Can't host it with Google or Amazon, though, as those companies are also willing to take you down before any injunction.
DNS providers will also take you out if there's social pressure to do so; see the recent GoDaddy action against AR15.com. Not sure how you work around that.
As for Internet connection, there was another recent action by an ISP which blocked access to Twitter. So you're not necessarily safe with your ISP either.
I think the only story I haven't heard yet is a landlord evicting its tenants for hosting objectionable content. But without any of the above services, it doesn't really matter.
All that said, it's still possible to stay accessible even if your content isn't legal. The important point is that legal but broadly unacceptable content is never safe. You can be kicked out by any provider at any layer, and getting kicked out once serves as a signal to all the other providers at that layer that they are expected to do the same.
It's kind of like living in a small town 150 years ago. The "people" of the town are the few giant service providers in the country. It doesn't really matter what the law says, if the town consensus is that you are not welcome, then they can make it very hard or impossible to live there. They don't need law enforcement on their side, they'll run you out all the same.
This point is why I believe DNS, network and colo services should only be taken down (for content) by legal order.
Social media is layer 7, I think it needs less regulation in that regard. It's like saying "you can't have your business in the phone book" vs. "you can't have a phone".
>It's kind of like living in a small town 150 years ago. The "people" of the town are the few giant service providers in the country. It doesn't really matter what the law says, if the town consensus is that you are not welcome, then they can make it very hard or impossible to live there.
And yet an entire town ostracizing someone for a non-protected attribute is actually protected speech and behavior under the first amendment.
If you can't participate in polite society, there's very few things the government actually guarantees you.
Yes, this is true. I'd also point out that members of "polite society" may ostracize you for many reasons, including perceived sexual deviancy, punk rock music, dancing, any degree of alcohol or drug use, communist leanings, anarchist leanings, and more. We just have to trust that liberal culture will hold people morally accountable for the people they ostracize, and that those who are impacted have the means to migrate to more accepting towns.
Continuing our analogy, I hope that we use our power to ostracize "netizens" very sparingly. And I do mean our power, not that of the tech giants, who merely do what they believe will be best for their image as decided by us. I also hope that there continues to be a competitive landscape of online countries, each more liberal or authoritarian in its own unique ways, from where differing individuals and organizations can connect with the world.
Also read on here recently that it's super hard to knock facebook offline because they own all the pieces, even their own domain registrar. Now I've been wondering how hard it is to set up my own domain registrar.
DNS providers will also take you out if there's social pressure to do so; see the recent GoDaddy action against AR15.com. Not sure how you work around that.
As for Internet connection, there was another recent action by an ISP which blocked access to Twitter. So you're not necessarily safe with your ISP either.
I think the only story I haven't heard yet is a landlord evicting its tenants for hosting objectionable content. But without any of the above services, it doesn't really matter.
All that said, it's still possible to stay accessible even if your content isn't legal. The important point is that legal but broadly unacceptable content is never safe. You can be kicked out by any provider at any layer, and getting kicked out once serves as a signal to all the other providers at that layer that they are expected to do the same.
It's kind of like living in a small town 150 years ago. The "people" of the town are the few giant service providers in the country. It doesn't really matter what the law says, if the town consensus is that you are not welcome, then they can make it very hard or impossible to live there. They don't need law enforcement on their side, they'll run you out all the same.