6 ms·

You can still publish! AWS and cloudflare will happily take your money if you're not a neonazi. If you are a neonazi, A) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTs_Q4h

You can still publish! AWS and cloudflare will happily take your money if you're not a neonazi. If you are a neonazi, A) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTs_Q4hEqmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTs_Q4hEqmA B) you can find some mom-and-pop co-lo that will take your money. AFAIK, 8chan is still serving page views.

luckylion 6y ago
> You can still publish! Sure, but that's like "if the utility companies are cutting of your water and electricity, just make your own! nobody is stopping you from hooking an exercise bike to a dynamo and buy bottled water at the store". Technically true, practically not really a thing.
- ProcNetDev 6y ago
  Sorry I just fail to understand the conservatives' values here. They will go to the supreme court to fight for their right not to sell cupcakes to gay people but then turn around and demand to control what twitter does with their servers.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I think the whole idea about not selling cupcakes to gay people is stupid (but I understand the theory, it's like asking an ideological vegan to provide the side dishes to a BBQ), but it's not the same issue. In monopoly situations (or duopoly, if you wish), there are generally different rules that apply, because you can't just go somewhere else to do business: there is nothing else. Hence utility companies can't simply go "I don't like your nose, no water for you".
    - ProcNetDev 6y ago
      I guess I just don't see twitter as a monopoly. I lived a long time before they existed and I hope/suspect I will live a long time after they are a major player in the news cycle. (Lets just say I'm not long twitter.) I think creating new platforms has actually gotten easier since twitter's inception. Back in the day it was almost magical to have a website that performed at scale. Now you just hand a credit card to your favored cloud provider. In your metaphor I see the internet as the utility not the platform provider. If akamai or level 3 decide that they wouldn't carry your traffic, then you might have a case that you're being censored. If Apple can keep Epic out of the app store then @Jack can ban whomever he damn well feels like.
      - free_rms 6y ago
        The audience is the monopoly. The entire media and political class are addicted to Twitter, and they haven't even heard of Mastodon or ActivityPub or whatever.
        ProcNetDev 6y ago
        Sounds like twitter is doing a good job of keeping it's user base happy :) and I would argue that not spreading disinformation is part of keeping them happy. Other companies/platforms are free to advertise or offer services to entice users to switch. As conservatives like to remind us money is speech. You are not entitled to someone else's attention but you can try to buy it.
        free_rms 6y ago
        Maybe there's a higher principle here than partisan warfare? If they were banning Russiagate conspiracies, while letting conservative stuff run rampant, would you be giving me the pitch about how private property is more important than free expression?
        ProcNetDev 6y ago
        Maybe there's a higher principle here than partisan warfare? You're going to call me a neoliberal shill ;) but I'd say my higher principle is the market. There is a reason why Nestle, Version, and Disney spend loads of money on twitter and not on gab. Nestle doesn't want chocolate chip ads next to holocaust denial. So yes if twitter decided that pissing off their liberal users grossed more revenue I'm fine with it.
        free_rms 6y ago
        Don't impute principles to the market. Those companies wouldn't touch gay rights with a 10 foot pole until one day all of a sudden they're beating their way to the front of the line at the pride parade. They'll follow what's popular, and if that's liquidating jews, they'll do it (some of them did!). In this particular case, where there's a common carrier for information, we figured out the market failures and how to handle them long ago, the answer is neutrality to the message. There are some people in the thread making the case that it's different now, and maybe it is, maybe we need a different approach, but "just trust the market" is the dumbest idea ever. The market is paper-clip-optimizing gray goo. Harness it, but don't anthropomorphize it and certainly don't "trust" it.
  - brandonmenc 6y ago
    ftfy: They will go to the supreme court to fight for [a sole proprietor's] right not to sell cupcakes to gay people but then turn around and demand to control what [giant corporation] does with their servers.
