary services and refund you for the free dns they usually provide, but won't. But I don't think they should be making editorial judgement about the content, all the content they see is your domain name, your contact info, your registered authoritative name servers, and ips for registered name servers inside your domain.
- tsukikage 3y ago
  Domain registrars do not exist in a vacuum. In order for a registrar to be able to make this kind of guarantee, they also need it from /their/ contractors. Specifically, for a registrar to stay in business, ISPs and payment processors should not be able to refuse them service (or, if they are also an ISP in their own right, other ISPs should not be able to refuse connection/peering arrangements). Otherwise, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place: either they kick out the undesirables to appease their suppliers, or the whole business is forced to fold and cannot serve anyone at all. A few more steps in this chain and your free market democracy isn't looking so very free any more.
jesterson 3y ago
While I agree with you here, free speech also means you cannot be stripped off the service because of your ideology, views or sorts.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  My knee-jerk reaction to this comment is confusion, as it sounds like you're saying you agree, but then immediately say something that directly goes against what I said. But I think you're making a distinction over what someone believes and the content they want hosted. For example, someone who waves Nazi flags simply wanting to run a non-political website about guitars. In that case, I agree. They're not hosting Nazi stuff, they're hosting guitar stuff, and the provider should not be refusing service.
  - jesterson 3y ago
    The things you are saying are purely subjective. What you understand under "Nazi stuff" and what I do is likely different. Therefore we can't really use those vague definitions to deny service or speech or anything, just because you (or anyone else) think it is "Nazi stuff". The only way to resolve the conundrum is to allow everything except things explicitly disallowed by law. And for those, you need court order to shut down. Otherwise we get bunch of clowns rigged with security guard syndrome shutting whatever they think is "Nazi stuff" left and right. It happens in online communities more often then not, as you likely know.
allarm 3y ago
When somebody gives you a greatly oversimplified explanation of a very complex issue you can be absolutely sure that you’re being manipulated. This is especially true when the message is given in a condescending tone.

elmerfud 3y ago

An example was asked for and given where there is an ideological based denial of service. Because a registrar doesn't host or display any information that is objectionable it's simply registers some glue records. They are not giving anyone a platform. Your same attitude means that I'm not required to sell cakes to people I don't like, but I bet you were on the other side of that debate. And that is the fundamental danger of using ideology to justify denying someone a place in society. It has been used throughout history to deny a minority a place in a society that the majority didn't want. That is not the kind of world we should strive to have where the majority can deny the minority based on an ideology and lock them out of society.

toast0 3y ago

A domain registrar and a domain registry should really be acting as a common carrier. If it's not legal in their relevant jurisdictions, fine. Otherwise, my registrar is hardly endorsing my content. Website hosting, sure, they've got wide latitude to exercise editorial control. DNS services, yeah, I guess. If your registrar doesn't like your content, maybe they should disallow you to use ancillary services and refund you for the free dns they usually provide, but won't. But I don't think they should be making editorial judgement about the content, all the content they see is your domain name, your contact info, your registered authoritative name servers, and ips for registered name servers inside your domain.

tsukikage 3y ago
Domain registrars do not exist in a vacuum. In order for a registrar to be able to make this kind of guarantee, they also need it from /their/ contractors. Specifically, for a registrar to stay in business, ISPs and payment processors should not be able to refuse them service (or, if they are also an ISP in their own right, other ISPs should not be able to refuse connection/peering arrangements). Otherwise, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place: either they kick out the undesirables to appease their suppliers, or the whole business is forced to fold and cannot serve anyone at all. A few more steps in this chain and your free market democracy isn't looking so very free any more.

jesterson 3y ago

While I agree with you here, free speech also means you cannot be stripped off the service because of your ideology, views or sorts.

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
My knee-jerk reaction to this comment is confusion, as it sounds like you're saying you agree, but then immediately say something that directly goes against what I said. But I think you're making a distinction over what someone believes and the content they want hosted. For example, someone who waves Nazi flags simply wanting to run a non-political website about guitars. In that case, I agree. They're not hosting Nazi stuff, they're hosting guitar stuff, and the provider should not be refusing service.
- jesterson 3y ago
  The things you are saying are purely subjective. What you understand under "Nazi stuff" and what I do is likely different. Therefore we can't really use those vague definitions to deny service or speech or anything, just because you (or anyone else) think it is "Nazi stuff". The only way to resolve the conundrum is to allow everything except things explicitly disallowed by law. And for those, you need court order to shut down. Otherwise we get bunch of clowns rigged with security guard syndrome shutting whatever they think is "Nazi stuff" left and right. It happens in online communities more often then not, as you likely know.

allarm 3y ago

When somebody gives you a greatly oversimplified explanation of a very complex issue you can be absolutely sure that you’re being manipulated. This is especially true when the message is given in a condescending tone.