Does renting Linode VMs or Digital Ocean droplets count? Because they can cut Parler off just as easily as Amazon. Do they literally have to buy physical servers and host them on their own property somewhere? But then how do they get connected to the internet without going through some privately owned ISP that might cut them off? How do they register a domain without using a private corporation?
Basically, I'm asking how you can realistically "self host" without going through a private corporation that might decide to cut you off at some level in the stack?
Even if you own your own datacenter, you still need peering and a way to accept payment.
For payment systems: also easy... everyone has an account at the Federal Reserve offered free as a public service (but with no overdraught or lending services). Payments are processed via SWIFT/ACH for the banks right now and that service should be opened up to all Americans without a bank or Card Services intermediary.
The progressive left has advocated for things like this for decades. Now it is affecting the right, but it's hard to have sympathy as they have been corporate sycophants for decades.
You can’t, and that is the problem with allowing Big Tech to be the arbiter of truth.
Absolutely. As I see it, one of the single biggest problems with the internet has ALWAYS been that users always have had to go through third parties—hosting sites—to gain access to the internet.
Essentially, for the vast majority, the internet does not and cannot provide unfettered access to the internet in the way that a city's Public Commons would have done in years past. The fact is that the technical infrastructure for users to bypass ISPs, social media etc. just does not exist to the extent that would allow millions to do so. As users have no guaranteed [legislated] right to access the internet's Public Commons, they're always going to be at the mercy or discretion of the party who allows them access.
As we've seen in recent days, this is a terrible state of affairs for users, as it clearly demonstrates how the owners of these access points have ultimate control over access to the internet. The fact that the US president has been censored on the whim of a gatekeeper's CEO amply demonstrates the fact. This is an intolerable* situation and ultimately it has to be rectified if we are to have a free and open internet.
Of course, governments love this situation because channeling users through common access points such as ISPs allow them to more effectively monitor and control internet traffic.
_
* Please note, I'm not describing this situation as intolerable because I'm a supporter of President Trump. The fact is that I'm not a Trump supporter but my position is more along the line commonly but wrongfully attributed to Voltaire which is that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
As far as I'm concerned, President Trump unreservedly has the right to say whatever he wishes to without being censored on a whim by some corporate body (or a bureaucratic gnome therein)—that is unless such comment is outright unlawful (which, in Trump's case, has yet to be determined—and only a court of law can ultimately adjudicate on said matter)!
In my opinion, Trump's behavior has been obnoxious in the extreme but banning what he says is not the answer (especially so given that he's still an elected official—none less than the US President).
Moreover, I believe that no matter how bad, antisocial or outright mad some of these internet cretins are (and I reckon there are many that fit that mold), it is better to know who they are and what they think than to have them and their thoughts go underground—where, in all likelihood, they'll likely fester and become even more dangerous and virulent.
The internet censorship we've seen in recent days is the most prominent example of what the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and others have been doing for quite some time. That matters have ramped up to censoring the US President may bring the matter to a head and that ultimately we'll see laws enacted that will put limits on these corporate bullies.
(Ultimately, the whole problem boils down to the fact that democracies haven't yet established at law any effective and or reliable methods or protocols to single out what should be censored and what should not—or for that matter, what internet users can actually discuss and or look at online without attracting the attention or ire of government and security services. [It seems to me that only online content that's deemed illegal at law ought to be subject to censorship—nothing else.]
The fact that governments haven't so acted is now proving to be very troubling, and until it's resolved at law the problem with Big Tech will persist.)
Sewer used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Water used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Natural gas used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Electricity used to be a luxury, now it's a utility.
It's time for network access to also be a utility.
Even if you bought your own physical servers, you still need an agreement with an internet carrier and a colocation facility.
Renting a Linode is a convenient shortcut but you need that one contract with Linode. Linode can, does, and should enforce terms of service.
You can run a website off your home internet connection with a $20 raspberry pi, but your ISP can, does, and should enforce terms of service.
In theory you could become an ISP by entering into a peering agreement with other ISPs. Internet providers do this. Those ISPs will have their own terms, some of them may not regard content but I expect all of them would specifically defer to local law regarding the transported content.
"Bulletproof hosting" is the concept being discussed here. It is literally named that way because armed government agents coming to shut the site down or confiscate servers will be resisted.
Now call me a fanatical sheep, but if one think it's necessary to have that kind of hosting to get their political stories, they might just be seeking out extremely radical sources.
So then you have to setup your own generator, on your own land, to power your own ISP.
Then, of course, the domain name company may come after you. But you can also use a direct ip address. I don't think domain names are a basic human right either.
And then the RIR cuts off your AS.
Or your SSL issuer revokes your cert.
They can't win on the conventional Internet, even by playing a shell-game. So these 'deplatformed' services will move to store-and-forward mesh networking using opportunistic connectivity over ad hoc WiFi or Bluetooth or whatever. And that's going to be nearly impossible to monitor and police. How will we know what they're discussing if we don't even know that they're communicating?
The more you tighten your grip...
That's exactly what companies did not too long ago for this very reason. They wanted full control over the entire stack and yes had physical servers in physical offices.
Over time, folks laid off their IT staff and traded away their control for convenience. That's the tradeoff: their house -> their rules, your house -> your rules.
> But then how do they get connected to the internet without going through some privately owned ISP that might cut them off?
Now that is an insurmountable obstacle and a real problem. For that matter, what if Comcast cut off all of AWS until they banned Parler? It would take years to build a physical cable network. The highways are much more important than the parking lots.
Really, there was a time when every company that had a website would spin up their own hardware and software...