GoDaddy Reignites Debate Over Infrastructure Layer Moderation By Banning Texas Anti-Abortion Snitch Site
from the never-ends dept
The debate over content moderation at the infrastructure (rather than edge) layers of the internet stack is heating up again. For what it's worth, we'll be hosting our next Techdirt Tech Policy Greenhouse on this very subject later this month (if you're interested in contributing, please reach out). Last week Reuters claimed that Amazon was going to more aggressively police sites that rely on AWS (which created a bit of a furor earlier this year when the company booted Parler). Amazon has denied these claims, but it certainly raised some eyebrows.
Then, on Friday, hosting company GoDaddy announced that it had given Texas Right To Live 24 hours notice that it was shutting down the snitch site that organization was running as part of Texas's ridiculously unconstitutional plan to allow anyone to sue anyone for vaguely "aiding and abetting" someone getting an abortion. As some commentators noted, such a site appeared to violate some of GoDaddy's policies -- and that's exactly what GoDaddy said in telling the site it had 24 hours to find a new host.
GoDaddy claimed that the snitch site violated multiple policies, but the one that everyone has focused on is Section 5.2 of its terms:
You will not collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content (as defined below) or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another User or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent.
I have to admit that that clause is... pretty vague. I understand the intent behind it, certainly, but the language could be applied to lots of sites that collect some information for purely non-nefarious purposes. Under this policy, would it be against GoDaddy's terms to create a private site that allowed people to discuss -- for example -- incidents of sexual harassment, such as what happened during the #MeToo movement?
There was, separately, the issue of the fact that the site was being (somewhat hilariously) flooded by bogus snitching reports, designed to make the site useless. Some enterprising coders had even hacked together a simple script to flood the site with bogus snitching info.
Either way, within hours, the site was back up on Digital Ocean... and then was kicked off again (again, for claims of policy violations). It quickly then found another home on Epik, which is kind of the last hosting refuge of assholes who piss off every other hosting company (it has worked with Gab, Parler, and 8chan at times). Update: And apparently even Epik wanted nothing to do with the site and told the operators that it violated Epik's terms of service as well...
As we discussed when the Parler situation hit, we should look at infrastructure-level moderation as being fundamentally different from edge layer moderation. There are different things at play, and the impact is much greater. Moderation at the infrastructure layer can not be narrowly targeted. It is, by default, a sledge hammer approach. That said, (again as we noted in the Parler situation), it is not as big of a concern when there is widespread competition. The larger concern appears in non-competitive markets. Thankfully, as the site's ability to bounce around and find new hosts quickly has demonstrated, the hosting market still is pretty competitive.
That's not to say that there don't remain some concerns about what happens at the infrastructure layer of the internet and who should have the power to shut down entire websites. It's just to note that the issue a lot more complex than any simplistic analysis will entail. Either way, stay tuned for the Greenhouse posts later this month...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abortion, content moderation, domain registrars, domains, hosting, infrastructure, texas
Companies: digital ocean, epik, godaddy, texas right to live
Reader Comments
The First Word
“A quote I ran across in a youtube comment section of all places sums it up nicely I'd say.
“The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; chy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn…
You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
— Dr. Dave Barnhart, Christian Minister
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Article Ten and Grosjean v. American Press Co. give GoDaddy the right to express themselves however they choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The clause does seem a little vague but I can certainly see how it would apply here and I struggle to find a problem with them refusing to play host to a site designed to 'enforce' such an abhorrent law by enabling harassment and punishment of any woman who dares get pregnant and isn't thrilled by that fact.
If anything would seem to check the 'harassment' and 'providing personal data of other people without their consent to enable that harassment' boxes it would be this so while moderating at the infrastructure level might be a discussion worth having in general I'm not really seeing a problem with it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The law is worse than you think, it enables action to be brought by anyone against anyone who;-
Drive them to the clinic and you can be taken to court by a neighbour who wants to do you harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh I'm aware that it's a monstrous bill and if anything I'm probably underestimating just how bad it is because I haven't thought of all the horrible angles and how it's going to be used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's just hope other states don't pick up on this and pass crazy laws for guns, libel, public decency, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...and it's bad enough in that respect that Uber have issued promises to drivers that they will be protected and have their legal fees covered if they are sued for doing so.
