All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Compromised internet companies
dane_doherty
Member
A compromised internet company is defined as an entity that willfully screws up its customers (especially paying ones) with no legal or economical basis. Especially despicable is an attempt to do it as a way to virtue signal and promote an ideology (most often The Current Thing™).
Other names: cucked internet company, soy internet company.
Examples:
GoDaddy locks $25,000,000 worth of domains because random Indian filed an $11 lawsuit in India
Namecheap terminates service to customers who put Russia as their country
XenForo revokes license of a free spech forum
DuckDuckGo removes search results for major pirate websites
Cloudflare decides to terminate Daily Stormer
Counter-examples: Ecatel and Novogara (rather not explain why), Epik.
What are your personal choices, providers you wouldn't recommend to do business with, on that basis?
Comments
Compromised? You mean woke.
But one free speech provider, FlokiNET, doesn't allow discussion about COVID-19 unless it's sourced from their local ministry of health or something. I'd link to their TOS but all I'm getting on their site is a blue screen with some 'loading' animation.
Yeah, I just found it in their AUP. They do not allow: "Disinformation/falsehood regarding COVID-19 (Masks, Vaccines, Social Distancing, etc.)".
Doesn't have to be their local, any EU is fine.
Ah yes peak saltiness at companies who don't want to do business with you.
I do see a slippery slope of terminating websites for these kinds of reasons, however, this particular characterization of the situation just screams being salty that people don't like you.
Just move on, find another host that is willing to deal with your shit. You mention 2 of them in your post already. In the same way that you're asking for "personal choices", why can't providers have "personal choices" in who they want to do business with too without having people like you complain?
Well, Glad that someone finally addressed the elephant in the room!
Youtube banned Russian Media on their platforms. Google Cloud laid sanctions on Russian accounts. Parler & Gab were de-platformed from Amazon AWS & GoDaddy respectively. And many more..
There's been a rising trend of "myway or the highway" attitude of the tech-giants lately.
No clue where this would end. A digital world war?
Why are you calling me personally? I've never been terminated for anything that wasn't actually illegal under U. S. law and I don't even remotely share the views of people mainly affected by the policies (*cough*nazis*cough*).
Internet has been built with principles of neutrality. Section 230 explicitly makes no business for providers to care about content stored on their servers under normal circumstances. These companies are essentially using their power to break the rules in a harmful way, trying to shut down something they don't own and should have no business caring about. Are you trying to forbid us from speaking about terrible internet business practices on an internet business forum? o_O
It's funny because their respective governments (Finland, Iceland) themselves went against internationally established recommendations for most of the time.
Are we going back to the "baker not baking a cake for a gay couple" argument? No part of section 230 says that companies can't terminate people for any reason.
How does it harm the internet if a hosting provider refuses to host a certain website? As long as there are other hosting providers who are willing to host the content, the internet will always be "neutral". I don't see any issues with the state of the internet right now, given that the companies you mention still exist.
I've always found it very funny how people like you argue about "internet freedom" in such a "collective right" manner, wherein you argue that internet companies should be restricted in their ability to choose who to do business with while at the same time wanting to have very strong individual rights in every other way.
I am merely pointing out that your characterization of the issue makes it sound like you're personally bitter about companies who do choose to boot websites off.
shit on my chest
You do realize that each layer further up the stack has less and less stakeholders effectively controlling it. We've already seen data centers booting off hosting service providers for refusing to take down sites they didn't like. ICANN has been pressured to boot Russia off the internet.. We're not far away (or are we already past that point?) from browsers themselves refusing to serve "inappropriate" sites. I bet somebody like tinyweasel could get GoDaddy or DigitalOcean to take this very forum down for bogus reason because it's relatively unknown and has lax moderation by today's expectations.
But yeah, according to you internet will always be "neutral", even if to access it you'd have to point a home-made antenna at precisely 3:50 AM to receive a morse code transmission bounced from Moon.
according to many, that has been going on for a while now.
A company is not "compromised" just because they do not want to host your hate speech.
My wife compromised my egg roll!
Are you tiny weasel? Sure smelling like a tiny weasel post.
Check his ip address, weasel uses mullvad vpn.
This is another one of those arguments that frankly I don't have the time for. It's almost like I said it already "I see the slippery slope, but I don't believe in it".
If you want to live in a world where you think that companies shouldn't have the right to deny service to any person for any reason, I suppose you can live in that world.
Why soy?
