User:Eleanorg/1.2/Interview: Network 23

Interview via email with a member of the Network 23 grassroots hosting collective, Feb 2012

If you're running a server (eg n23), how do you decide what you will or won't host?

Okay, well with Network23 we have a reasonably straight-forward and clear policy - outlined on the web at https://network23.org/terms-conditions/ - we ask everyone who requests a blog to agree to the terms upon request. We therefore assume that people stick to that. If we find that someone doesn't then we reserve the right to disabled their blog.

How do you feel about hosting content that you might disagree with, or find offensive?

We're happy to host anyone within reason: e.g. it doesn't have to be purely political, but can be fun or informative. However the general guideline is that for me based on "can I be bothered to dedicate my free time to supporting someone who I either disagree with strongly, or who is causing me grief?" - the answer here is a rotund 'no' from me.

I didn't used to hold that view for Indymedia, I was of the opinion that whatever goes, that being selective was censorship. But over the years having seen the trouble caused by being laise-faire about policy in the first instance, where collectives have been ripped apart, I'm more judgemental about it these days. So for N23 we wanted to be certain and clear that we're doing this for political ends and in our spare time, and therefore we reserve the right to refuse to provide a service.

I'm for freedom of speech as a principal. I'm don't believe that I should have to give my time to supporting people expressing sexist or racist views on the web, just as much as I don't feel I can support people who publish slander about individuals who are police or politicans or anyone else for that matter, especially the publishing of personal details.

Might there be circumstances in which you would decide to host this kind of content?

Well that's difficult, I guess, yes there is. If it were the case that the law made it illegal to an express a view that, although I might disagree with it, I agreed with the writer's freedom to express that view, then I guess I would. Again, it would depend what the issue was, what the battle was and whether it was worth spending my time to fight it.

An example I can think of is that although I'm opposed to fox hunting, I believe that it is the right of people to want to do it and to express their desire to do it. Therefore if the government outlawed the expression of the right to hunt foxes, then I would support a blog of people wishing to express that right. That's a pretty hypothetical example and I'm sure I could have thought of one better, but you get the point. No offence to the foxes intended: I'd happily host the hunt sab's web site as well, even if they were made illegal, which is more likely the case.