What, you thought NSI was bad enough already?

[unixronin]

Just to make sure everyone knows they suck, NSI just pulled the plug on a site a Dutch film-maker is using to promote a film critical of Islam.  Because, you know, "it might violate Network Solutions' Acceptable Use Policy'.  Because God er, Allah forbid he should say that a religion that effectively enslaves women, and seeks to enslave or kill all non-Muslims, is an enemy of freedom.

(Besides, they're afraid Islamic extremists might send them more complaint letters.)

Comments

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Fornits--a site dedicated to stopping the Troubled Teen private prison ("Program") industry--had to move to a Canadian ISP when they got canceled by their old US one and had trouble finding another US ISP with stones.

I betcha an old friend "Evil" would do it on his ISP (host of my xring.com), but he probably wouldn't have the resources to take all those hits and would have to charge out the ass to upgrade for it.

That is the only legitimate argument NSI has--that the site will get so much traffic and so many hits it will overload their resources. In which case, the proper solution would be to charge the film-maker for the necessary upgrades and bandwidth to handle all his hits.

It does, apparently, violate their policy--particularly the bandwidth parts of it. I can totally understand the bandwidth.

I can also understand, unfortunately, that the owners and employees do not want to endanger their own lives. I think they're moral cowards and feel nothing but contempt for that, but I do think people who risk their lives--and this would, in a major way--should be volunteers.

What would be constructive would be if the film-maker would find a small ISP whose owner doesn't have ballzheimers (I think Evil would have the courage, forex, and he can't be the only one), and then publish how much the upgrades are anticipated to cost, set up an escrow-type account, and take donations from the public until they have enough money to do the upgrades and put out the film.

What matter its release be delayed, so long as it gets published as soon as it becomes real-world possible?

Once it got up on a main site, mirror sites would take care of reducing the ongoing traffic to a manageable level. The brave ISP would get the reward of the upgrade in exchange for the very real risk to their lives, and a small reward it is, relative to the risk.

As it is, the filmmaker is probably looking for an ISP with balls that won't need an upgrade, just a fair price for the traffic. Or multiple ISPs to mirror the film from day one.

Unfortunately, I've lost track of Evil and no longer have much of a personal friendship, or I'd put it to him as a possible idea. It would also drum up a whole lot of business for him from users who want to support the cause but can't donate--they can at least move their sites and pay him what they're paying now anyway.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I betcha an old friend "Evil" would do it on his ISP (host of my xring.com), but he probably wouldn't have the resources to take all those hits and would have to charge out the ass to upgrade for it.

If it's ther "Evil" I think it is, yeah, he probably would :)

I probably have the hardware to handle the traffic, if I put babylon4 online again; what I don't have, and can't feasibly get, is the bandwidth. As for potential risk, personally and speaking for myself, "Bring it on, let's see what you got."

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

Or, Phil, you could talk to the guy, set up the escrow fund, and start the ISP. Thing is, I'd expect him to find another one first.

Then again, that could be part of the deal--if he gets another ISP with stones that will write him a hard, unbreakable contract before he gets enough to set you up, he can use the money on that.

You have all the skills necessary to, with minimal further education, run your own ISP. Take it as an opportunity to go into business. Hell, if we weren't so strapped, I'd want to invest.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

We've thought about it in the past. Honestly, this area could stand a decent ISP - right now, it's Metrocast (cable) or dial-up. The catch-22 is that without customers, we couldn't afford to build the infrastructure, and without the infrastructure, we couldn't support the customers. We'd probably have to bring in connectivity all the way from Concord to get decent bandwidth.

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

. . . a religion that effectively enslaves women, and seeks to enslave or kill all non-Muslims . . .

Are you talking about Islam? Because if you are, you should know that neither of those things is true.

There are Muslim-dominated societies in which women are practically slaves (e.g. Afghanistan), and Islamist movements that esssentially advocate Muslim world domination. But they are as much in the minority as Pastor Hagee and Fred Phelps. And for that matter, there are non-Muslim-dominated societies in which women are practically slaves, and plenty of Christians and Hindus who view current events as a battle to the death against Muslims. Would it then be fair to describe Hinduism or Christianity as "religions that effectively enslaves women, and seeks to enslave or kill all non-[Hindus|Christians]"?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Well, true, I overgeneralized. Not all Islamic sects are the same. But are there any Islamic sects in which women are granted broadly the same rights as men?

Would it then be fair to describe Hinduism or Christianity as "religions that effectively enslaves women, and seeks to enslave or kill all non-[Hindus|Christians]"?

At least equally fair, I believe. The track record of "visible" Christianity (i.e, organized Christianity as mostly represented by the Roman Catholic church) in that arena isn't too good either.

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

I don't know, Islamic sects are not my area of expertise. I know at least one Muslim couple around here (Berkeley) who seem to treat each other as equals. According to Karen Armstrong, many of the misogynist practices we identify as Islamic were imported from other societies, including medieval Christian societies. The positions of women in early Britain, classical Athens, and medieval Germany, for three random examples, indicate to me that while women have certainly been oppressed for millenia, it hasn't been just Muslims doing the oppressing. In modern times, comparing gender status across societies is a tricky thing -- compare the status of women in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Japan, and Mexico and tell me what you come up with.

Similarly, the Crusaders' siege and capture of Jerusalem in 1099 can hold its own among history's acts of barbarity. And let's not forget the ideologies not usually counted as religions, e.g. imperialism, communism, nazism, and capitalism, which have turned billions of people into either converts or corpses. California Indians got hit with both kinds, one after the other: first the Franciscan missionaries, then the gold miners and the government they set up.

It seems to me that when it comes to identifying those who oppress women and kill those who disagree with their point of view, anything beyond "male humans" is needlessly problematic and subject to endless qualification.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The positions of women in early Britain, classical Athens, and medieval Germany, for three random examples, indicate to me that while women have certainly been oppressed for millenia, it hasn't been just Muslims doing the oppressing.

Very true. However, when I look around the world, I see the west trying to improve, and I see most of the fundamentalist Islamic regimes that come to power immediately setting the clock back a thousand years.

Similarly, the Crusaders' siege and capture of Jerusalem in 1099 can hold its own among history's acts of barbarity.

Indeed. I didn't specifically mention the Crusades, but I sort of, well, hinted above. ;) (The Albigensian crusade is another shining example, too; entire villages of men, women and children burned at the state for the sake of the Church's power er, I mean, their immortal souls, and if a few innocents got mixed in with them, well, better the stake than risk letting a dissident oops, I mean sinner go, right?

[dammit, premature post]

It seems to me that when it comes to identifying those who oppress women and kill those who disagree with their point of view, anything beyond "male humans" is needlessly problematic and subject to endless qualification.

Actually, I think that's at the same time an overgeneralization and overly specific. There have been cruel and bigoted female rulers and female-led regimes in history too — when women have managed to reach the peaks of power, they've frequently proven to be just as capricious and just as willing to kill anyone who crosses their path in the name of power as men. I think it's probably more accurate to say "Humans who have the mindset to seek out and acquire power over groups of their fellows are frequently ready and willing to oppress those groups to keep it."