How bad does a bill have to be to make Uber the heroes on the issue of workers' rights and freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It’s crazier than that. Nobody would be able to drive someone to have an abortion without cars or roads, so that would open car dealerships, car manufacturers, even the state department of transportation (who built the roads) or even the Texas state legislature (who funded the roads) to litigation, as the law is written!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
with the state saying "we're not going to enforce federal law, we'll leave it to the populace", they're instituting vigilantism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How long before family planning clinics become extinct in Texas? Indeed that may be the objective in telling people to enforce the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It’s not vigilantism. Vigilantism bypasses the courts, this Texas law has no power outside of courts.
If this were vigilantism, then all court officers - from the lowest justice of the peace to the chief justice of the supreme court - are all vigilantes and always have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ars Technica is reporting that Epik doesn’t want anything to do with them.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/even-epik-says-the-texas-abortion-whistleblower-site-vi olates-its-rules/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bloody hell, you know you've really gone above and beyond in being horrible when the hosting service of Gab and Parler says they want nothing to do with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The CEO is Dutch. They may not bat an eye at casual racism, but threaten women's rights and it's suddenly a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
thats kinda easy.
When you work in a group with other women around you.
That May make your day REAL hell for letting something like this go up?
13 males decide that YOU, dont have ownership of your OWN BODY?
That alone is against All equal rights bills, amendments and Every other law created for equality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except that an unborn child isn't part of a woman's body. It's just living there temporarily. Its DNA sequence is unique and completely distinct from hers. That makes it a separate living being, not another of her organs or a collection of her tissues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes or no, anonymous coward: Do you believe the law should force all women to give birth once they know they’re pregnant—regardless of the circumstances of conception/the possible danger to the life of the woman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not the same AC, but no.
I would also like to add that if I was forced to answer the question, I'd have to reveal some... salacious aspects of my sexuality to explain why I can't answer the question.
And I do believe that women should be able to choose what happens to their bodies, subject to expert medical advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
An unborn child isn't a child. Children are born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but it's the linguistic sleight of hand that the "pro-life" movement has depended on for decades. "Fetus" doesn't evoke the same feelings that "child" does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's not sleigh of hand to call something a different name when it's a different thing. a fetus at the stage most abortions take place in is not a child. it's abhorrent that people like you ignore basic biological facts in order to elevate an unthinking lump of cells over a person whose body is set to be hijacked for 9 months
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you suggesting it's just a parasite sucking the life out of a woman's body?
I've never heard of that theory before now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've never been to medical school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's a question for you: are you proposing that it's acceptable to bar someone from having a medical procedure performed on them if performing that procedure would endanger the life of another person? Because that seems to be what you're proposing.
Warning: think CAREFULLY on ALL the consequences of that proposal before answering yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So are parasites. Do they have a right to life as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You must be a pretzel with logic that twisted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Goddamn I hope you didn't actually pass a pubically funded biology class with that kind of "education."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A tapeworm is also not part of one's body and has a DNA sequence that is "unique and completely distinct from" the person it resides in. Should people not be allowed to have tapeworms or other unwanted parasites removed from their bodies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So is a tapeworm, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be removed.
It all comes down to how you view women. If, at the moment of pregnancy, a woman is considered to be nothing but an incubator and she should lose all rights to her own health and wellbeing until the baby is born whether she wants it or not, your position is fine. To many others it's horrifying inhuman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Except that an unborn child isn't part of a woman's body. "
WOW, you are a doctor?
Then it wouldnt matter IF' the child was removed?
That it could survive, even with a Ton of medical protection.
The Female body is/was designed to hold that child for 9 months.
