Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DigitalOcean S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 442 posts

Re: DigitalOcean S-1

#431

Post by imtringued »

firstfewshells wrote: post #167
breck wrote: post #44

Here are the problems I've had in my 7+ years as a DigitalOcean customer: . Those are the ones just off the top of my head. Love this company and it's made my life so much easier for the past near decade. Excited to see they are financially very healthy.

They've accrued up losses of $43M, $40M and $35M in the 3 preceding years. Funny how that's considered financially healthy in the world we're living right now.

Depends, what are they spending the money on? Are they wasting it on user acquisition or are they using it to build more datacenters? Are their losses projected to grow or are they staying the same while increasing revenue? Are customers actually using the service or are they just being lured in through loss leaders?

One should probably create a personal checklist to see whether a company is doing well or not and then just make decisions based on the checklist.

Re: DigitalOcean S-1

#432

Post by timdev2 »

jtdev wrote: post #429
timdev2 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, let's just strike the "otherwise objectionable" at the end of (c)(2)(A): What cause of action do you imagine you'd have that wouldn't be barred by 1A?

That depends. Are these organizations acting in “good faith”?

I'm asking you for a hypothetical - they can be acting with as much or as little "good faith" as you like.

Re: DigitalOcean S-1

#433

Post by paulie_a »

bombcar wrote: post #74
neom wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Ben and Moisey owned a managed hosting company that was coming under a lot of pressure from rackspace. DigitalOcean as a product was a direct response to that market pressure. I think if you ask any of the early executives, none of us loooovveed the venture component, it was a way to grow the business that was already growing rapidly with strong product market fit. Remember, a16z only invested once we were…

Which is amusing because Rackspace is now overpriced garbage as far as I can tell, or a wrapper around public cloud.

Rackspace was always overpriced garbage

Re: DigitalOcean S-1

#434

Post by jtdev »

timdev2 wrote: post #432
jtdev wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends. Are these organizations acting in “good faith”?

I'm asking you for a hypothetical - they can be acting with as much or as little "good faith" as you like.

Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. was in my mind and many others greatly preferred to the current mess we see caused by 230.

Please tell me how your 1A hypothetical works out. Genuinely interested in hearing how you think 1A and SCOTUS will support your side of this argument.

Re: DigitalOcean S-1

#435

Post by webmobdev »

temp667 wrote: post #318
webmobdev wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a user, I agree - DO was seen a cheaper clone of Linode / Slicehost when they launched. I used to usually recommend Pair and Linode to my clients and, later DO to my more cost-conscious clients. At that time, I preferred Linode over DO, because the support was better and the prevalent practice than was to look suspiciously at new hosts because a lot of them folded up. You looked to older hosts, like Pair (and late…

I loved pair! Never followed what happened to them!

They still seem to be doing really well - last heard, they've migrated most of their servers from FreeBSD to Linux and also offer Linode and DO like VPS hosting.

Re: DigitalOcean S-1

#436

Post by timdev2 »

jtdev wrote: post #434
timdev2 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm asking you for a hypothetical - they can be acting with as much or as little "good faith" as you like.

Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. was in my mind and many others greatly preferred to the current mess we see caused by 230. Please tell me how your 1A hypothetical works out. Genuinely interested in hearing how you think 1A and SCOTUS will support your side of this argument.

Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services is only tenuously related to your gripe about websites removing content. Stratton didn't sue Prodigy for taking down posts by Stratton. They sued Prodigy for not taking down allegedly defamatory posts by users.

I asked you to provide a cause of action for "censorship" by a web site. SOvP isn't that. A more recent, federal, and better-fitting case would be PragerU vs. YouTube. There, PragerU sued over their content being remove/restricted. They lost on 230 grounds. But even without 230, they almost certainly would have lost on 1A grounds, because YouTube's exercise of editorial discretion about what content they host is clearly 1A protected activity.

Going back to Stratton Oakmont for a moment: I understand the argument that, absent the liability shield in 230, content moderation of less-than-clearly-illegal content would be vanishingly rare. Web sites would seek to avoid potential liability by getting out of the content-moderation business, which would fix your issue. I'm not convinced that would actually be the outcome. Even if it were, I wouldn't enjoy every web site devolving into 4chan-but-covered-in-spam.

Re: DigitalOcean S-1

#437

Post by [deleted] »

timdev2 wrote: post #436
jtdev wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. was in my mind and many others greatly preferred to the current mess we see caused by 230. Please tell me how your 1A hypothetical works out. Genuinely interested in hearing how you think 1A and SCOTUS will support your side of this argument.

Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services is only tenuously related to your gripe about websites removing content. Stratton didn't sue Prodigy for taking down posts by Stratton. They sued Prodigy for not taking down allegedly defamatory posts by users. I asked you to provide a cause of action for "censorship" by a web site. SOvP isn't that. A more recent, federal, and better-fitting case would be PragerU vs. YouTube. There…

[deleted]

Re: DigitalOcean S-1

#438

Post by jtdev »

timdev2 wrote: post #436
jtdev wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. was in my mind and many others greatly preferred to the current mess we see caused by 230. Please tell me how your 1A hypothetical works out. Genuinely interested in hearing how you think 1A and SCOTUS will support your side of this argument.

Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services is only tenuously related to your gripe about websites removing content. Stratton didn't sue Prodigy for taking down posts by Stratton. They sued Prodigy for not taking down allegedly defamatory posts by users. I asked you to provide a cause of action for "censorship" by a web site. SOvP isn't that. A more recent, federal, and better-fitting case would be PragerU vs. YouTube. There…

...and there we have it. If you want to selectively censor lawful content, you should be treated as a publisher.

Re: DigitalOcean S-1

#439

Post by timdev2 »

jtdev wrote: post #438
timdev2 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services is only tenuously related to your gripe about websites removing content. Stratton didn't sue Prodigy for taking down posts by Stratton. They sued Prodigy for not taking down allegedly defamatory posts by users. I asked you to provide a cause of action for "censorship" by a web site. SOvP isn't that. A more recent, federal, and better-fitting case would be PragerU vs. YouTube. There…

...and there we have it. If you want to selectively censor lawful content, you should be treated as a publisher.

Okay. But when Twitter or whoever takes your post down, how does treating them "as a publisher" help you? It doesn't. They have a 1st Amendment right to do that.

Re: DigitalOcean S-1

#440

Post by jtdev »

timdev2 wrote: post #439
jtdev wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and there we have it. If you want to selectively censor lawful content, you should be treated as a publisher.

Okay. But when Twitter or whoever takes your post down, how does treating them "as a publisher" help you? It doesn't. They have a 1st Amendment right to do that.

Why wasn’t Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services overturned on 1A grounds?

“... if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.”

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...

Post reply on HN