Where to go for hosting and backend services that can't censor you? [Libertarian question]
Hey guys,
Just wondering about something. It's clear that there is an opportunity to create technology for libertarian consumer like myself. People who don't like the idea of their content being censored for them, and feel they can think for themselves.
I don't feel there is anything wrong with this. And it's NOT a partisan perspective either.
That said, having seen companies like Cloudflare and AWS banning apps based on ideology. I'm wondering.... where would I go to build web applications that aren't likely to be banned and destroyed if users decide to post something unsavory to the people in San Francisco?
Would need a way to run a database and a cluster of node servers. Not talking about something simple like LAMP WordPress hosting
Trending on Indie Hackers
I’ll come right out and say I don’t think this question is asked in good faith. I would argue that technology companies on the balance are actually extremely small-c conservative about moderating their platforms, especially in terms of raw infrastructure. They are very much concerned with making money, not policing anyone’s ideology. Can you give an example of content that you would want to host and think would be refused by AWS, GCP, Azure, DO, etc? And can you honestly stand by that content as not in conflict with the public good?
And who decides what is the public good? AWS? Google? Apple?
C’mon now, wake up.
I don’t think any private company can perfectly arbitrate what is and is not in the public good. But I think they have a moral imperative to try—in partnership with public institutions—rather than completely shirk the responsibility. Journalists have to go through editors with good reason. I think the reality of online services today necessitates that tech companies incorporate some of the same standards and ideas as journalists and publishers. It is not held as some exalted standard that a journalist can publish whatever they want free of the scrutiny of their peers. I think there is a failure by many in tech to recognize a nuance between curtailing the blind amplification of hateful or harmful speech and some kind of Brave New World thought police. There is something in between.
@KWes well put!
This comment was deleted 5 years ago.
Zerohedge is one of my favorite blogs and it's labeled "dangerous" by twitter.
@saten Maybe you and @semi__anonyme really want or need someone to tell you how to think (or force others to think the same way as you) ... but there are people out there that don't want that.
OP’s question was written in response to the storming of the US Capitol and the subsequent deplatforming of Parler. Let’s put this in its true context instead of vague theoreticals. The people that stormed the Capitol were egged on by Trump and his allies repeating false claims of election fraud. Public officials, journalists, media outlets, etc have repeatedly found no significant evidence of the election having been swung by fraud. Trump and his allies have not proven their case and instead use Twitter and other services to amplify extremist lies and drown out the truth. I do not advocate for telling anyone what to think, I recognize the reality that so many in our country are unthinking, and therefore it is important for the thinking to be mindful of what is amplified and allowed to saturate.
What does any of that political crap have to do with not wanting to be censored?
Your original question cannot be reasonably considered apolitical. “[Libertarian question]” is in the title. If you’re really trying to argue that your question was posted completely divorced from current events then I’ll just re-emphasize “in bad faith”. I think my inclusion of current events is relevant context for understanding your question. It’s an example of why I think we need to have a less binary perspective of content moderation in tech. You claimed unwarranted, ideologically targeted censorship in your question. I think that is demonstrably false and that it’s dangerous for your position to go unchallenged.
First state the facts:
Technology companies are banning accounts because of political affiliation.
Then ask the question:
What companies do not do this?
What satan thinks of current events or the motives behind the technology companies is conjecture. Keep it based on what is actually happening not on your biased opinion.
You have not stated irrefutable facts. I do not claim that everything I have stated is an irrefutable fact.
“What companies do not do this?” Someone recently added a screenshot of Jack Dorsey’s thoughts, which is an example of how companies already today are extremely wary of doing what OP and you claim they’re doing.
Accounts linked to real world violence are not being blocked merely for “political affiliation”. It’s not reasonable to claim there are not real world consequences to what people do online. Nobody’s policing your brain. The internet is not your brain. Social media is not your brain.
“Keep it based on what is actually happening not your biased opinion.”, you say, trying to hand wave away conspiracy theorists overrunning Congress and trying to overturn election results, which is obviously relevant to this question being posted on January 11th.
I added the screenshot. It is an example of how the proprietor himself even thinks the implications are bad. Yes, his thoughts are opinion and up for discussion. But not the fact that they already did the banning. That is the fact.
There is no issue with banning accounts that make direct threats of violence, but that is not all that is happening.