BUT, if you didnt understand that, a recent observation has shown that the female body isnt adapting to the Current Child bearing conditions. And Why Many havbe to use a C' Section to give Birth to the child.
Since you seem to have abit of Medical under your Belt(Sarcasm OFF) I would think your medical certification should be removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I said that yesterday when the story broke: https://twitter.com/SpaceRyunosuke/status/1434728833991729155
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing the lengths anti-choice will go to before their born and suddenly go silent after they are born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A quote I ran across in a youtube comment section of all places sums it up nicely I'd say.
“The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; chy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn…
You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
— Dr. Dave Barnhart, Christian Minister
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Youtube comments are hardly the most reliable of information. And so you're okay with demonizing any attempt to present alternatives to abortion? Or any information about it that isn't flattering to the practice? That doesn't put your side in a very good light, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-choice/pro–forced birthing lawmakers (who are largely conservative) seem content with demonetizing or banning comprehensive sex education and affordable birth control/contraception, both of which are proven to reduce abortion rates. What other alternatives do you believe will reduce abortion rates without legally forcing women to give up their bodily autonomy?
How about we talk about information that isn’t flattering to the anti-choice crowd—like the fact that the so-called fetal heartbeat on which laws/bills like the Texas bullshit isn’t actually a heartbeat at all? How about you address the fact that, at the six-week cutoff period outlined in the Texas law, many women don’t even know they’re pregnant? Perhaps we can discuss Republican lawmakers have done everything possible to destroy the social safety net and depress wages such that a woman who isn’t wealthy could have serious problems making ends meet and thus raising a healthy child that she may not have wanted in the first place but was legally forced to carry to term. Maybe you’d like to explore the fact that the Texas law makes no exceptions for rape/incest, which literally means a rapist in Texas has a viable reproduction strategy for as long as he isn’t caught.
Let’s have those discussions first. Then we can get to any questions you might have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fun fact: Abortion rates are higher in conservative-run areas due to lack of sex education and making birth control difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the goal really was less abortions there are a slew of options that could be taken, from comprehensive and accurate sex education(so none of that 'just don't have sex' crap) paired with cheap and easy access to contraceptives, subsidies for medial coverage so giving birth and the related hospital costs don't bankrupt the mother/family, social safety nets to provide financial support for those that might not be able to afford to raise a kid...
There's a whole bunch of options but as all but the first two would involve the dreaded Socialism and giving a damn about those icky poor people they always seem to be dismissed as not acceptable or worse options than the tried and true method of 'tell people not to screw, and then punish them if they do.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, don’t worry about rape and incest in Texas. Or at least rape. The governor says they’re going to just stamp it out. They’re going to put an end to rape and then it will no longer be a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I highly doubt the Texas governor and legislature are gonna follow through on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The question for Texas Guv Greg Abbott should have been:
So when are you gonna arrest yourself and all the republican legislators???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I'm sure they will. Not stop rape, of course, just change the law so that the legal definition of it is so narrow that virtually nothing qualifies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they're willing to give rapists a pass(hell, encouragement in a very real sense) by not having rape as a legitimate justification to get an abortion then if they're not just making empty statements I can't help but suspect that any efforts to 'stamp it out' are going to be more on the side of 'if we can't see it or don't call it rape it doesn't exist' than any real attempt to deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some of the things that J. Michael Stracynski put in Babylon 5 are scarily accurate...
[Over dinner, new Babylon 5 "political officer" Julie Musante asks Sheridan about "lurkers".]
John Sheridan: It's our version of the homeless. In many ways, we have the same problem Earth does.
Julie Musante: Mmm. Earth doesn't have homeless.
Sheridan: Excuse me?
Musante: We don't have the problem. Yes, there are some "displaced" people, here and there, but, uh... they've chosen to be in that position. They're either lazy, or they're criminal, or they're mentally unstable.
Sheridan: They can't get a job!
Musante: EarthGov has promised a job to anyone that wants one. So, if someone doesn't have a job, they must not want one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Forgot about that nugget. There where others in relation to President Clark's EarthGov and the insane reporting from INN during his "reign".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Youtube comments are hardly the most reliable of information.
Address the thinking presented. I'm not even sure what "information" was presented, but you just basically committed argumentum ad hominem.
And so you're okay with demonizing any attempt to present alternatives to abortion?
What alternatives? They've all been presented and addressed before. Nothing so far has been an alternative.
Or any information about it that isn't flattering to the practice?
What would that be?
You realize this is about a system like China's social scoring, but with rando witch hunters given the ability to attack people "suspected" of being remotely connected with anyone seeking abortion care. It's a website for snitching enabled by a pretty unconstitutional law.
What's a good look now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Abortion is about Control and punishment for sex.
Why?
Because all alternatives to banning abortion are rejected out of hand...
You could fund child care, You could make fostering kids more economical, you could make healthcare universal you could even make access to food more available. In general, we as a people could make raising kids more economical. People get abortions in part because it's expensive to have a kid.
Abortion rights are under attack because groups of incels feel women should be punished for having sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'We can't take care of the born, that would be socialism!'
On the one hand I'm sure there are those against it who's thinking starts and ends at 'Think of the babies!', yet at the same time as far as I know and can see you're dead on, that for all the effort into demonizing abortion the sheer indifference(if not outright contempt towards the socialism that would be required) towards the steps that would reduce it other than simply making it illegal or effectively illegal makes it really hard to read as anything but punishing women for having the audacity to have sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is a contemporary control-of-women method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Any attempt? Nope. Unconstitutional, heinous laws? Very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good that you put a name.
Found an article talking about the man.
Apparently, he actually WANTED to reduce abortions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well that's annoying, the header in the tabs section loads fine but the entire page is blank, and looks like the site itself has the same problem as even loading the home page gets the same result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might want to check things on your end; site loads fine for me, and I read it every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm, I'll give it a look on my other computer in that case, I'll occasionally get a white screen but a simple refresh generally does the trick yet it's not working this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amazing how easily you criticize anyone you disagree with rather than actually try to understand what their point of view really is instead of what you think it is. You're advocating for women to be able to choose to kill the unique - yes, unique, because the baby's DNA is different from hers and thus, it's not simply another part of her body - life growing inside her just because she finds it inconvenient and can't be bothered with the responsibility. And research shows that nearly all abortions are done on healthy babies by healthy women. Complications requiring such a procedure are extremely rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two questions.
Do you believe all life is sacred regardless of the circumstances of conception?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not a baby. Babies don't have umbilical cords.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So what is your solution for fetuses that turn out to have genetic defects which means it will born with the mind of a vegetable or no limbs or any other type problem dooming it to need 24/7 care? Will you pay for that care? What if there is a high chance the woman will die in childbirth?
You are advocating that women are forbidden to have bodily autonomy because you and your ilk have decided that you are right and therefore women become cattle in way. A women that has been raped will have a child that will remind her of that event every day, what is the prospects for that child growing up in a happy home? Hmm?
It's like Dr Dave Barnhart said, when the child is born you lot don't care one iota. You make the right noises, but you never take responsibility for what you advocate.
If you think my assessment is wrong, please show us photos of all the children you adopted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well hell if that's how you want to play... No, I don't demonize those that would strip away the bodily autonomy of women the second they get pregnant, they do that quite well on their own. The fact that the fetus may have it's own DNA is irrelevant, just like the idea that it's not simply another organ of hers or that it might be perfectly healthy, it's still her body and who and what gets to use it is her decision.
Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term that she doesn't want(for any reason, from inability to afford it, concerns about health risks or simply because she doesn't want to) would the similar(though obviously not to the same scale) to forcing someone to give blood or donate an organ, so quick questions, should either of those be optional? If I need a blood donation to stay alive and you're the only one in range at the time such that no donation would leave me dead should you be legally obligated to 'donate' your blood in order to sustain my life? If an already born child needs an organ and the father is the only match available in time should the law be able to force him to 'donate' an organ in order to keep the kid alive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There's also the logical extreme of the argument of "it's a separate human life worthy of legal protection" that anti-abortion advocates never seem to want to pull the trigger on:
If it's a separate human life, and you terminate it intentionally and with forethought, isn't that murder? And the doctor performing the operation is akin to a hitman, carrying out murder for hire?
