Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.1K

Gab uses its own server hardware now to protect from getting its site deplatformed.

Is anything stopping Internet providers from cutting off their services?

Maybe it's a good time to start a web hosting company that has a permissive Terms of Service (and sticks to it).

Gab uses its own server hardware now to protect from getting its site deplatformed. Is anything stopping Internet providers from cutting off their services? Maybe it's a good time to start a web hosting company that has a permissive Terms of Service (and sticks to it).

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

Don’t think there are too many more rules as far as censorship goes. That’s the next step. That Idaho ISP blocked jewbook.

[–] • 1 pt

Good point. They removed the DNS entry. So that's one tool.

Looks like solutions like Tor, I2P might be the next frontier. If it weren't for the double standards, Twitter and Facebook would have been deplatformed by now.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Maybe that is the silver lining that we move to a more decentralized or at least more private internet.

[–] • 0 pt

I think VPN's can bypass ISP blocks.

[–] • 0 pt

In hindsight, I should have written the question better. I was trying to ask from the standpoint of website operators.

In other words: Is anything stopping the ISPs of Gab, Poal, etc from deplatforming the sites?

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

There really needs to be backlash by customers every time an ISP pulls shit like this.

I strongly dislike facebook, and I see it as an incubator of extremism. But it's insidious for a corporation to choose who I can do business with on the Internet. I'm paying the ISP to keep the equipment running, not to go out of their way to be snoopy busybodies. If I were that Idaho ISP's customer, I would have called them and given them shit over this.

It's harder to generate an uproar if the ISP is refusing to do business with the site in question. (i.e. if Facebook's Internet provider said "we're not going to provide a connection for your servers anymore")

[–] • 1 pt

They did say you can request the block be removed...

[–] • 3 pts

In one word, yes. You can use your own server and still be taken down by your ISP. The only thing you can do is move to a co-located sever in a country not hostile to its customers.

In spite of this, ICANN can remove the A record that resolves your IP address. Piratebay had this problem. All you can do is be prepared to move your hosting provider to sympathetic hosting companies and have a bunch of backup A records with various domains.

[–] • 2 pts

No there is nothing stopping the ISP or any network operator from blocking them.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Whites need to organise and separate from the jews and non-white invaders in every way in everything.

[–] • 0 pt

Net neutrality says no

[–] • 1 pt

Is there any legal weight in the US for this?

I know that other countries have ISPs block sites, such as at the behest of a regime.

Some even find ways to put positive spin on it. Like the "Golden Shield" in China.

[–] • 0 pt

NN means ISPs can't throttle or block websites. They can still throttle customers for daring to visit websites. They also can't charge the major bandwidth eaters extra (Nf/Yt) for eating so much damn bandwidth.

It was passed during Obama's second term. That's why Netflix gave him millions to be a "consultant" when he left office: it's a bribe. SCOTUS says bribing politicians is legal as long as they wait til they're out of power to receive it.

[–] • 0 pt

I thought that didn't pass?

[–] • 0 pt

It passed under Obama that's why Netflix gave him such a huge kickback. The essence of it is that Comcast can't charge Netflix extra for consuming 60% of all bandwidth nationwide. net neutrality was always about corporate interest a versus corporate interest b.