Hacker News Reader

> You can just... use the Internet

It's also important to note that discovering content on the Internet today is mostly done using platforms controlled by one or more of these 10 people.

That's not how it works. Platforms like Reddit and Facebook do the opposite of what you describe. They are walled gardens that go out of their way to prevent you from escaping to the open Internet.

That's actually pretty much what they were saying.

> Reddit is a private organization

It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it started with and (b) of the country it is incorporated in.

This bullshit, corporate-toady argument of "oh mwaaah it's a private corporation they can do whatever they want" is worse than any "bootlicker" attitude I can think of. Go ahead and give up the freedoms my ancestors fought for so that you can feel just a little bit more comfortable in your echo chamber. Never mind that it runs on infrastructure that is often paid for with public funds, on a network designed by a government that ostensibly believes in free speech.

> Sure, if you host a bunch of white nationalist toxic garbage your registrar may revoke your domains.

So you're totally fine with giving private, unregulated companies carte blanche to control people's ability to even register their own site?

You'll reap what you sow. At some point whatever you think will also become unacceptable, and there will be nobody to stand for you.

> It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it started with and (b) of the country it is incorporated in.

It doesn't matter what it started with. Companies change all the time. So what? It's private property, they could shut all the servers down and replace it with something completely different.

Why should an owner be punished because he decides he doesn't want certain content on his website? That is principally un-American - the right to private property is equal, if not greater, than the right to freedom of speech.

You can't force a printing press, or Reddit, to allow certain speech - because this, paradoxically, is also a violation of ITS free speech.

> It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it started with and (b) of the country it is incorporated in.

It's totally ok to allow that because it's a private organization. Reddit is free to claim they are from Alpha Centauri too. They can call themselves whatever they want. It up to you and me to decide if we believe them.

> This bullshit, corporate-toady argument of "oh mwaaah it's a private corporation they can do whatever they want" is worse than any "bootlicker" attitude I can think of. Go ahead and give up the freedoms my ancestors fought for so that you can feel just a little bit more comfortable in your echo chamber. Never mind that it runs on infrastructure that is often paid for with public funds, on a network designed by a government that ostensibly believes in free speech.

And what about the contributions of my ancestors? Or is that not relevant?

Reddit is free to amplify whatever speech they want, or not, that's exactly what those freedoms you claim ownership of are promising.

> So you're totally fine with giving private, unregulated companies carte blanche to control people's ability to even register their own site?

Well, domain registrars are regulated. Also, I did not say I am ok with the amount of control registrars have.

Please do note that these banned subreddits immediately were able to register domains. So while I agree this is a weak point in the current model I don't think it is an existential threat in 2020, especially because the Internet works even without domains.

> You'll reap what you sow. At some point whatever you think will also become unacceptable, and there will be nobody to stand for you.

I'm comfortable with my beliefs and my ability to introspect and change. And I am comfortable with the inherent conflict.

> It's totally ok to allow that because it's a private organization

First of all, you're ignoring Section 230, which was supposed to defend free speech on these sites: if they're taking the position of not being responsible for what is said, they don't get to curate it. That's the dividing line between publisher and platform. Reddit et al are trying to have it both ways, and it hurts anyone who doesn't play by their Kafkaesque rulebook.

Second of all, you're pretending Reddit is smaller than it is, or that its role is more replaceable than it is, both of which are untrue. These social media giants have become the public square, doubly so since we are locked down, and the corporations that run them have the potential for an incredibly out-sized amount of power in controlling what people see and read, which turns into controlling what we say and think.

There's no reason we need to afford them editorial control at this scale. I'd sooner see them shut down than allowed to continue further down the path of editorializing discourse.

> And what about the contributions of my ancestors? Or is that not relevant?

Did your ancestors fight against freedom of speech? Or for it? If they fought against it, then we have a different conflict here. If they fought for it, then I hope they spit on the attitude of people like you from the afterlife.

> Reddit is free to amplify whatever speech they want, or not, that's exactly what those freedoms you claim ownership of are promising.

No, if they choose to be curators of the content, they become liable for everything that is posted, which is hardly something they can afford to handle at scale while still allowing people to post without everything going through manual approval.

