[x5n1]

> Given that, it isn't wholly surprising that their hosting service wanted no part of them.

It is very surprising, the hosting company should be concerned with providing hosting... not moderating content. that's the job of the government and the legal system.

[slg]

And the German government, like all governments, (although Germany's laws are slightly stricter than most western governments) puts limits on free speech. Reddit has a tendency to demonstrate Godwin's law pretty quickly. For example, it is common practice to upvote a post with a link to a Nazi flag and a headline about some hated group in attempt to get that to be the default image for Google searches of that group. I imagine with Voat being a Reddit clone, similar things have popped up on it. Something like that could run afoul of Germany's laws regarding how to portray Nazi history and iconography. I could imagine Voat's hosting provider wanted to wash their hands of the site before the government actually tries to come after them.

[mootothemax]

What's the logical conclusion of that?

The government forcing private companies to host content that they disagree with?

You can't have it both ways.

[x5n1]

> What's the logical conclusion of that?

Private companies should serve their shareholders. They should draft a policy saying that they don't get involved in content moderation issues as a matter of policy. That's good business and good for speech. If disgruntled people want to do something about it, they can take it up with the legal system.

> Is it good business? Or is it better business to have a clear policy over what is and is not allowed, and then enforce that?

It is not possible to have a clear policy when moderating content because the world is a diverse place with diverse opinions. Where would you begin? Are Muhammad cartoons banned?

[nine_k]

Let's note that it's perfectly fine for a private company to limit their terms of service and reserve a right to stop hosting "distasteful content". It just needs to be declared openly in TOS. If it were so, probably voat won't choose them.

[s73v3r]

Is it good business? Or is it better business to have a clear policy over what is and is not allowed, and then enforce that?

[nothrabannosir]

False dichotomy. Nobody is talking about forcing anybody to do this. At least not the OP, and I didn't read it that way.

The conclusion of this issue is anything but obvious. It is hairy, ambiguous, and unclear.

An alternative could be: public shaming, and people taking their money elsewhere. There, no government required.

I feel he is allowed to at least express disapproval...

[higherpurpose]

Right. Vote with your wallet, I guess. Don't buy services from hosteurope.de.

[x5n1]

> Vote with your wallet

Usually doesn't do shit. The people voting, just like the people who are disgruntled, are usually a small minority. They have no material impact on anything other than the propaganda value of their actions.

[hcal]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but you can certainly argue that hosting companies shouldn't censor or moderate their customers without rising to the level of a legal requirement.

[DasIch]

Given voat's new community that content will be everything from the more "friendly" organizing harrassment and doxxing people to child pornography.

Nobody in his right mind is ever going to knowingly host them for long.

[s73v3r]

Do you want your company to be associated with harassment, even if you're not doing it directly?