Honest, but leading, question in return: Offensive to whom? 90% of the population? Wouldn't that block out the Church of Satan's distributed materials (that is, coloring books)?<p>To 80% of the population? Wouldn't that be the Book of Mormon?<p>To 60%? The Quran?<p>I think this part of their answer is a great response: "Of course, the simplest reason is that it's not up to us to decide what the rest of the world should or shouldn't see. Bad news, it's not up to you either. Worse news, it's still true even when we agree. Which is probably most of the time."
If it is offensive because it stems from "bad ideas" then it is imperative that it is posted in the "public market of ideas" so it can be exposed and refuted.<p>If it is not posted then folks will not know how to refute it when it crops up again -- and it will.<p>Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas.<p>Don't be offended. That's your choice.<p>P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause.<p>Edit: downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness.
The difference between something like NearlyFreeSpeech and something like YouTube, which is often lost in the noise, is that NearlyFreeSpeech is a hosting provider, while YouTube has, in addition, also an active editorial system and recommendation engine that <i>promotes</i> "offensive" content. Just as NFS is justified in hosting content and requiring uploaders to back it up with their real identity, so that those uploaders can be judged, people are justified in judging YouTube management for the content that YouTube management uploads (the Watch Next side-bar, and the comment streams it attaches to videos)
Nearlyfreespeech.net is a great dns and hosting solution for simple sites and applications. They got a nice bump back in when godaddy got mixed up in SOPA back in 2012.<p>I've used them before and they offer a great service for a good price and I support their general philosophy in regards to privacy and free speech.
> <i>censorship is always bad</i><p>This isn't true. A few examples.<p>If I post your naked photos online and they are censored, that isn't bad.<p>If I post your address online next to a photo of your house and it is censored, that isn't bad.<p>If I post the source code of your personal project online and it is censored, that isn't bad.<p>If I post the contents of your diary online and it is censored, that isn't bad.<p>If I post the contents of a heated argument between you and your spouse online and it is censored, that isn't bad.<p>If I post a photoshopped picture of your kid online and it is censored, that isn't bad.<p>Not everything deserves to see the light of day and actually, we <i>do</i> get to make that decision. This idea that "free speech" means everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the internet is false. "Free speech" also means "I have the freedom not to support someone else's speech".
I tend to look at it from the perspective of the listener. Do I, as a individual adult, have the freedom and responsibility to make up my own mind about other people's ideas or not?<p>I believe I do, and so I think there should be a platform for free speech. I believe this even though I largely do not wish to consume much of what people might term offensive.<p>I appreciate platforms which curate and moderate content as a form of customer service. What I don't appreciate is entities (governments or corporations) taking a moralistic stance as if it is their duty to stamp out bad ideas from existence.
My favorite bit here is not the content policy, it’s the MFFAM bit, which is clever and amusing.<p><a href="https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisThatsWhy" rel="nofollow">https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisT...</a>
Do they have a policy where they deal with threats of violence / organizing something like that?<p>I couldn't find any, but I'm also not familiar with the site.<p>There's "offensive" as in thinks I don't like, or even hateful statements ... but to me threats of violence and etc fall into another area.
If you allow everything that isn't illegal, you're actively supporting Nazis, anti-Semitism, racism, anti-LGBTQI content which makes you an accessory.<p>It's censorship if a government suppresses information, if a company decides not to business with you, it's contract law.<p>This isn't that difficult to grasp.
Over the last few years I've been questioning what it means to have freedom of speech. This quote in particular strikes me:<p>> Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here. But in the case of some types of content, it has special dangers. When you censor a web site based on the extreme or dangerous views of its creator(s), you haven't stopped those people from thinking that way.<p>Why? The problem is that I've seen someone who was very close to me repost propaganda on Facebook that looks like it's following the Nazi propaganda playbook. Stuff against immigrants, against religious minorities, ect. Just take some classic Nazi propaganda, swap out "jew", and that's this person reposts.<p>(Or used to, as this person recently complained that Facebook is blocking their posts.)<p>Anyway, I don't think that this person really thinks this way; instead I think this person's thinking is manipulated to push a political agenda.
I see this argument so, so frequently -- that repugnant views <i>need</i> to be given a platform, that heinous and disgusting content <i>must</i> be allowed a space, so that everyone can see it and fight against it!<p>Since when the fuck is that how the internet works?<p>If Stormfront hosts a site on NFS.net, who do you think visits that site? Bright young progressives valiantly carrying a banner of social justice?<p>No. Fucking <i>neo-Nazis</i> visit the Stormfront website, because, and this is important, _<i>it's a platform for fucking neo-Nazis</i>_.<p>Christchurch. Charlottesville. Numerous terrorists have indicated very clearly that they were radicalized online. Why the fuck is it somehow your responsibility to provide these people a platform to spread their poison?<p>To end my rant, here's that ridiculous quote that always gets tossed around in these discussions:<p>> "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."<p>Actually, as it happens, the best disinfectant is a harsh chemical, and the most efficient policeman is a <i>fucking policeman.</i> The internet is not a place of light and exposure. It is a place where disgusting ideologies can hide, quietly attract followers, and conspire to <i>murder people.</i><p>Consider how powerful that sunlight was the next time a right-wing terrorist screams about blood and soil while brandishing an AR.<p>I'm sorry the tone of this is so angry. NFS is a great service -- I just can't stand this pitiful justification for aiding radicalization and eventual violence. There <i>is</i> a line you can draw. It is up to you to draw it.
> "Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here. But in the case of some types of content, it has special dangers. When you censor a web site based on the extreme or dangerous views of its creator(s), you haven't stopped those people from thinking that way. You haven't made them go away. You certainly haven't stopped the people who hold those views from doing whatever else they do when they're not posting on the Internet. What you've actually done is given yourself a false sense of accomplishment by closing your eyes, clapping your hands over your ears, and yelling "Lalala! I can't hear you!" at the top of your voice. Pretending a problem doesn't exist is not only not a solution, it makes real solutions harder to reach."<p>I no longer believe this, when cesspits of alt-right, racist assholes use such grandiose ideals to spread their hatred, which then bubbles out into the real world.<p>The idea that good ideas will win, and that common sense and rationality will take the day, are not really supported by what we see around the net. Instead the greater internet fuckwad theorem holds more true, and the spread of vile, violent ideologies is enabled.<p>Freedom of speech is a protection from government, but I think those providing speech platforms, such as hosting companies, should probably take more responsibility for what they propagate.