It is amazing how fast net neutrality people disappeared when this was the topic
There's a mix here. I think I'd be more on the side of net neutrality if they were kicking a person off the internet, not a website. Like if the guy was running it through his own home connection, maybe disconnecting it would be harder to defend.
Of course, he wouldn't do that, because then he'd be able to be IP-geolocated, and he knows all about how posting people's real addresses in a room full of people who don't like them is evil :)
> rather than resorting to vigilantism Where/how is vigilantism occurring?
It's vigilantism in the sense that people are trying to take down their service on every possible layer (in this case: peering/infrastructure) but no one is willing to make a legal case against them.
But how is this vigilantism, which implies taking the law into one’s own hands?
There doesn’t need to be a legal case to refuse service to someone using your services for harassment.
If a group of people make a hobby out of walking into gay bars and verbally abusing customers, it’s not vigilantism to refuse service to those groups / kick them out.
One can be banned from an establishment for far less.
Indeed all this ride has been a cold lesson and has thankfully shut down the stupid “host it yourself” argument forever.
Not entirely. It should inspire people to push for legislation that requires cloud providers to host protected speech, provided someone is paying the bill.
Provided someone is paying the bill and the site's location and ownership are accessible to law enforcement (like any other site).
I'm not sure KF would be considered protected speech, even in the USA.
Not entirely. It should inspire people to push for legislation that requires cloud providers to host protected speech, provided someone is paying the bill.
Provided someone is paying the bill and the site's location and ownership are accessible to law enforcement (like any other site). I'm not sure KF would be considered protected speech, even in the USA.
> I'm not sure KF would be considered protected speech, even in the USA.
True, but I'd rather this be decided by courts than unilateral ISP action.
Have you visited this website? I have. I found what I assume to be doxes which you have to log in to the website if you'd like to view, but that's factual information, why is the statement of factual information so heinous that this website must be taken off the internet? I saw some pretty mean things, but nobody was saying that you should go say these things on other people's profiles, they just kept these mean thin…
Hello readers. "bigshell" lives at 1539 William St SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico. How about all you folks who think "bigshell" is incorrect go and show him your numbers? Now, this isn't bigshell's real address. This is a random place from Google Maps and in fact I picked a gap between existing addresses just in case. But tell me, bigshell, if this had been your real address, would you be okay with it?
My public address is on the internet if you Google my full name, it's public record as I've registered a company to my name, and it's also on WHOIS records for domain names and IP addresses. You can also find it on the White Pages, which I have nothing to do with and I have no idea how it got there and it was there before I ever had anything on public record with my name and address.
I'm not thrilled with it but everyone has the full right to copy and share public records and factual information. I'm not taking the morality of said copying or sharing into question here, I just don't see why you can't reproduce public records of factual information.
This is why arguments justifying censorship by saying "just host it yourself then" are wrong. Whenever you take over one level in the stack, the next level down will just censor you instead.
I didn't see that argument a lot. I'm glad their ISP dropped them. "Censorship" is a bit of a silly word to me at this point. Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam? When your antivirus removes malware? I mean, spam is speech, malware is code and code is speech. So it is censorship. We just all agree it's a good thing. This is a good thing. edit: Since this keeps coming up, it's not just spam emails/…
Sure. And soon the argument devolves into 'just run your own ISP'.
I didn't see that argument a lot. I'm glad their ISP dropped them. "Censorship" is a bit of a silly word to me at this point. Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam? When your antivirus removes malware? I mean, spam is speech, malware is code and code is speech. So it is censorship. We just all agree it's a good thing. This is a good thing. edit: Since this keeps coming up, it's not just spam emails/…
> Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam? No, but only in situations where it is user controlled. In other words, tools that empower a user to control what they read is not censorship. In the case of spam, false positives and false negatives can be addressed by the user by adding/removing email from a spam folder. If the user does not have this kind of control, then it can be argued that this is censo…
I've updated my post to address this. While some of that is in the user's control lots of this happens behind the scenes ie: AWS banning users of SES who send out spam emails, GMail banning the spam accounts, hosting providers removing domains or infra that host malware/C2 infra, etc. This is all happening constantly behind the scenes to stop what is very literally "speech", what might even be legally protected speech (certainly you can put the source code for malware online, you can even write and deploy malware - people do it all the time for pentesting).