I mean, the protest signs will say "abortion is murder" but nobody seems willing to put that to the test. There are already laws for murder. No specific "abortion" law would be necessary. Come on Texas AG, let's see some indictments!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say that but given they put out up a bloody bounty system for anyone who even helps someone get an abortion I wouldn't put it past them to charge an abortion doctor as a paid killer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, of course, it would be 100% projection, as the forced-birthers are the only side that has a body count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But they haven't and anti-abortion advocates have had plenty of opportunity to do so, even before Roe v. Wade. Why not? If they're that convinced of the righteousness of their beliefs and their cause, why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They’re afraid of what might happen if their “side” wins and SCOTUS hears the appeal (which they likely would).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't really even have to be abortion/murder if you stick with the "separate human life" idea.
Had a miscarriage? Police investigation required. Oh, you miscarried because of a drug overdose? Sounds like manslaughter to me.
Baby is born with mental illness? Police investigation required. Oh, you got drunk once during your pregnancy and the alcohol affected the fetus? Sounds like child abuse to me.
Hey, this is an innocent life in the womb that needs legal protection, right? The above cases should be handled in exactly that way then, shouldn't they, pro-lifers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Might as well make euthanasia legal in Texas, since their logic is that twisted.
Thou shalt not murder my dummy thick posterior. If you issue bounties for driving a woman to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion, then you've basically violated that one Commandment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I honestly don't know why they don't force-implant monitoring devices into every woman to check on whether an egg has been fertilized. That way they could catch all the "babies" which god murders on a regular basis, and perhaps find a way to force all of them to survive.
Or maybe they'd finally realize that something like half of fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses are aborted with a woman thinking "gee my period was a bit late or weird this month" and that this is perfectly natural.
They can pick one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Amazing how easily you criticize anyone you disagree with rather than actually try to understand what their point of view really is instead of what you think it is."
Oh we know what your argument is. We have just found it lacking in both substance and merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"life growing inside her just because she finds it inconvenient and can't be bothered with the responsibility."
I'd respond with a well written essay to describe the actual reasons women have abortions but I'm allergic to doing more work the the idiot I'm punking. So instead why don't you actually have sex for the first time, before you worry overmuch about why the women you paid, is gonna chooses not to be host to your seed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your point of view is that you know better than a woman and her doctor and demand the right to get between the only 2 parties involved in this decision.
Everyone rejects this point of view because your demanding the right to step between a medical decision and make the choice that disregards everyone's rights for the chance that a new baby might be born, and only on the grounds that you think they are doing it on the grounds of avoiding responsibility.
Everyone can see your only goal is to punish the woman because your not pushing for any solution but banning abortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well those arguments would get much more weight if they came from a place of intellectual honesty and consistency. There is a significant overlap between the anti-choice people and the people that are absolutely and totally fine with post-natal abortion, a.k.a. the death penalty.
Also contrast this to stand-your-ground laws. Many people that say that a woman has to carry another "human being" to term if it inadvertently wanders in her uterus unwanted, also say it's fine to shoot someone if they're vaguely threatening you. Trayvon Martin was an actual human being, not a clump of cells, with feelings and a functioning heart and brain and still Zimmerman was allowed to shoot him unpunished.
And don't get me started on police shootings.
