This is a "First they came for socialists" argument, but applied at independent levels of tech stack.
- VM hosting
- DNS hosting
- ISP
Where do we draw the line? I'd rather none of the above to be able to refuse service based on thought policing.
- VM hosting
- DNS hosting
- ISP
Where do we draw the line? I'd rather none of the above to be able to refuse service based on thought policing.
The powers used to cease it was emergency powers granted two years earlier to stop terrorist content from circulation online.
The domain was released eventually but the damage had already been done.
4k plus new users a day loose access their health information.
Before this I always assumed the DNS layer was untouchable considering many deplorable websites still have a domain. But this protection only applies to certain top level domains. .org for example
People who didn't like twitter's policies were smugly told "go start your own twitter". So now we had these Parler guys on AWS, they actually did it, oops, turns out starting your own twitter is also not ok.
I hate to defend Parler, but like you said, first they come for..
I really don't see how there could have been any other response. Twitter is a private company holding private assets and letting people use them in exchange for showing those people ads. What kind of free society would tell them that they can't decide what kind of content people get to put on their stuff? Should I be allowed to write KKK speeches on my work computer?
Unless we're going to declare social media a utility[0], what people are asking for is basically to have the government tell you what to put on your website.
[0] Which I personally think is ridiculous and entitled, but I'm open to the argument.
I personally would prefer that they didn't all live on Twitter, but they do and so here we are.