I am sorry that you are unaware, but affiliated accounts are being banned that have never once mentioned violence or overrunning Congress.
They are getting banned because of their affiliation with a certain political party. This is fact.
Some are even being banned that have shown no affiliation but have just voiced differing opinions. This is fact. What those opinions are and whether we agree with them are not.
OP didn’t go on here and ask a mundane question about how to save on his AWS bill or something. He didn’t go on here and ask people if they thought his app’s UX was good. He made a political statement and y’all want to gaslight when someone challenges you. Which is a hilarious understanding of free speech.
Hot garbage - is that a technical term?
I never claimed libertarianism or any other ism or label. I've dealt with racists my whole life, but that doesn't mean I have to be one.
The irony to me is when someone like you suggests that I want the unwarranted protection to stymie and suppress others when that exactly what you are arguing for.
I edited out “libertarianism is hot garbage” for a reason. I don’t think it was productive of me. If I’ve unreasonably applied that label to you, sorry about that. You’re right, I don’t know what you specifically want to talk about that you fear suppression of. And I don’t know your life story. Happy to validate that for you.
I think you make a good point that what I’m saying could be seen as suppressive, but again I think there needs to be a more balanced view of moderating content. I’ve said that so many times on here. It seems clear to me, maybe not to you idk, that there’s a huge negative consequence to taking an absolutist view of blocking or deplatforming. We’re seeing that right now. I’ll point back to what I already said about ideas of this within journalism and publishing.
Me saying “stymie and suppress” was potentially unfair, but at the same time you and OP are on here dismissing my attempt to bring tangible context into this as political bias and wild conjecture.
Dorsey’s own post mentions “clear and obvious exceptions” and “a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation”. He didn’t just come out and say “BAD”.
You not understanding anything about the bigger picture of all of this and still trying to sound smart is hilarious.
Even Dorsey sees the implications of what has happened. smh
Yeah, I think I actually do understand the bigger picture of letting right wing fanatics go unchallenged. I think that recent events make it very clear to me that things that once seemed implausible could actually happen in my home country. I feel confident that I don’t want to live in that timeline. Now that’s not say I see no merit in fear of censorship. It’s not to say I see no merit in Dorsey’s post (which is why I’ve been contemplating his post). But again I think I’m arguing for something in between extremes, or something that avoids falling prey to binary thinking. I think that what you and OP are actually trying for, is not the freedom to speak your mind, but the unwarranted protection to stymie and suppress others. You can’t both have a society and be mad at social fabric sometimes being a limiter.
@arpowers You know nothing about me, what I think and believe, or the rules I use to come to my conclusions. I wrote a kudos to saten because he answered the question in a clear and non-combative way while noting that he thought the question was asked in bad faith (which is what I think, too).
Listen, I like and find value in a lot of media that people tell me I shouldn't read or listen to. I see where they're coming and I disagree with them. That's what it is to have an opinion and know yourself.
Anyway, lately I've noticed that the same people who say "don't let others tell you what to think" also dismissing any popular position just for the sake that it's a popular position. I don't know anything about you, but to anyone reading this, just an fyi, that isn't thinking for yourself either.
"bad faith" meaning not agreeing with you? Well that is hypocritical.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” – Mark Twain
No that is not what is meant by “bad faith”. I do not believe OP to be asking the question because he’s genuinely subject to or fears infringement on his free speech. I asked him to give examples of content that he would want to share, or have others share on his projects, that would be disallowed by major platforms because I suspect specific samples of content might cast the whole question in a different relief.
What exactly does "bad faith" mean then?
Looks like Jack agrees the long term implications are dangerous and akin to a governing body:
this is a great response that captures my feelings exactly when I read the question, thanks for writing it up
You may appreciate this thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25733085
Thank you, David. I did indeed.
Host in China, No American countries have guts to take your work down except China. Play like Edward Snowden.
China comes with its own problems haha. Was thinking more of a Swiss approach.
Definitely, I would not advise to post anything anti-china there. You can try Njalla, the owner of thepiratebay is founder of it or NearlyFreeSpeech hosting.
Do you have a list of apps that have been banned by vendors "based on ideology" as you stated?
I’m sure you are aware of recent events. Just because its not your ideology does not mean its not happening.
Parler, Zerohedge, Federalist, more...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge
https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/11/parler-is-officially-offline-after-aws-suspension/
https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/