←back to thread

707 points patd | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
falcolas ◴[] No.23322696[source]
Free speech is not just an American constitutional right; many countries throughout the world consider free speech to be a human right.

So, yeah, many of us get a bit worked up when people are kicked off platforms, because they are being silenced, sometimes to the point of being shut out of the modern internet entirely (when their rights to a DNS address are comprehensively removed).

Hate speech and lies are terrible, but they’re not the only thing being silenced.

replies(5): >>23322837 #>>23322861 #>>23322910 #>>23327959 #>>23329690 #
Traster ◴[] No.23322910[source]
Okay, so I think there's some nuance there, I think there's a pragmatic line to draw - I don't think someone has a right to say anything on twitter, I just don't think that's twitters role is to be neutral. But I think there's a line where we go from a product that's curated and moderated - something like twitter, to something that is truly infrastructure. The DNS example is great, I don't think a DNS company should be able to refuse to service based on the content that's being served because the role of the DNS is simply to resolve a name to an address. What's served on that address is immaterial. I think we draw a bright line between those two types of things, although I'm sure it's more difficult than that when we're trying to design a law.
replies(4): >>23323827 #>>23324451 #>>23327978 #>>23328614 #
1. originalvichy ◴[] No.23327978[source]
Even in the case of DNS, you can still use a local hosts file to use a human-readable name.