Freedom of speech means you are allowed to say something, it does not mean that everyone needs to support what you say. Why does so many assume that just because they are allowed to say something, no one is allowed to question it or even disagree?
A lot of people seems to support the "cancel culture" and calls out for cancelling persons or companies as soon as something does not exactly fit their point of view, but if someone cancels them they start screaming about freedom of speech and oppression.
Private companies are at their full right to dictate their own rules and chose who they do business with. I don't see a problem with them removing false information or banning countries that basically commits genocide. Every situation is of course open to some degree of interpretation, but then again it's a free market, if you do not agree with them go somewhere else.
There is no such thing as free speech or democracy in International affairs , it is all about interests of that particular country or company itself . One's free speech can be another person's hate speech .
Very apt. Same goes with Russia - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
however, flokinet.is is not a trustworthy provider. furthermore, flokinet.is full of left-wing, eco-, fff-, pkk- and jihad-terrorists. the leading head behind flokinet.is seems to be a german who was active in the german pirate party.
Indeed. It was a stupid move in the first place to let tech-giants be tech-giants. There is some movement in global law to get some control monopoly, which I can only encourage. In NL there is official disclosure of active coordination between international parties and politics about various huge subjects, also the involvement of setting a narrative of what is considered truth on social media. I cant really blame people at this stage for thinking what they think
True
Agreed, but wouldn't endorse the attempts of the 'tech-giants' to force an inclination towards their desired ideology either.
If you're trying to cancel soy companies, you are engaging in cancel culture yourself.
It is perfectly fine to refuse wedding cakes to gay couples, refuse performing abortions where they are legal, forbid discussing of slavery, discrimination etc. in schools, forbid talking LGBT issues in various places, etc.
It stands to reason that other people should have similar rights to make their choice regarding customers. There are many companies to choose from I am sure you can find one which would fit your ideology.
I am against blocking ANY kind of speech, even hate speech, it would be far easier to spot the nutjobs before they go on rampage and then track their internet usage to find their accomplices if they did manage to perpetrate their hate crimes even when they were flagged to the authorities. Besides, sane people could have much more fun reading their rants.
I had a lot of laughs recently reading someone's rants against masks and the freedom that is taken from them but were perfectly fine with the sponsor of such things, Putler, in the way he "manages democracy" in Russia and occupied territories. Such things can make your day.
Fucking people.
It doesn't mean compromised or woke. SMH
Compromised has a definition, trying to redefine it is fucking stupid and you should fuck off.
Woke? This has nothing to do with being woke and makes you suspect and illogical when you see shit where it doesn't belong.
I got confused af since I thought you meant hacked and then it was this weird post lol
Why? Sexual orientation is a protected class in the US and other places. It's against the law.
Why? Don't doctors have some oath to do right by their patients? I'm not talking about forcing a pediatrician to perform abortions, but if you're a gynecologist or whomever does the procedure, do your fucking job (I can see this being different in Canada vs US due to public health care system).
In Canada, a Catholic hospice that refused to assist with end of life stuff lost their government funds because their religious beliefs don't trump the rights of the person who needed the medical assistance.
Goddamn fucking southern Americans are a bunch of small minded, no education, pieces of shit. I lack sympathy for them because they keep electing certified pieces of shit into office.
The rights of people and corporations should not be the same.
Other people agree to a point until it becomes intentional manipulation that does serious harm. That's bad for the world and society as a whole. Your view of allowing everything regardless would be a shitty world. There's just too many stupid people in the world.
The amount of harm from bad speech has only gotten worse as the global reach is unlimited. So it's no where near like the '70's.
Blocking how?
Someone can say something in LET and have his account banned and his original thread title stomped with something else.... that blocking?
Someone can say something and go to jail.... or this blocking?
Two very different things.
Blocking in any way. Free speech is free speech, manipulation or not. We don't ban the sale of bleach because some idiot could be convinced by the idiot in chief to inject it in order to clear Covid, are we?
I know the laws, I disagree with them even as I can understand where that comes from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
Apparently, their imaginary friend takes precedence.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-abortion-access-idUSKBN1XT2HA
As opposed to the perfect world where nutjobs make their own twitter and FB to conspire in peace towards the blowing up of pedophile pizza shops and kidnapping of ppl who do not agree with their crazy theories.
I prefer them in the open.
Which is asinine.
The freedom to refuse is essential in any free society. The Catholic Church has the freedom to refuse and block the propagation of Atheism, Islam, and Buddhism inside their properties.