Comment by p-e-w
13 hours ago
Then they are an activist group, not an “infrastructure provider” as claimed elsewhere in this thread, and holding them responsible for what their members do with the accounts they give them seems entirely fair.
13 hours ago
Then they are an activist group, not an “infrastructure provider” as claimed elsewhere in this thread, and holding them responsible for what their members do with the accounts they give them seems entirely fair.
You want them to be "held accountable" for supporting groups that don't align with the ideology of the US whitehouse.
If you select who you provide services to based on their ideology, you can’t shrug and say “I’m just an infrastructure provider, same as the electrical grid” when it turns out that some of those individuals committed crimes using the stuff you gave them.
That’s a very different situation compared to the standard “sign up with your email here”. The provider is responsible because they picked their clients, rather than their clients picking them.
Look, really not. When the bartender glances at the customer and decides whether they have already drank too much, if the bartender makes a mistake and the customer later crashes into something it is not the bartender's responsibility.
If the bartender decides as a rule "first of all, if they seem uncertain on their legs it is already a no", again that is just a codification of the former.
> fair
No, with these limited elements. The filter may just be "of course I will not provide my (free) service to people that may use it in what I call a repugnant way".
When you know Harry is a rogue CEO, say a misinformation spreader or the issuer of unethical products, and you refuse to work for it, to provide it your services: does that make you an "activist"? Many people will call it "just the normal right thing to do". This is similar to people here calling certain positions "centrist" or "extremist" - and that entirely depends on how those positions are interpreted beyond their dumb (not telling) label, and on the dumb labels over said labels.
> Many people will call it "just the normal right thing to do".
It’s absolutely not a normal thing to do for entities that want to use the “we are just infrastructure, our users are responsible for their actions” excuse.
In fact, such entities (e.g. power grid, telecom) are often legally prohibited from choosing their clients, and in exchange aren’t held responsible for what their clients do with their services.
Also see my other post.
So if you had a hammer in your yard, and somebody took it and misused it, you would not be responsible, but if you gave it to your neighbour and he used it to crush a skull, you the owner of the hammer would be responsible? It is clearly at least the opposite. Abstract from the "paid service", but see that.
The rule you propose (filtering would create responsibility) makes no sense. Try to show why it would be so, maybe.
being selective about who you provide free services to makes you an activist group?
Yes, see, if you sell guns, but you only sell guns to people who promise to use them for defense, but don't sell them to people who promise to murder, that makes you an activist gun seller and personally responsible for whatever happens with those guns.
Either you wanted to be sarcastic or your simile did not work well.
1 reply →