So, if Texas Repugnantans are open to discussing protection of all live they can talk otherwise it's clear that protection of the sanctity of human life is not their goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is a non-zero chance a woman can die from pregnancy/childbirth. Therefore, the fetus is threatening her life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
finds it inconvenient and can't be bothered with the responsibility
Tell me...how do you feel about mask mandates? I'm just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slippery Slope - my ass
I’m disappointed to see Masnick searching for an exception that doesn’t exist. Hosting companies are NOT pseudo-monopolies like an ISP is. You could easily expand the “barrier of entry” argument to Facebook (which you’ve previously had no anti-trust issues with) these days there’s really very little difference between software infrastructure and fungible hardware infrastructure(like hosting). If they are able to move IN A DAY then it’s really not that much of a barrier. Nobody forced them to enter a contract with subjectively “vague” language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slippery Slope - my ass
Yeah, that's why I said it's more of a concern if there weren't competitive options. You seem to have skipped that part in a rush to complain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't anyone think of about those poor people who wrote bots to pretend they were in texas & submit hundreds of bogus leads to the website?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think of them, and I laugh. The person who filled out forms using The Bee Movie script I'd love to buy a drink for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm concerned about entrenching the practice of targeting the infrastructure for moderation. There is no guarantee that there will be a wealth of competition in the hosting space forever. After all - so much of the rest of the Internet has already centralized. What's to prevent the competition from all folding and AWS and Azure becoming the only meaningful hosting providers in the world outside China?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wish it wouldn't happen too, but as long as infrastructure is privately owned the rights of the owner will reign over the right of the client. But placing it in public sphere of ownership is tantamount to raising the hammer and sickle flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, then you do it like they did 10 years ago, in the Before-Times, and get a business tier internet connection and your own bloody server.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"What's to prevent the competition from all folding and AWS and Azure becoming the only meaningful hosting providers"
Reality. There's nothing stopping you hosting your own server on the computer you're using now if you want, there's no need for a 3rd party host. There's thousands of options, many of which predate either service you mentioned, and there will always be a market for alternative services by people who don't wish to use the main two - but even if there wasn't there's nothing to stop you rolling your own solution in the way the web got started to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That’s only partly true. The
aspect is inaccurate.
Most communication services today have major limits on both bandwidth use and connection numbers. Not only that, the majority consumer OS platform, Windows 10, is designed to limit you ability to self host.
So you need to pay for windows server,
Switch to Mac with OSserver, or use Linux/Unix.
Mine (in these)
And have an ISP that will let you host. Including static IP. (Xfinity)
And have the equipment to do so. (an old G5 Mac Xserve rack)
OS (AIX with extensions)
And mitigation software and hardware for protection (FirePro equipment).
And all I’m hosting is my old BBS. Off a single SAS solid state 100Gb drive. And less than a hundred connections per
Month.
You still have no DNS access, so it’s ip only.
Doable, but not by joe sixpack.
Inbound connection limitations are going to be a major factor.
Oh, and no idea why this is being held for moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are OOB Linuxes out there, you just install them and make some basic configurations and suddenly you have everything you need, including DNS (ex OpenDNS) if you want. Anyone who want to run Windows Server at home must be a masochist in my opinion.
It happens to us all on occasion, but I only know one person who goes on a spam-rant because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I happened to like the Ultra64 build and go package.
Click “alll and you have a 40gb distro across multiple ISOs.
Unfortunately it’s dead.
BYO Linux was fun while it lasted. But the target audience was too small.
You had to know enough to chose every aspect, and be lazy enough to auto install with no tweaking.
About the only use was for large scale rollouts. And those often go with a commercial package with support.
But moving to linux was my point of concern. Most people just won’t do it. It’s far better than windows: easier to use, more stable, better tested, updates don’t wipe out your graphics driver… etc.
I prefer Unix myself, the BSD forks, and swap between Darwin and MacOS most of the time. I have DragonFly but it’s clunky and OpenNet won’t run on my most current systems. I use Debian Linux and use out of repo packages. They’re too up tight about FOSS/FAIF.
The idea of go make your own, though, isn’t an overnight thing. That’s all the more I was saying. Doable, but your mother isn’t going to pull it off tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure which distros you've been using, but either they were 10 years ago or you're exaggerating to prove a point for some reason. Maybe because you have to go with "zero knowledge of anything" as a default, else your opposition to the main point of self-hosting being possible falls apart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You appear intent to pretend it’s as easy as brewing a cup of coffee.
