3 ms·

Enjoy the cloud. Nothing more to be said. With the current "Waiver all rights in the TOS and no legal protections for the customers" it is only going to get wor

Enjoy the cloud. Nothing more to be said. With the current "Waiver all rights in the TOS and no legal protections for the customers" it is only going to get worse. I think that cloud services and telecoms and ISPs should be designated as common carrier with the protections and obligations that come from that.

danpalmer 13y ago
That depends (as one commenter hinted to) on the level of service that the cloud services provider is providing. If they are providing essentially a bare machine or VPS, then clearly they shouldn't have editorial control over your blog that happens to be hosted on the hardware. But when it gets to more managed services I think the issue is blurred. - Scenario 1: hire a VPS, set up a mail server on it, send emails that your host doesn't want you sending. - I'd say there's nothing they should be able to do here. - Scenario 2: using a scalable email service (like Amazon SES?) to send emails that the host doesn't like. - I'm much less sure about this.
josephlord 13y ago
How do you host content then? Don't most collocation facilities and ISPs have their own TOS that are not that different?
- venomsnake 13y ago
  My theory was that they shouldn't be allowed to have such TOS and be given immunity from lawsuits about the way their services are used. So basicly the only reasons a hosting provider should have grounds to terminate/interfere with service are - court order/stopped payment/the way service is used actively disrupts other customers. We should have service "first sale doctrine" equivalent - once you have sold the access service etc you have no say in how it is used.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    I don't disagree but don't really get the relevance of your "Enjoy the cloud…" comment. Web hosting is something that needs some provider with terms of service and whether "cloud" or not doesn't seem to make much difference to me.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      I would say that the cloud is not only a mix of technologies and solutions, but also a worldview with abusive attitude toward the catt ... consumers. In the 90s web hosting was simple - if it is not CP and you pay your bills anything goes. Right now everyone on the chain thinks and demands rights to interfere with your experience. Everyone is trying to become a gatekeeper and editorialize.
      - josephlord 13y ago
        I'm not sure it is a cloud issue I think it is creeping regulation (and PR concern) about controversial content being hosted. The copyright lobby has moved the bar and courts are increasingly taking actions over content posted online (although in many cases directly against the poster rather than the host). There is obviously an increased risk if many layers claim the right to interfere. E.g. SAAS operated on Heroku running on Amazon gives at least three parties ability to interfere (or just have downtime/issues). In this case however there was only one party Digital Ocean who operate the data centre and provided the service so I'm not sure it matters that they are a 'cloud' service rather than offering traditional hosting or a colocation service. That said I think that DO got this decision badly wrong.

danpalmer 13y ago

That depends (as one commenter hinted to) on the level of service that the cloud services provider is providing. If they are providing essentially a bare machine or VPS, then clearly they shouldn't have editorial control over your blog that happens to be hosted on the hardware. But when it gets to more managed services I think the issue is blurred. - Scenario 1: hire a VPS, set up a mail server on it, send emails that your host doesn't want you sending. - I'd say there's nothing they should be able to do here. - Scenario 2: using a scalable email service (like Amazon SES?) to send emails that the host doesn't like. - I'm much less sure about this.

josephlord 13y ago

How do you host content then? Don't most collocation facilities and ISPs have their own TOS that are not that different?

venomsnake 13y ago
My theory was that they shouldn't be allowed to have such TOS and be given immunity from lawsuits about the way their services are used. So basicly the only reasons a hosting provider should have grounds to terminate/interfere with service are - court order/stopped payment/the way service is used actively disrupts other customers. We should have service "first sale doctrine" equivalent - once you have sold the access service etc you have no say in how it is used.
- josephlord 13y ago
  I don't disagree but don't really get the relevance of your "Enjoy the cloud…" comment. Web hosting is something that needs some provider with terms of service and whether "cloud" or not doesn't seem to make much difference to me.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    I would say that the cloud is not only a mix of technologies and solutions, but also a worldview with abusive attitude toward the catt ... consumers. In the 90s web hosting was simple - if it is not CP and you pay your bills anything goes. Right now everyone on the chain thinks and demands rights to interfere with your experience. Everyone is trying to become a gatekeeper and editorialize.
    - josephlord 13y ago
      I'm not sure it is a cloud issue I think it is creeping regulation (and PR concern) about controversial content being hosted. The copyright lobby has moved the bar and courts are increasingly taking actions over content posted online (although in many cases directly against the poster rather than the host). There is obviously an increased risk if many layers claim the right to interfere. E.g. SAAS operated on Heroku running on Amazon gives at least three parties ability to interfere (or just have downtime/issues). In this case however there was only one party Digital Ocean who operate the data centre and provided the service so I'm not sure it matters that they are a 'cloud' service rather than offering traditional hosting or a colocation service. That said I think that DO got this decision badly wrong.