4 ms·

It doesn't matter if they were ethical or not, what they did is not right. They are not law enforcement. If everybody would be allowed to enforce the law, then

by voidr 13y ago

It doesn't matter if they were ethical or not, what they did is not right. They are not law enforcement. If everybody would be allowed to enforce the law, then I would be free to shoot you in the head just because you made a negative comment about my cat, because I feel that's ethical.

perlpimp 13y ago
I totally concur if a group of people decides to go all out in asshattery, the worst thing is for business is to participate - they become partial which is never good when you start taking sides in this sort of thing. If you get court order to take a page down do that - probably because it is illegal. IMO the more drama the more your business is visible. For one I heard very good things about Digital Ocean - however I am very libertian minded and I think whatever people go going between themselves - they should figure it out. If things turn criminal let police deal with it.
untothebreach 13y ago
What 'law' are they enforcing here? They are enforcing their own TOS, which is perfectly within their right. I'm not saying this is the right thing for them to do, but he is using their service, so they have a right to enforce their TOS. He is perfectly able to move his blog post, unedited, to another VPS provider if he does not like what they are asking him to do.
- nodata 13y ago
  Which wins, the TOS or the law?
  - untothebreach 13y ago
    "Wins?" I'm not quite sure what you mean by "winning." In this case, DO is enforcing _their_ own TOS, on content that is served from _their_ servers. That seems legit to me, whether or not I think it is the right thing for them to do. Is there a law stating that they don't have a right to do this?
    - voidr 13y ago
      > In this case, DO is enforcing _their_ own TOS, on content that is served from _their_ servers. And they are terminating a service that the OP paid with it's _own_ money. There are consumer protection laws. > Is there a law stating that they don't have a right to do this? They don't have the right to enforce the law, they are not the police, and as it turns out there are laws against slander.
  - zobzu 13y ago
    law always win of course, the TOS are always full of stuff that is unenforceable in the eyes of the law. That being said you do need to hire a lawyer to check if thats the case every time and thats spendy.
- taf2 13y ago
  slander... the guy he was blogging about is not famous, not a public figure, talking trash, about someone by name in a public way is slander - perhaps this helps explain further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation DO - TOS is like a slander clause
  - untothebreach 13y ago
    Oh I understand what slander is, and whether or not the blog post actually is slander or not is debatable. My point was that, in this case, DO has decided to use the 'slander' clause in the TOS to ask this person to edit his blog post. I don't necessarily think they should be doing this, but I am saying that they are perfectly within their right to enforce their TOS how they see fit. If the OP doesn't agree with them, there is nothing that says he can't move his content to another provider that may not make the same decision DO has.
    - voidr 13y ago
      > whether or not the blog post actually is slander or not is debatable Yes it is, it's relative to the laws of a given country what is considered slander and what is not. > I am saying that they are perfectly within their right to enforce their TOS how they see fit There are laws around slander and DO has no right to enforce them, because last time I checked vigilantism was illegal. > If the OP doesn't agree with them, there is nothing that says he can't move his content to another provider that may not make the same decision DO has. How easy or hard to move his content is irrelevant, the fact is he paid for a service which the provider terminated citing unproven(innocent until proven guilty) claims based on a one liner email from some random person on the internet.
      - untothebreach 13y ago
        You keep saying they are enforcing 'the law,' when in fact they are just enforcing their own TOS, which is perfectly within their rights. > the fact is he paid for a service which the provider terminated This makes it sound like they just shut down his account, when in fact they communicated with him, telling him exactly what he would need to do to bring his content into compliance with their TOS, at which point he would presumably have continued access to his account. At this point, it would be his choice about whether to continue his relationship with DO, or to move to another provider.
macspoofing 13y ago
>It doesn't matter if they were ethical or not, what they did is not right. Ethics matter to me. And they matter to many people. This guy is pure bully and I feel bad for the Googler. I'm glad DO stepped in and politely asked him to anonymize his post.

by voidr 13y ago

perlpimp 13y ago

I totally concur if a group of people decides to go all out in asshattery, the worst thing is for business is to participate - they become partial which is never good when you start taking sides in this sort of thing. If you get court order to take a page down do that - probably because it is illegal. IMO the more drama the more your business is visible. For one I heard very good things about Digital Ocean - however I am very libertian minded and I think whatever people go going between themselves - they should figure it out. If things turn criminal let police deal with it.

untothebreach 13y ago

What 'law' are they enforcing here? They are enforcing their own TOS, which is perfectly within their right. I'm not saying this is the right thing for them to do, but he is using their service, so they have a right to enforce their TOS. He is perfectly able to move his blog post, unedited, to another VPS provider if he does not like what they are asking him to do.

nodata 13y ago
Which wins, the TOS or the law?
- untothebreach 13y ago
  "Wins?" I'm not quite sure what you mean by "winning." In this case, DO is enforcing _their_ own TOS, on content that is served from _their_ servers. That seems legit to me, whether or not I think it is the right thing for them to do. Is there a law stating that they don't have a right to do this?
  - voidr 13y ago
    > In this case, DO is enforcing _their_ own TOS, on content that is served from _their_ servers. And they are terminating a service that the OP paid with it's _own_ money. There are consumer protection laws. > Is there a law stating that they don't have a right to do this? They don't have the right to enforce the law, they are not the police, and as it turns out there are laws against slander.
- zobzu 13y ago
  law always win of course, the TOS are always full of stuff that is unenforceable in the eyes of the law. That being said you do need to hire a lawyer to check if thats the case every time and thats spendy.
taf2 13y ago
slander... the guy he was blogging about is not famous, not a public figure, talking trash, about someone by name in a public way is slander - perhaps this helps explain further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation DO - TOS is like a slander clause
- untothebreach 13y ago
  Oh I understand what slander is, and whether or not the blog post actually is slander or not is debatable. My point was that, in this case, DO has decided to use the 'slander' clause in the TOS to ask this person to edit his blog post. I don't necessarily think they should be doing this, but I am saying that they are perfectly within their right to enforce their TOS how they see fit. If the OP doesn't agree with them, there is nothing that says he can't move his content to another provider that may not make the same decision DO has.
  - voidr 13y ago
    > whether or not the blog post actually is slander or not is debatable Yes it is, it's relative to the laws of a given country what is considered slander and what is not. > I am saying that they are perfectly within their right to enforce their TOS how they see fit There are laws around slander and DO has no right to enforce them, because last time I checked vigilantism was illegal. > If the OP doesn't agree with them, there is nothing that says he can't move his content to another provider that may not make the same decision DO has. How easy or hard to move his content is irrelevant, the fact is he paid for a service which the provider terminated citing unproven(innocent until proven guilty) claims based on a one liner email from some random person on the internet.
    - untothebreach 13y ago
      You keep saying they are enforcing 'the law,' when in fact they are just enforcing their own TOS, which is perfectly within their rights. > the fact is he paid for a service which the provider terminated This makes it sound like they just shut down his account, when in fact they communicated with him, telling him exactly what he would need to do to bring his content into compliance with their TOS, at which point he would presumably have continued access to his account. At this point, it would be his choice about whether to continue his relationship with DO, or to move to another provider.

macspoofing 13y ago

>It doesn't matter if they were ethical or not, what they did is not right. Ethics matter to me. And they matter to many people. This guy is pure bully and I feel bad for the Googler. I'm glad DO stepped in and politely asked him to anonymize his post.