    - ProcNetDev 6y ago
      So if @Jack solely owned twitter it would be ok? I don't see how being on the NYSE makes the morals any different. If anything having a board of directors and shareholders makes TWTR more democratic not less.
      - brandonmenc 6y ago
        > So if @Jack solely owned twitter it would be ok? This is a nonsense hypothetical. Without limited liability, Twitter would not exist in its current form or size.
        swixi 6y ago
        What does limited liability have to do with a corporation being owned by one person? I assume this poster is questioning the "giant corporation" part. Maybe you meant to say "any corporation"?
        brandonmenc 6y ago
        > Maybe you meant to say "any corporation"? Correct. I also mistakenly thought the cake baker was a sole proprietor. They are incorporated. I should have done a simple search before posting my original comment. That said, I now mostly agree with the comment I was originally replying to. > What does limited liability have to do with a corporation being owned by one person? Correct, nothing. To clarify: My position is that an entity enjoying limited liability (which in the US includes an LLC or corporation owned by a single person) has exchanged "rights" for indemnity and therefore can be compelled to - for example - bake a cake or not censor content hosted on their servers, but that a sole proprietor can do whatever they want re: refusing service or moderating content.
  - username90 6y ago
    The baker refused to make a custom made cake for the wedding and offered them an off the shelf cake instead. That is very different from a big corporation refusing to serve you off the shelf services that requires no manual actions at all on their part.
    - ProcNetDev 6y ago
      Some of twitter's users see them as complicit in spreading disinformation. So it does cost them something of value to do nothing. It costs them their reputation with some segment of users. Twitter is making a judgement call. They think pissing off some conservatives by banning this link will net them more good will from other users. On the morals of it; I think that if twitter thinks that banning all conservatives will make them more revenue they can and should be allowed to do it. My value statement would hold equally if you :s/conservatives/liberals/g. Conservative lawmakers have become very found of the Obama quote, "Elections have consequences." Well, the culture war has consequences too. And conservatives have completely gotten their asses kicked in the culture war in the last 30 years. Due to anachronisms in our means of determining representation this has not translated into a loss of legislative power. But if they want to hold sway outside of Washington they will have to make an effort to win back the hearts and minds of the public and more importantly the American consumer.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    This is false. Nobody has fought for a right not to sell cupcakes to gay people. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the owner declined to perform a creative service, that being decorating a cake for a gay wedding. You might think that is also wrong, and that’s fine, but it’s a very important distinction. Legally compelling someone to perform a service that violates their religious beliefs is tricky to balance against non-discrimination. You have to consider the precedent that doing so would set. The supreme court recognized this in a 7-2 decision, so it’s clearly not a trivial or ridiculous objection. It only is to you because you don’t share the religious belief. But we must balance everyone’s rights, and that isn’t always easy.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  But you can still publish. And that's the point. You can say just about anything you want, but that doesn't mean other folks are required to listen to you or expend their resources to amplify your speech. And that's a good thing. Because if you can force others to publish/host/amplify your speech, others can force you to do the same with theirs.
jdu9 6y ago
>cloudflare will happily take your money if you're not a neonazi Cloudflare isn't as ideologically pure as you might think. To this date, they have only refused service to Daily Stormer and 8chan for political reasons. Real neonazi sites like stormfront dot org (unlike 8chan that had many apolitical communities like for games or anime) continue to enjoy their protection because it hasn't negatively affected their stock (the news on DS and 8ch broke before the IPO, but their launch might have been a failure due to bad press).
heartbeats 6y ago
8chan was only served because they managed to find some very shady Russian hosters. They were very close to being depeered from the Internet backbone.

