3 ms·
If it is right to have a website how far do you want to go? * You are forbidden from turning off a shared server * You are forbidden from removing a colocated
by Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
If it is right to have a website how far do you want to go?
* You are forbidden from turning off a shared server
* You are forbidden from removing a colocated server
* You are forbidden from disconnecting an ISP customer
* You are forbidden from closing a bank account
* You are forbidden from refusing payments from this bank
People who want to censor you just go further up the chain if they don't like what you're saying.
- perihelions 2y agoHuh? You're really confused. Nothing in the 1st Amendment or Section 230 obligates *private parties* from hosting content they don't like! (Actually, they have an affirmative 1st Amendment right not to!) Section 230 immunizes them from certain legal liabilities from the consequences of hosting other people's content; but it obligates nothing.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y agoYes. If you are immune due to that the censors lean on your host, your isp, and your bank.
- crusty 2y agoThe original post does not clearly specify the source of the infringement judgments. Was it a regulatory body contacting a housing provider? Was it the housing provider proactively policing content on their servers? Not clear to me. Commenting on 230 seems reasonable, although I didn't catch what jurisdiction this hoster or site I owner are in. Commenting on censorship power by signature l strong-arming the connoisseur that facilitate access to the internet seems reasonable too. But why reply to the 230 post with it, like you're refuting their issue. This could just be a different thread.