Do you really intend to say that that Green lady, whatever here name is, is going to be able to go home tonight and have her own web site up and running tomorrow? On her own?
Again, all I said was it’s not easy.
Darwin was just updated in May.
So was DragonFly, and it’s still clunky.
The latest unstable of Debian was a few days ago. And consumer back in August.
Hardly 10 Years ago.
What’s your point? Because we both say it’s possible!
I’m just being realistic about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Realistic about what? A drooling idiot can't run a site right now, that's true. But, they couldn't have done more than a GeoCities site 20 years ago either, which makes the concerns about centralisation ring hollow here. Yet, the internet thrived before most of the sites being discussed existed.
For everyone else, it's possible to roll your own even if AWS and Google end up running nearly everything, which is unlikely because there's always competition. If people needing to click a button instead of learning how things work get us there, there's still room for the rest of us. Freedom doesn't depend on it being catered to the lazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reality?
I’d bet that less than 1:10 can figure out setting up their own web site.
The whole ‘go make your own’ is simply a lazy line to toss out.
That’s my point.
Nothing less, nothing more.
Why you jumped into a secondary conversation, rather than replying to whatever I may have posted that your replying, I’ll just assume you made a minor mistake on where you clicked reply.
Unless you really like DragonFly and I pissed you off by pointing out a commonly stated issue?
If so, I’m sorry. But I’m not the minority here. DF has long had stability issues regarding anything outside it’s immediate repository sourcing.
One main complaint is the default of disabling proprietary updaters.
For backend services by the time you realise you have a self-update issue you are past easy and into dependency hell.
Yet the default update method has a bad habit of not working correctly at times too.
And I won’t even begin to discuss how defaults can mess with completely modular programs.
Look, it’s a good platform for the target. And the system internals are better maintained than most
For all its flaws, many self inflicted, it’s a great place for testing code if it runs correctly on the dragon it will run so on just about any BSD base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I’d bet that less than 1:10 can figure out setting up their own web site."
That doesn't mean they don't have the power to do so, or hire someone who can do it for them. A depressingly large number of drivers don't know how to change a tyre or perform other maintenance tasks on their cars. That doesn't mean that if garages in their area consolidated that they'd not be able to use anyone other than the local conglomerate.
"Unless you really like DragonFly and I pissed you off by pointing out a commonly stated issue?"
Never used it, and nobody wishing to run a web server needs to either. There's solutions that can run a server out of the box in a couple of clicks, within the OS the end user already operates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me try to reiterate once again my statement.
Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean the majority can do so.
Period. That’s it. That’s all I said I n the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and...? There's a lot of things the average person doesn't know how to do, but that does not mean they don't have the freedom to do so, or hire someone who does. Which was the point of what you were responding to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, which of those limits are new and weren't a problem for people 20 years ago?
"Not only that, the majority consumer OS platform, Windows 10, is designed to limit you ability to self host."
Well, if you use a consumer desktop OS to host a commercial website that's your choice. That doesn't mean a competent professional can't do it with the right tools. I mean, hosting a website with W10 is still very possible, but if you're doing anything with any kind of commercial or societal importance, that's your fault if you don't choose to use the right tools, or hire someone who can.
"Doable, but not by joe sixpack."
I can't rebuild my car engine or build a house, that doesn't mean it's impossible to use anyone but my car manufacturers garage or the local construction cartel. Don't fear - even if you get yourself kicked off everywhere else because you spout nonsense, there's still a person you can turn to for service that's not Amazon or Google. You would have to undermine the entire structure of the internet to make this impossible.
"You still have no DNS access, so it’s ip only."
What did you do to get yourself kicked off all the independent DNS services, or are we pretending this is part of the dystopia too?
"Inbound connection limitations are going to be a major factor."
Depends on what your site does. If you're trying to compete with YouTube or Netflix, sure. If not, either you need to optimise your site, or your actual problem is with your ISP and not Amazon or Google.
"Oh, and no idea why this is being held for moderation."
There's various reasons that happens, ranging from a lot of submissions over a short period of time, reports on previous posts or just bad luck. Happens to us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unborn child
If their concern was for the unborn child they'd make fathers take responsibility at the same time abortion becomes forbidden.
If takes two to conceive. Either they are both parents who must care for the child or neither is.
This bill is nothing to do with protecting children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I the only one reading this headline as: GoDaddy Reignites Debate Over Infrastructure Layer Moderation By Aborting Texas Anti-Abortion Snitch Site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only women should decide about the abortion issue. Anybody knows how many women voted for the republican party in Texas? I guess they were the majority, but I could not confirm this with a quick search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only one woman should decide about the abortion issue: a woman who is pregnant. And she should be deciding only for herself. No one should have the right to make a woman give birth—or have an abortion—against her will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In addition to what Stephen T. Stone said, you're forgetting how far Texas has taken gerrymandering and voter suppression to put a new twist on the US Constitution's guarantee that states "must have a Republican form of government".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Views vs reality
Wow. This is quite typical. A quick scan through the posts and you find the article discussion is lost to the topic of infuriation.
The Texas law is arse up. Forget the next door nonsense. If an airline sells you a ticket to fly out of Texas
And you get an abortion the airline just aided. If you buy gas on the way out of the state the station aided.
but the article isn’t about the law!
And at some point you need to wonder, are people so politically locked into one issue they can’t sort it from another.
That whole forest for the trees thing.
The problem today, that is Sind the mid twenty-teens, is the two sides both refuse to break down concerns.
Ignoring bad actors, which exist on both party platforms.
What is the real “Parler” issue.
What is the real abortion site issue. Etc.
See, from my perspective, we have two parties that ignore the party proper and focus on the outskirts as political fodder.
Mean vs median vs mode.
Political auction should be mode.
Toss out the extremes as what they are, extremes.
Let’s use vax discussion. Ignore the “vax evil Satan weapon that will make your clit grow and your balls shrivel” propel and the “vax is perfectly safe and there are zero side effects” people.
The Parler effect is simple. As is the Twitter effect.
We have one side that wants the issues up front and one side that wants the issues ignored.
The proper thing to do is give real statistics up front. On all sources up front, and then discuss.
Here we have a problematic site. If a host wanted to take the free speech road they could mandate a click through.
‘Use of this site as intended may violate federal privacy protection laws and you may be held liable’
Along with
‘Misuse of this site may violate federal computer crime laws and you may be held liable’
The user is now purely responsible
Or you could just toss them.
The problem with “deleting is not censorship” is that it’s not a solid target.
We see this with the sec trafficking law. The NC-17/MA ratings and laws to make them more than voluntary.
How long did it take for sec trafficking to turn into porn, then sex, then nudity, then…
There are issues with the idea of poof-gone.
They tend to be ignored.
The SCOTUS made an error in the law surviving. But it won’t be long before the lawsuits start rolling in.
Privacy. Free travel and mobility. interstate commerce.
And scripting false reports quickly falls under harassment, assault, and DDOS levels.
This whole thing is a joke. But it’s not funny, and very serious!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WARNING: WHAT YOU DONT WANT TO HEAR.
UNTIL,
alll, and I MEAN ALLL
Adoptions are Fair and balanced. AND there are NO KIDS UNDER 10, STILL IN THE SYSTEM...
F' Everyone/thing that is anti abortion.
IF we cant give a home to all those ALREADY BORN, I suggest we slow down abit.
As with many rats in a Hovel, You get to a point you have to MOVE OUT OR DIE, as there isnt any food left except you brothers and sisters.
I WOULD ALSO ASK.
That adoption is RANDOM...PERIOD.
YOU DONT GET TO CHOOSE. Any color, any handicap, Any drug addiction... no mater the age.
WHAT EVER YOU GET, you GET,
YOU CANT SELECT, race, color, religion, birth defect, or Anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]