> Please do note that these banned subreddits immediately were able to register domains.

We have seen registrars kick sites off. More importantly, we've seen payment processors totally lock out entire sites and alternative platforms. Even if you can set up a site, you can be locked out of any practical, scalable ability to actually keep it running via donations or paid content.

> I'm comfortable with my beliefs and my ability to introspect and change. And I am comfortable with the inherent conflict.

Good for you. It's easy to be comfortable when your beliefs are basically copy-pasted from the Google HR department's handbook.

You seem to be misinformed about Section 230. This article does a better job explaining than I can.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

From that link, the important part of the law:

47 U.S. Code § 230 (c)(1): No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Here are some additional resources: https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/

> You can just... use the Internet. Register your own domain, pay for your own hosting, or buy some servers, take out come ads. It's the Internet, you can still do anything.

Until CloudFlare -- or MasterCard -- bans you because they don't like what you say.

No matter -- just start your own upstream services provider or credit card processing company.

Can't wait to go down this road.

Hey you don't like it. Just become a doctor and fix yourself. Healthcare isn't a right.

Hey you don't like it. Just get you own water, filter it, and clean it. Clean water isn't a right.

Is this really the answer?

Sure, or invent a new way to pay for things. Or stop saying things that get you banned.

Nobody has a right to a CDN or a credit card or a domain name.

> You can just... use the Internet. Register your own domain, pay for your own hosting, or buy some servers, take out come ads. It's the Internet, you can still do anything.

Agreed. The infrastructure is there, and running a web server is pretty straightforward.

> Sure, if you host a bunch of white nationalist toxic garbage your registrar may revoke your domains.

I am not a die-hard "free speech" guy (especially when it comes to something as repugnant as white nationalism), but I do find the idea of having my domains suspended/revoked by my registrar a bit troubling. Let's say that someone wishes to publish material that no registrar wants to be associated with. Is the only option in that case to simply have no domain name? Just an IP or onion address? There's no Let's Encrypt for domains, right?

I suppose you can start your own registrar but I'm not really gonna make that argument because clearly that's a major barrier. It's arguably the weakest point in the current internet model.

On the other hand yeah, you can still use the Internet without domains. And I guess it's an opportunity for someone to invent a new technology which will make the internet even stronger.

So while I don't think the internet is perfect I definitely don't think we need to tear it down or even make any huge changes. It's already really flexible and the few weak points (like domain registrars) are fixable and would benefit everyone.

>you can just... Use the internet

I don't get why you made this argument and then immediately rebutted it in the next paragraph. If people with enough power dislike a group of people enough, in this case white nationalists, they can be marginalized to the point they're making TOR websites.

The idea that censoring free speech isn't a problem because people can just start their own website is about as naive as free speech absolutism is. It trivializes censorship. If a major platform banned all lgbt discussion on the pretense it was no big deal because peoole could start their own website nobody would have any of it despite the fact that the only thing that had changed is the target.

Realistically censorship haalways been part of the internet and human society more broadly, it's an inevitability. The broad issues I'm concerned with is concentration of power over speech and increasing echo chambers in online communities. Reddit has shifted more and more towards central control including implicit threats for moderators/communities who step out of line.

I understand your echo chamber argument but I don’t find it compelling. I think preserving freedom of expression specifically and liberty in general is more important than forcing ideas on people against their will and the foundation of our society.

The question was “do we need a new internet” the answer to which is “no.” In my opinion. I don’t care if a bunch of hateful racists are marginalized by private organizations.

The problem here is not the network, the problem is people who want to force their ideas on everyone. Luckily our technical and social systems are both resistant to such threats.

> Reddit is a private organization, they decided some other people are not welcome there

So, if they decided to openly ban Trump supporters, or perhaps Muslims, or black people, that would be OK also? Where do you draw the line?

In my opinion, all of these are just as discriminating as what they did so far.

Yes, that would be ok because it’s a private platform. They can ban who ever they want. If you find that problematic then don’t go there. I don’t.

Where do we draw the line? We don’t. They do, because it’s a private platform.