• TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The vast majority of regular internet users never think of things from this perspective because they’ve never been in a position of running a public website. To most people, the Internet is just there to be taken for granted like the public street and park outside someone’s house. All the stuff on it just exists there by itself. That’s also why we have issues with free speech online, where people expect certain rights that don’t exist, because these aren’t publicly owned websites and people aren’t getting that.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      To most people, the Internet is just there to be taken for granted like the public street and park outside someone’s house.

      Both of which require maintenance that most people don’t think about…

      • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        And both of which impact its users’ lives, thus why the users feel they should have a say in what’s done with the space, even if they aren’t the owners of the space

        • bitfucker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Huh, the difference is that a website is not akin to a public park but privately owned park with or without entrance fee. The owner is nice enough to open the park and let you do whatever you want for free with the cleaning and maintenance is paid by the owner, but when the park is closed, would you still say the owner should still be forced to maintain it?

          • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I don’t particularly agree with the concept of the privately owned park and feel that it has ruined the social lives of Americans, since they’re no longer allowed to “loiter” (exist) anywhere outside of work and home. And also, yes, I think you should have to maintain the property you’ve taken away from the surrounding community or else give it back. I don’t think the comparison to the Web necessarily holds up, but I do think that people’s contributions to a website remain theirs even if you pay a lawyer to write down that it’s not. The concept of complete forfeiture of any claim to your work because-I-said-so is very made up. Your hard work is not.

            • bitfucker@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Hmmm, yeah it gets harder to associate it with physical reality when user generated content is introduced. Maybe an archival of said content is mandated but then again, who is going to serve the archive. In the case of youtube, it would be almost impossible

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Maybe the internet should be treated more like public infrastructure. If everyone communicates primarily online, the lack of freedom of speech on online platforms is a problem. And the sudden disappearance of a service people depend on, too (not that I think this website is a good example).