I'm saying that censoring political discourse using Section 230 is a sure-fire way to get politicians mad at you and start thinking about how to amend Section 230 so you can't do that ever again.
Using Section 230 for means like this is potentially very self-destructive and self-defeating.
>Portions of the website which allow people to submit anonymous tips on suspected abortions on Friday showed a GoDaddy notification saying the site had been locked down.
I wonder which part of the TOS this violates. They don't mention it whatsoever
But ISPs are generally expected to work within the TOS. Otherwise the customer could expect to recover damages for malicious actions. If GoDaddy wants to add new terms they should give notice. Violating their own TOS is a breach of contract.
Porn (providing it meets 2257 standards) is legal, yet it’s against the terms of many web services. Even though I consume porn, I still think it’s reasonable if operators decide they don’t want it on their platform.
>[You must not use GoDaddy to] [v]iolate[] the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breach[] any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another User or any other person or entity. [emphasis added]
It is at least arguable this site infringes a woman's right to privacy when seeking medical treatment.
There's also the usual terms that give the service provider a very broad discretion to determine what content is or is not appropriate for their service.
"""GoDaddy expressly reserves the right to deny, cancel, terminate, suspend, lock, or modify access to (or control of) any Account or Services (including the right to cancel or transfer any domain name registration) for any reason (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion)"""
Section 5, heading ii from Godaddy Legal Agreement:
"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."
Later, in section 10:
"GoDaddy may remove any item of User Content (whether posted to a website hosted by GoDaddy or posted to this Site) and/or terminate a User’s access to this Site or the Services found at this Site for posting or publishing any material in violation of this Agreement, or for otherwise violating this Agreement (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion), at any time and without prior notice. [...] GoDaddy may, in its sole and absolute discretion, remove and destroy any data and files stored by you on its servers."
Who is "they", your confirmation bias or the poor media sites you get your information from?
GoDaddy clearly stated:
"Violate a GoDaddy rule that says website operators may not "collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another user or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent." GoDaddy's terms of service also say that customers cannot use the web hosting platform in a way that "[v]iolates the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another User or any other person or entity."
I'm referring to the Reuters news article. Also, is that quote from a GoDaddy press release or something? Or just quoted from the TOS? because that's my point, that when banning someone, they should include in the report which specific part they violated. This would certainly help accountability
I believe that the whole Texas anti-abortion law is unfair. Nevertheless, undermining public discourse based on political preference is going to be always wrong.
That doesn't mean you should have the right, if you are a large enough platform, to rule the place at your whims when the content being posted is legal.
There is a real argument that, in a more ideal world, YouTube, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc. would be viewed as infrastructure and regulated as such. Imagine if your power company refused to provide you power because they didn't like that you ran a gas-powered car plant; regardless of their ability to provide for you. Or if your telephone company refused to service you because they didn't like what you might tell your friends or that you were the head of a political party they didn't like.
Why though? Why is Facebook and Whatsapp infrastructure... You will not die if you don't use the internet. You might die without power or water. The problem is the same people that support these laws.. do not want the internet to be treated like public utilities.
Also I agree ISP and internet connections should be a public utility just like telephone. Even though we had that whole ATT monopoly.
But websites are not utilities at all. They are stores. Are we now saying Walmart cant kick people out for screaming crazy stuff in there stores?
Humanity has lived for thousands of years without power, you can technically live without it. Doesn't mean that it's not infrastructure and regulated as such.
As for screaming crazy stuff, that'd be Disorderly Conduct. However, Walmart shouldn't be able to kick out people for, say, a private conversation they disagree with.
I also think godaddy is in the wrong. I also think setting up a system to spy on people is wrong.
But, there are numerous services that out people for different things. Doxxing that leads to losing jobs without due process is a thing and godaddy isn’t deplatforming them.
I don't get it. GoDaddy has nothing to do with the content. They're not even a messager. One step further and it could be a a supermarket denying food to anti-abortion activists, because there are people not wanting to buy groceries at the same place.
I would go as far as saying that people concerned about GoDaddy providing services to anti-abortion groups don't even deserve a website. I work for for a SaaS, on the shop floor (luckily) and I'm offended that someone is intrested if someone wants to know who else is our client any more than the testimonials show.
It's a bit queasy IMO. I really, really, really disliked it when the animal rights activists in Britain pushed the banks to cancel the accounts of some customers.
But in this case Godaddy had a ToS and the site is in clear violation. IMO most those ToSes and EULAs are dubious, but this particular case isn't. Arguing to restrict what a ToS or EULA can say would be a good thing, but supporting that argument with the poor mistreated texan lynch mob... no. Surely another case will come by with more sympathetic victims.
> I would go as far as saying that people concerned about GoDaddy providing services to anti-abortion groups don't even deserve a website. I work for for a SaaS, on the shop floor (luckily) and I'm offended that someone is intrested if someone wants to know who else is our client any more than the testimonials show.
You're exactly the type of person that GoDaddy needs to aplease. People who care what other people do/care/etc.
I don't support restrictions on abortion for the same reason I don't support vaccine mandates - bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right that must be upheld. That said, infrastructure utilities like AWS, GoDaddy, and others are exerting their own political bias into their services. We really need new laws and new regulation to prevent this. We need to start treating people's political positions as a protected class across the board, and also recognize that existing fundamental rights like free speech cannot be exercised if giant companies censor others. Even if there are multiple companies on the market, their affinity to Silicon Valley means they carry the same political biases, and often act in unison when it comes to censorship and deplatforming - as we saw with bans of Donald Trump or Parler. And no I am not interested in building my own hosting service, and no I don't think private companies can do whatever they want just like private power utilities can't.
If you like Section 230 as it is, don't test it.
reply