Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : Why is "politically radical" content not allowed on some providers?

[coax]

I won't name names, but a bunch of providers do not allow politically radical content.
Now, this could include things like racism, but racism is specified as its own item, as is hate speech. So what exactly is left that is politically radical but not allowed?

I think in an open society, any topic should be debatable, as long as it keeps a certain tone. I mean even racist topics could be discussed in a normal fashion, without the hate part.

But I'm wondering, if racism and hate speech is already mentioned on their own, what other politically radical topics are not allowed?
I don't really like this lack of freedom on what topics to discuss...

[SenseiSteve]

But I'm wondering, if racism and hate speech is already mentioned on their own, what other politically radical topics are not allowed?

That's a question you'll need to ask those specific providers.

[sam0]

It can often bring trouble hosting such material, hate mail, government pressure, ddos, etc.

If you're looking for a specific provider to host "politically radical" material you might want to look at prq.se, they host wikileaks.

[HostColor]

We had a lot of IP's banned in Spain five years ago because Herri Batasuna had chosen us for a web hosting provider. We needed to move many clients to a different servers. it is important how do you define "radical". If anyone proclaims policies against international law, democracy and human rights I wouldn't get such a client no matter how do they pay.

However a politically incorrect might be considered the websites of the opposition parties or other civil organizations in countries with authoritarian or communist regimes. We would host such websites for free!

[alons]

No one would like to get in trouble because of Radical content and hence many Datacenters and Hosts add this term in their Policy Statements.
I agree that any topic should be allowed for debating, as long it doesnt offend anyone.

[JoCortland]

Originally Posted by alons

No one would like to get in trouble because of Radical content and hence many Datacenters and Hosts add this term in their Policy Statements.
I agree that any topic should be allowed for debating, as long it doesnt offend anyone.

The problem is: what offends? Who is to judge that?

I am sure that some people would be offended by one website I host, which is a blog by a married lesbian couple who have a teenaged child. Totally legal content, nothing adult on it at all, not particularly political, but some of the topics of discussion do bring flames because it is two women who are legally married in Canada. Their site offends some people. So, where do I draw the line?

[rustelekom]

If you host this site in Canada and you are Canada citizen and host company registered in Canada then you are free from any troubles. But i could not say that you will free from troubles if you, your company or your server origin/location will be on different country. Earth have not yet globalized so much and each country has own law.

[Snapfiber]

Originally Posted by JoCortland

The problem is: what offends? Who is to judge that?

I am sure that some people would be offended by one website I host, which is a blog by a married lesbian couple who have a teenaged child. Totally legal content, nothing adult on it at all, not particularly political, but some of the topics of discussion do bring flames because it is two women who are legally married in Canada. Their site offends some people. So, where do I draw the line?

To a provider, it should be an issue of business rather than morality. The blog owners are paying, it's not illegal, your IPs are not getting blocked, your not getting DDoS'd etc.

[cyberhouse]

some providers dont want the problems associated with some kinds of sites.

[AL-Benjamin]

Compliance with the local laws more often than not, along with a desire for an easy life I suspect

[bqinternet]

These sites are a big security risk for hosts. They attract DoS attacks, hacking attempts, phony abuse reports to upstream ISPs and government agencies, bad PR (e.g. "Host X hosts terrorists! Don't host there!"), etc.

The unfortunate reality is that these sites require specialized hosts, because standard hosts just can't handle all the risks. The good news is that there are hosts that specialize in hosting controversial sites. They take special security measures, they can filter DoS attacks, and they're prepared to respond to all the other issues.

[plumsauce]

Originally Posted by coax

I won't name names, but a bunch of providers do not allow politically radical content.
Now, this could include things like racism, but racism is specified as its own item, as is hate speech. So what exactly is left that is politically radical but not allowed?

I think in an open society, any topic should be debatable, as long as it keeps a certain tone. I mean even racist topics could be discussed in a normal fashion, without the hate part.

But I'm wondering, if racism and hate speech is already mentioned on their own, what other politically radical topics are not allowed?
I don't really like this lack of freedom on what topics to discuss...

Because some shortsighted people value a quiet existence more than freedom. Some of these weak kneed sisters happen to own or run hosting businesses.

Those spineless creatures then let others carry the fight so that they may have a quiet existence.

[tulix]

It is a very interesting topic. It is very difficult to classify on multiple categories, but let me bring couple of examples.

Do you think that you would be able to host lesbian site in some, very well known countries that are very often in US news?

What if company is in US, but the owners (especially if they are resellers) are from those countries?

What if some of the owners or countries where they are from and where they are - are "politically radical" - do you think they would accept any alternative views?

And yes, some hosting companies/resellers have a week network, understaffed - they just don't want any potential problems with their network/services as a result of attacks.

[CryptWizard]

Originally Posted by bqinternet

These sites are a big security risk for hosts. They attract DoS attacks, hacking attempts, phony abuse reports to upstream ISPs and government agencies, bad PR (e.g. "Host X hosts terrorists! Don't host there!"), etc.

The unfortunate reality is that these sites require specialized hosts, because standard hosts just can't handle all the risks. The good news is that there are hosts that specialize in hosting controversial sites. They take special security measures, they can filter DoS attacks, and they're prepared to respond to all the other issues.

QFT.

It is not that hosts do not want to host such content (except in very few edge cases), it is because they are economically and technically unable to.

[Tristan Perry]

Users are free (to some extent) to express themselves. And hosts are free to set the terms for their hosting (which can include "no racist sites" clauses)

Plus remember that at least in the UK, politically radical content and racism is illegal.