Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Ooo, I can link to my blog for relevance:

https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/

Summary: I agree, largely. Socially, we should be able to debate people with diverse opinions without turning the world into one big safe space. As far as the rights of hosting platforms: There has to be a line somewhere. I draw the line at CAs, ISPs and registrars. They should have to serve ANYONE unless the government mandates otherwise. Maybe Twitter and AWS shouldn't have to support abhorrent speech, but my home ISP can't pick and choose if I reach the larger world.



I agree. I don't believe each and every social network should be obliged to host every damn extremist group in the nation. On the other hand, ISPs, CAs, and registrars should be obligated to do so, being analogous to public utilities. I'd support a law codifying this requirement.

Social media companies, in the other hand, are more like the modern version of newspapers and magazines. And you don't have the right to be published been the most popular magazine simply because there's where the most readers are.

However, I would put cloud companies like AWS in the bucket of utilities and not media. Gab shouldn't have to worry about being cut off for lack of a hosting company. We can't say, "go find another social media home" to people we disagree with, only to watch in glee as the social media companies that will have them are shut down for lack of a hosting company or data center.


This is a great line to draw, similar to a phone company not getting to choose to carry me based on the content of my conversations, but a party line has no legal or moral burden to have me.

And yes, I realize how massively outdated that example was.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: