It provides email accounts, mailing lists, blogs, websites, chat and VPN access.
> We support individuals, collectives, communities and groups whose political and social activities fit within this worldview and who share with us some fundamental principles: anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-militarism
They don't receive any money for this. It's 100% volunteer services.
That’s a very different situation compared to the standard “sign up with your email here”. The provider is responsible because they picked their clients, rather than their clients picking them.
If the bartender decides as a rule "first of all, if they seem uncertain on their legs it is already a no", again that is just a codification of the former.
Nobody in the world DOES NOT do this. If an advertiser takes down their ads from a website because that website is spreading white supremacy then they are doing just the same. As they should.
Also where do they claim they are "just an infrastructure provider"? They clearly say throughout that they provide services for anti-racist/anti-sexist/etc orgs that can't afford to do it themselves.
They do not make a profit. They are not a company. They are literally a group of friends helping orgs out.
EDIT: a better simile would be if guns were giving away for free. You can see how that could be construed as increasing the responsibility of the provider if a receiver then does something illegal with it
I'll repeat a few of similes I used, with this latest: somebody giving guns away for free would be /less/ responsible if he screened the receivers first; somebody serving drinks would be /less/ responsible if he checked the costumers first; somebody in possess of a hammer would be /less/ responsible if he lent it to known vetted people instead of just anyone...
I get it that some see that cases for the opposite exist, but I would need a strong example because those provided made me strengthen the view I advanced instead of seeing an acquired responsibility on those who select their customers.
If selling the weapons is "ok" because business must be allowed because the motive is purely selfish (I just want to make a living for myself and my family), and giving away weapons is "suspect" because "you clearly have an ulterior motive", if just means that we live in a world where selfishness is the norm being altruists is suspect.
I think this is the core divide of our society, much more useful than the obsolete "left" and "right" divide
No, with these limited elements. The filter may just be "of course I will not provide my (free) service to people that may use it in what I call a repugnant way".
When you know Harry is a rogue CEO, say a misinformation spreader or the issuer of unethical products, and you refuse to work for it, to provide it your services: does that make you an "activist"? Many people will call it "just the normal right thing to do". This is similar to people here calling certain positions "centrist" or "extremist" - and that entirely depends on how those positions are interpreted beyond their dumb (not telling) label, and on the dumb labels over said labels.
It’s absolutely not a normal thing to do for entities that want to use the “we are just infrastructure, our users are responsible for their actions” excuse.
In fact, such entities (e.g. power grid, telecom) are often legally prohibited from choosing their clients, and in exchange aren’t held responsible for what their clients do with their services.
So if you had a hammer in your yard, and somebody took it and misused it, you would not be responsible, but if you gave it to your neighbour and he used it to crush a skull, you the owner of the hammer would be responsible? It is clearly at least the opposite. Abstract from the "paid service", but see that.
The rule you propose (filtering would create responsibility) makes no sense. Try to show why it would be so, maybe.