2018-10-29nymag.com

Within the bounds of the law, net neutrality principles dictate that any internet user should be able to access Gab and upload garbage to it if they so please. Those are rights.

But that's probably where the list of rights ends. Hosting a website is a separate proposition from accessing one. A domain name, hosting servers, DDoS protection, and credit-card payment processing are not inherent rights of internet users, nor should they be. They entail ongoing, contingent agreements between separate parties; they are modern conveniences for those who adhere to the general social contract of not being an enormous asshole. The companies that pulled their support for Gab made it very difficult for the site to stay online, but they did not make it impossible. (There is an argument to be made that fundamental web services like domain registrars should be impartial, but given that the threshold for punitive action seems to be, roughly, "explicit Neo-Nazi online hangout," I'm not losing too much sleep, yet.) Gab is a terrible site with a higher-than-average proportion of racists, sexist, xenophobes, Islamophobes and anti-Semites, and nobody is obligated to specifically provide infrastructure support for them or maintain those business relationships in the face of public pressure.

...

The era of tech companies playing dumb about who's harnessing their tools is coming to an end. This does not bode well for social media shitposters, and it also threatens to ensnare the less flashy infrastructure providers that gird small independent communities.

Gab is run by a bunch of naive kids who think "free speech" means "supporting assholes", and that all forms of speech should be protected (even if it threatens violence). Evidence of how well this works out in practice can be seen in the fact that Gab platform users have attacked some of the very execs of the platform (at least one of whom has been forced to leave).



Comments: Be the first to add a comment

add a comment | go to forum thread