luckylion 6y ago

> You can still publish! Sure, but that's like "if the utility companies are cutting of your water and electricity, just make your own! nobody is stopping you from hooking an exercise bike to a dynamo and buy bottled water at the store". Technically true, practically not really a thing.

ProcNetDev 6y ago
Sorry I just fail to understand the conservatives' values here. They will go to the supreme court to fight for their right not to sell cupcakes to gay people but then turn around and demand to control what twitter does with their servers.
- luckylion 6y ago
  I think the whole idea about not selling cupcakes to gay people is stupid (but I understand the theory, it's like asking an ideological vegan to provide the side dishes to a BBQ), but it's not the same issue. In monopoly situations (or duopoly, if you wish), there are generally different rules that apply, because you can't just go somewhere else to do business: there is nothing else. Hence utility companies can't simply go "I don't like your nose, no water for you".
  - ProcNetDev 6y ago
    I guess I just don't see twitter as a monopoly. I lived a long time before they existed and I hope/suspect I will live a long time after they are a major player in the news cycle. (Lets just say I'm not long twitter.) I think creating new platforms has actually gotten easier since twitter's inception. Back in the day it was almost magical to have a website that performed at scale. Now you just hand a credit card to your favored cloud provider. In your metaphor I see the internet as the utility not the platform provider. If akamai or level 3 decide that they wouldn't carry your traffic, then you might have a case that you're being censored. If Apple can keep Epic out of the app store then @Jack can ban whomever he damn well feels like.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      The audience is the monopoly. The entire media and political class are addicted to Twitter, and they haven't even heard of Mastodon or ActivityPub or whatever.
      - ProcNetDev 6y ago
        Sounds like twitter is doing a good job of keeping it's user base happy :) and I would argue that not spreading disinformation is part of keeping them happy. Other companies/platforms are free to advertise or offer services to entice users to switch. As conservatives like to remind us money is speech. You are not entitled to someone else's attention but you can try to buy it.
        free_rms 6y ago
        Maybe there's a higher principle here than partisan warfare? If they were banning Russiagate conspiracies, while letting conservative stuff run rampant, would you be giving me the pitch about how private property is more important than free expression?
        ProcNetDev 6y ago
        Maybe there's a higher principle here than partisan warfare? You're going to call me a neoliberal shill ;) but I'd say my higher principle is the market. There is a reason why Nestle, Version, and Disney spend loads of money on twitter and not on gab. Nestle doesn't want chocolate chip ads next to holocaust denial. So yes if twitter decided that pissing off their liberal users grossed more revenue I'm fine with it.
        free_rms 6y ago
        Don't impute principles to the market. Those companies wouldn't touch gay rights with a 10 foot pole until one day all of a sudden they're beating their way to the front of the line at the pride parade. They'll follow what's popular, and if that's liquidating jews, they'll do it (some of them did!). In this particular case, where there's a common carrier for information, we figured out the market failures and how to handle them long ago, the answer is neutrality to the message. There are some people in the thread making the case that it's different now, and maybe it is, maybe we need a different approach, but "just trust the market" is the dumbest idea ever. The market is paper-clip-optimizing gray goo. Harness it, but don't anthropomorphize it and certainly don't "trust" it.
- brandonmenc 6y ago
  ftfy: They will go to the supreme court to fight for [a sole proprietor's] right not to sell cupcakes to gay people but then turn around and demand to control what [giant corporation] does with their servers.
  - ProcNetDev 6y ago
    So if @Jack solely owned twitter it would be ok? I don't see how being on the NYSE makes the morals any different. If anything having a board of directors and shareholders makes TWTR more democratic not less.
    - brandonmenc 6y ago
      > So if @Jack solely owned twitter it would be ok? This is a nonsense hypothetical. Without limited liability, Twitter would not exist in its current form or size.
      - swixi 6y ago
        What does limited liability have to do with a corporation being owned by one person? I assume this poster is questioning the "giant corporation" part. Maybe you meant to say "any corporation"?
        brandonmenc 6y ago
        > Maybe you meant to say "any corporation"? Correct. I also mistakenly thought the cake baker was a sole proprietor. They are incorporated. I should have done a simple search before posting my original comment. That said, I now mostly agree with the comment I was originally replying to. > What does limited liability have to do with a corporation being owned by one person? Correct, nothing. To clarify: My position is that an entity enjoying limited liability (which in the US includes an LLC or corporation owned by a single person) has exchanged "rights" for indemnity and therefore can be compelled to - for example - bake a cake or not censor content hosted on their servers, but that a sole proprietor can do whatever they want re: refusing service or moderating content.
- username90 6y ago
  The baker refused to make a custom made cake for the wedding and offered them an off the shelf cake instead. That is very different from a big corporation refusing to serve you off the shelf services that requires no manual actions at all on their part.
  - ProcNetDev 6y ago
    Some of twitter's users see them as complicit in spreading disinformation. So it does cost them something of value to do nothing. It costs them their reputation with some segment of users. Twitter is making a judgement call. They think pissing off some conservatives by banning this link will net them more good will from other users. On the morals of it; I think that if twitter thinks that banning all conservatives will make them more revenue they can and should be allowed to do it. My value statement would hold equally if you :s/conservatives/liberals/g. Conservative lawmakers have become very found of the Obama quote, "Elections have consequences." Well, the culture war has consequences too. And conservatives have completely gotten their asses kicked in the culture war in the last 30 years. Due to anachronisms in our means of determining representation this has not translated into a loss of legislative power. But if they want to hold sway outside of Washington they will have to make an effort to win back the hearts and minds of the public and more importantly the American consumer.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  This is false. Nobody has fought for a right not to sell cupcakes to gay people. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the owner declined to perform a creative service, that being decorating a cake for a gay wedding. You might think that is also wrong, and that’s fine, but it’s a very important distinction. Legally compelling someone to perform a service that violates their religious beliefs is tricky to balance against non-discrimination. You have to consider the precedent that doing so would set. The supreme court recognized this in a 7-2 decision, so it’s clearly not a trivial or ridiculous objection. It only is to you because you don’t share the religious belief. But we must balance everyone’s rights, and that isn’t always easy.
nobody9999 6y ago
But you can still publish. And that's the point. You can say just about anything you want, but that doesn't mean other folks are required to listen to you or expend their resources to amplify your speech. And that's a good thing. Because if you can force others to publish/host/amplify your speech, others can force you to do the same with theirs.

jdu9 6y ago

>cloudflare will happily take your money if you're not a neonazi Cloudflare isn't as ideologically pure as you might think. To this date, they have only refused service to Daily Stormer and 8chan for political reasons. Real neonazi sites like stormfront dot org (unlike 8chan that had many apolitical communities like for games or anime) continue to enjoy their protection because it hasn't negatively affected their stock (the news on DS and 8ch broke before the IPO, but their launch might have been a failure due to bad press).

heartbeats 6y ago

8chan was only served because they managed to find some very shady Russian hosters. They were very close to being depeered from the Internet backbone.