"For as little as $0.25, you can set up websites at NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, the masters of only pay for what you use hosting since 2002." [1]
Are you telling me people who can afford a smartphone cannot afford some simple static hosting?
1. Service shutdown
2. Price jacked up
3. Your account/instance terminated
4. Data abused
And many more. It's almost guaranteed you'll basically be hold hostage at one point.
So, if you're arguing against people having the ability to host on devices they own, you'd need a better argument, one that specifically show how that would be destructive and harmful so that they shouldn't have this freedom.
Huh, what? The issues I mentioned proceed from using services you don't own or have power over. How can I suffer from such issues on my own device?
> out of range or your phone might be off
and? If the owner is ok with that, where is the problem? Are people not permitted to walk because a car is faster?
Are you arguing I'm not allowed to host because a service can cut me off, so I need to open myself to more services that can cut me off?
I don't know about you, but that seems to me the logical thing to do
Because the entire point of the article is that hosting on mobile should be indeed more convenient and accessible.
By that logic, that's what you are on your phone as well, unless you collected the silicon material, diffused and soldered and programmed it yourself.
Even if you assume 'a physical black box, but at least you hold it in your own hands', that is barely making that position stronger since you're still reliant upon networking which requires both a second party and rights to use it, neither of which you control.
Essentially, you will never, ever be some silly idea of a 'self made server owning person' because without mutual agreements and trusts, you get nothing. Not even spare electrons to flip the bits in the CPU registers.
The best we can do is make a balance between our risk appetite and how we want to spend our time. Turns out random phones that will turn into e-waste faster than you can sneeze is what people accept, and thus that is what the suppliers supply.
I'm lost, how did you come the conclusion that tenants and owners lend the same power?
> unless you collected the silicon material, diffused and soldered and programmed it yourself.
You don't need to build a house to be its owner.
Equating being able to run a webserver on a privileged port to power, and thus ownership is a bad take. That also goes for the other way around where it is equated to ownership first and power second: none of that is coupled to the ability to run a webserver on any port for that matter.
And on top of that, I made the case that even if you could, you're now just beholden to the power of the webserver maintainer, the OS maintainer and the baseband maintainer. You're not suddenly 'free' or 'empowered' by some sort of ideal.
Mind you, I'm not saying it's great that you can't always run arbitrary software, but staking power and tenancy on that seems pretty dumb to me.