https://docs.ipfs.io/how-to/websites-on-ipfs/link-a-domain/#...
I don't want this to sound wrong, but I perceive most of the people complaining about censorship to be hypocrites. They'd be the first to censor if they were in charge of these platforms. They are some of the first to ban in moderated communities like reddit.
The reason they're upset is because they are not in control. I think in some ways they are like the people scared of change, and the once change has taken place they are scared of not being in control.
Based on what? I and many people I'm close to in real life are constantly concerned about these escalating erosions of expression and all prefer the less-moderated corners of the internet. None of us have ever sought out control and grew up consistently annoyed at one-sided media outlets, even if they represented the perspective we happened to agree with at the time. If we still use reddit (most of us are falling off), it tends to be a small subset of niche communities that don't focus on meta-politics or have auto-banning protocols. These are the people I see complaining about this around me. Is it just because I'm not on twitter?
Heck, I signed up for Gab and was almost immediately banned from the entire site after sharing my liberal opinion.
> The reason they're upset is because they are not in control.
Do you notice how that starts me, as someone who is firmly anti-censorship, off on the defensive as you seem to view me as an insincere or stupid bad guy?
> I think in some ways they are like the people scared of change, and the once change has taken place they are scared of not being in control.
As a general principle I’m for the idea that we aught to allow free expression of ideas, especially online since that is the way to share ideas. Life happens very differently for people even just domestically in the US, and when our viewpoints come into conflict I’d rather understand what they have to say and talk about it. How is that possible to do when there’s a party in the middle that is able to determine what you’re not allowed to read? I'm scared of not being in control of that and thus censorship in general, not about having my version of truth be published.
We're also seeing the refusal of legal representation, which seems nearly unprecedented. At some point, the only thing left will be civil death [0].
The social network bans are businesses protecting themselves from people whom threaten their business. Like a fast food restaurant refusing to serve customers who smoke crack in the restaurant.
The platform and infrastructure bans are also businesses protecting themselves but not from people, rather from other businesses. This is on level with U-haul banning drug cartels from renting their trucks.
No one's civil liberties are being taken away
Funny, Didn't see all this crying about censorship when MC & Visa cut off pornhub...
edit: just to be clear, I mean when MC & Visa decided pornhub was a potential liability, they cut them off. When companies decide Trump or Parler are a liability - they do the same - they cut them off. Thats just capitalism.
I can't clobber you over the head with a product I bought just like how many countries have laws to say I can't kick you out of private property that's also a public square.
However, you can evict me from the property and charge me with trespassing, which is closer to whats happening here.. edit: Hell, you can even infringe my 2nd amendment rights and ban me from having a gun on your property!
Also, I'm not sure 'private' property can be a 'public' square. At least in New England, the town commons was public land ?
Quickly looking this up brings me to the supreme court ruling, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1], which involved laws that were specific to the state of California.
Notably, the applicability of this ruling was narrowed over time. Despite this, it has been brought up as an argument in situations with circumstances that differed from those of the original ruling, where questions of its applicability can be easily raised.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
edit: I seem to remember my son's class not being able to petition in front of a grocery store in California like 20 years ago...Wonder if it had been narrowed by then?
[0] https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/11/1... [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/13/law-firm-drops-trum... [2] https://thenewamerican.com/new-low-democrats-approve-harassm...
If we affirm that the right to legal counsel is a human right and that corporations also receive that right, how do we protect lawyers from clients which ignore legal counsel and file frivolous that can threaten the lawyer's right to practice law?
We're entitled to an attorney when defending ourselves from criminal prosecution, but where does it say we're entitled to legal counsel at any other time?
At the end of the day Law Firms are businesses, and again these are just businesses protecting their own self interests.
If they end up needing legal counsel for a criminal trial they'll receive it. Otherwise they can just grab a phonebook and start calling ambulance chasers until they find one who will meet their other legal needs.
That of course would not mean pressing private firms into public service.
Even so that wouldn't apply here. Parler lost their private counsel, not their legal counsel.
Access to legal representation is similarly an ideal that can't be reduced to its partial encoding in a very flawed legal system.
Does corporate personhood extend to the idea of legal representation?
Does the right to legal representation mandate that any legal firm be compelled to provide counsel to any client who demands it?
Read the PRC's constitution some time and see all the rights that it guarantees, yet no one actually enjoys those rights. They exist on paper only.
You continually ask questions that attack positions which no one has suggested. I've had to ignore about 80% of your comments because they are just diversions. No one said a word about "corporate personhood", for example, and no one is even talking about legal representation of corporations. It's not possible to have a meaningful discussion like this.
Parler is a business, not a person.
To be clear, I don't think that the Trump lawsuits had any merit or should have been brought in the first place. But they should absolutely have been allowed to go through the normal legal process so they could be convincingly rebutted. Sending hundreds of threats to law firms should not be a political tactic in a democracy. That does nothing but give ammunition and validity to conspiracy theorists.
Your first comment was responding to someone talking about AWS, Apple, and Google dropping Parler. The discussion was around the right of lawyers to drop clients, clients being so toxic that no one is willing to represent them, legal counsel as a right, and the ramifications of a client being unable to secure counsel.
No one was talking about mass harassment but you.
> I've had to ignore about 80% of your comments because they are just diversions.
You're trying to argue something completely out of context. That 80% of comments you're ignoring are about the topic at hand.
Alternatively (or additionally) they could move the damage from the server side to the client: think OSes and browsers, not to mention hardware. It won't be long before "secure boot" technologies prevent people from installing "extremist" operating systems.
It's so unfortunate we don't have that anymore though. I wonder who's responsible for that...
*Modulo DDOS attacks. Maybe Cloudflare et al should also be required by law to serve everyone regardless of content.
https://www.digitalocean.com/blog/digitaloceans-position-on-...
Other services include Twilio, Okta Zendesk, Sendgrid, Stipe, etc.
At the very least, I hope this encourages companies to backup their Cloud data frequently and separately.