[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: NYT on Thing.net
>> Just for the record, your story above is far from complete and not
>> true
>> on all accounts. It is also a quite simplified version of what
>> happened.
>
> Perhaps Zenon (Whom I cc:ed just because he knows the details) can
> shed some more light on this.
Well, I was (still is) a member of the Swedish Operator Forum, and I
was part of making the decision on behalf of KPNQwest. I think I know
what happened as well as anyone else does. But this is off-topic for
this list.
>> have got shot down by public opinion. There was quite a lot of press
>> articles on how horrible it was that these neo-nazi sites (which is
>> what they where) was allowed to be on the Internet without action from
>> the providers.
>
> A court deemed it nasty but legal. Whom are the ISP's to go against a
> court decision?
The question was not if the content was "nasty" or not. The question
was that there was a web-site that urged people to take to violence to
a politician that had tried to work against the neo-nazis. There where
several court cases (and I think it's still being discussed) that all
came to different conclusions. This I don't know the details of.
But to the point, just because a site is legal, do I need to host it? I
think not. What if all customers then decide to leave? I would be
forced into bankruptcy.
>> Well, I can also see clear business reasons as to why I would deny a
>> client. If I had Coca-Cola as a customer and Pepsi-cola wanted to buy
>> a
>> service, but Cola then threatens to leave, I should be in my full
>> right
>> to deny Pepsi service.
>
>> Well, if that is where the money flows in from, it's not that bad.
>
> It is also where the lawsuits flow from. If you really are just
> interested in the money, then be honest and also say that you don't
> give a cent about your small customers, nor their freedom or civil
> rights (which is what you and all other ISP's are forcing them to
> sign away)
If a company don't generate money they won't be around to protect
freedom and civil acts.
Also, most companies are actually only in it for the money, and the
small customers own shares in the company and expects them to earn as
much money as possible.
Few ISPs are driven out of devotion and good faith.
>> Yes? See my example above. I see no conflict in this. It's called a
>> free market.
>
> It is *not* a free market. Imagine AOL blocking Greenpeace. Is this
> still
> normal, and ethically and morally okay, because that earns AOL some
> extra
> Shell bucks. Monetairy interests without any scupulous, which is what
> you claim, is exact the end of free market, and the reigh of the
> Corporate
> company.
This is a political statement and actually that is where this
discussion is going. I suggest we move this off-list if we are to
continue.
>> This will
>> otherwise open the pandoras box you describe, where you would have to
>> judge what is illegal political content, child porn, etc.
>
> In our 7 years of existence, we have never had to "rule" ourselves. And
> we do host some high profile website, such as the ones I've mentioned
> before, Xenu.net and FlashBack magazine.
Notice that you are located in a country with a very different base of
ethics and a much more liberal view on most things compared to the
Nordics. The web-sites at Flashback that was "nasty" would most likely
have been illegal in Germany and a subject for the Constitutional court
in Karlsruhe.
I have worked in the Nordics, Netherlands and Germany. Public opinion,
law and traditions vary a lot. This will also have influence on actions
taken.
- kurtis -
References: