[AnthonyMouse]

The problem is obviously that the government shouldn't be regulating private speech. They pass these rules by saying "look how big Facebook is, they need to be regulated" when the actual problem is that they need to be decentralized. But then the rules don't apply only to Facebook, and worse, are designed under the assumption of a centralized service so that they entrench the thing that should be eliminated.

[taeric]

But there is nothing obvious about this? For one, this is speech that can only be done using otherwise regulated means. You couldn't claim "free speech" and build a radio tower that transmits long distances, as an easy example. For that matter, you can't claim free speech to allow concerts at your house. You similarly could not claim free speech to rent or loan out rooms of your house for storage.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you want to take the effort to connect and verify the different parties that are going to communicate with your server, you are almost certainly going to remain free to do so.

Do I think there are probably some concerning ways those burdens can be placed on folks? Certainly. But we already require inspections and other similar activities for things that individuals can do at home without an inspection. See the food industry.

[AnthonyMouse]

> For one, this is speech that can only be done using otherwise regulated means.

This is the fraud every would-be censor perpetrates to establish their chokepoint. First, invent allegedly "neutral" rules that only large entities can comply with, causing only large entities to remain. Then lean on the large entities to censor whatever you want in exchange for political favors or lack of enforcement of other laws.

> You couldn't claim "free speech" and build a radio tower that transmits long distances, as an easy example.

Which is another great example of them doing the thing. The government couldn't spare a single frequency for unlicensed long-distance directional radio communications?

Moreover, the excuse for censoring the airwaves is that there is finite capacity in a broadcast medium, so how is that supposed to apply to a unicast service whose transfer capacity can be increased without bound by running more fiber?

> For that matter, you can't claim free speech to allow concerts at your house.

So if the government wants to declare that you meeting with two other people for the purpose of conveying information to them is a "concert" and prohibit it from any place that isn't a "concert hall" (which is prohibitively expensive for you to own), that seems fine to you?

> As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you want to take the effort to connect and verify the different parties that are going to communicate with your server, you are almost certainly going to remain free to do so.

All you have to do is the thing which is morally and economically unsound.

> But we already require inspections and other similar activities for things that individuals can do at home without an inspection.

Except that now you want to do it even when they are doing it at home.

[taeric]

Apologies, but this just reads as incoherent wish casting. Good luck.

[AnthonyMouse]

People have this tendency to want to do reasoning by analogy, but then if you look at the things they're analogizing to, a) they're often distinguishable in significant ways and b) they even more often don't actually address the criticism, they're just an example of the bad thing we should be trying to prevent already happening somewhere.

What am I supposed to do other than point that out?

[taeric]

I don't understand you, here. If anything, you seem to just be describing your own argument.

You ask why we couldn't have a single frequency for long-distance radio communication. Which is either willfully ignoring all of the frequencies that we can use for directional communication. Or shockingly ignorant over how many people could use a "single frequency" for anything long distance. (Indeed, this was the wishcasting that I found off putting.)

You then reduce to absurd the idea that you could have a concert between two other people. Which, I feel fairly confident saying nobody cares if you are running small two person concerts at your house. Unless you are violating noise concerns of your direct neighbors.

And then, your entire "they are doing this in their home" argument ignores that the problem here is open solicitation across the internet. If you are setting up a LAN equivalent where only direct friends ever gain access, this is just not relevant here.