User:Eleanorg/1.2/Interview: OX4 Collective

Interview with one half of the web hosting collective OX4, on Mon 13 Feb 2012

[20:07:27] nor: ok, so [20:07:49] nor: what i'm curious abt is how, as a hoster, you decide what you're willing to host, and what not [20:08:00] nor: mebbe you could say a bit abt how you reach those decisions with ox4? [20:09:17] ox4: it's probably worth taking a step back, and telling you why we started ox4 ... [20:09:23] nor: ok cool [20:09:23] ox4: 3 reasons ... [20:10:48] ox4: 1. lots of webhosting and/or complex (e.g. having to write code) is quite expensive for small groups [20:11:57] ox4: 2. both of us at ox4 like activism - we're prob at the more direct action end, but just getting involved in your local community is also a worthwile form of activism [20:12:47] ox4: I guess the thing is that we pretty anti-capitalist, with all the heirarchy (sp?) and oppression that goes with it. [20:13:09] ox4: 3. We like playing with computers - and offering hosting sounded like fun! [20:13:33] ox4: So, onto how we decide who to host [20:14:11] ox4: It's very informal - most of the people/groups we host are known to us [20:14:51] ox4: And, from the outset, we decided to priorise local (Oxford) groups - although we do host a few non-local groups [20:15:47] ox4: the decision to focus on local groups was partly to keep the whole thing manageable (there are only 2 of us at ox4). [20:16:14] nor: so your "policies" are partly political and partly about your resources [20:16:30] ox4: yes [20:16:43] nor: so [20:17:03] nor: thinking about these small-scale hosting projects more widely [20:17:14] nor: a bit of a devil's advocate type question: [20:18:16] nor: what do you make of the situation that ppl who have the skills/resources to offer hosting get to decide what gets hosted? Is it ever a dilemma for you? [20:21:20] ox4: I don't really think of it as a dilemma. It does create a heirarchy of some sort, however I don't see that as any different from other skill & resource areas. For example ... [20:22:12] ox4: If I don't have the skills of a plumber (which I don't), I need to rely on a plumber to help me - they can decide whether they do or not (not a great example), plus ... [20:23:17] ox4: ox4 not hosting a group does not meant they cannot have a web presence - they need to find another provider. If they cannot, there is nothing to stop them getting the skills to set up their own hosting [20:23:36] ox4: finally ... [20:24:54] ox4: part of the principle behind ox4 comes from it's anarcho-roots whereby people shouldn't be force coerced into doing work that they do not want to do. hosting a group that we didn't agree with 'politically' would be doing this type of work [20:25:31] nor: ok, so you only want to put time into hosting stuff that is vaguely aligned with your principles? [20:26:25] ox4: yes - the 'red line' is about not hosting stuff that is against my principles [20:26:33] nor: right [20:27:39] nor: when i chatted to someone from Network 23 about this earlier, i asked whether there might ever be a circumstance where he'd consider crossing that line. ie, hosting something you disagree with. what's your stand on that, is the red line absolute? [20:29:11] ox4: there are grey areas (sorry for the mixed metaphor), for example ... [20:30:08] ox4: I would be OK hosting a group where I disagreed with their tactics (the way they do things), as long as I was OK with their aims (what they are ultimately trying to achieve) [20:30:27] nor: ok, so more 'minor' differences [20:31:12] nor: it's interesting, the person from N23 gave the hypothetical example of what might happen if, say, pro-fox hunting campaigning was made illegal [20:31:22] nor: he said he'd be up for hosting them, just to defend their right to free speech [20:31:48] nor: sounds like you'd differ on this? [20:33:20] ox4: yes. i wouldn't host them. refering back to a previous comment, there are other hosts that could do that. and if there weren't, the group could get the skills to do it themselves. In terms of free speech ... [20:33:47] ox4: I would defend a persons right to it, but not neccessarily be the conduit for it. [20:34:24] nor: ok, so you define free speech as not actively hindering someone, but not necessarily actively enabling them? [20:37:28] ox4: Yes - but I would prob go further and say that there are limits to free speech - speech that is likely to cause harm to others is not neccarily ok (the classic example is falsely calling 'fire' in a theatre to cause panic). Inticiment to oppressive violence (e.g. kill the jews) is also not OK [20:38:20] ox4: I'll put the free speech and enabling thing in a different context. [20:39:22] ox4: Hosting websites is about spreading people's messages. Imagine if somebody came up to you and said "I think all kittens should be shot - spread the word" ... [20:41:51] ox4: If you choose not to spread the word, that has not reduced the persons free speech - it's just not passing their message on. If we were obliged to pass people's messages on, it would degrade our ability to have our own thoughts and opinions ... [20:42:50] ox4: And some would say "but what if we add our message (that we disagree) to their message" - well I don't think this is pure free speech because it involves editing the original message. [20:42:57] ox4: Does that make sense [20:43:12] nor: it's not pure free speech for the person you disagree with? [20:43:42] ox4: thats correct - because it is changing their message [20:43:47] nor: yes, right [20:43:59] nor: i'm gonna make clear at this point that i agree with you here [20:44:25] nor: and just pushing this because i think it is an interesting/important question on a more philosophical level [20:44:28] nor: if you see what i mean [20:44:55] ox4: thats fine - feel free. I won't take it personally [20:45:12] ox4: ps - 36 mins before kittens got mentioned. a record [20:45:22] nor: haha [20:45:23] nor: great! [20:45:45] nor: i guess it reminds me a bit of the whole 'pro choice' debate re: conscientious objection [20:46:09] nor: it's easy for a doctor to say, 'i support a womans right to choose, but I'm not going to enable abortions myself' [20:46:23] nor: but then if every doctor said that, the right to choose doesn't exist any more [20:46:43] nor: and it would be a bit dishonest imo to say to that woman, 'well you could go and train as a doctor yourself' [20:46:53] nor: just like server admin - it's not a trivial skill to aquire. [20:49:43] ox4: the first part of my reply is to point out that this is theoritical (which is fine & good) - there are server admins for pretty much every opinion, and doctors that will perform abortions [20:51:55] ox4: the other part of my reply is that I do think it is reasonable to say to a community of people that believe in, for example, abortion "if you want this to be available, some of you need to be able to do it" - to me this is about moving the responsibilty away from individuals and onto communities and ... [20:54:58] ox4: to reiterate a previous point, it is unreasonable to expect people to do things against their values - that's a heirarcal master / slave relationship. This point is very entangled - I believe that out current socity manipulates people's values. What people think they believe might not equal what they would believe as fully empowered un-coarced people. This view is quite problematic! [20:55:34] ox4: problematic on a practical level - not theoritially [20:55:49] nor: how so? [20:56:34] ox4: Well, it essentially says that what people think they think might not actually be what they think. For e.g. ... [20:57:40] ox4: A person may think that what they really want in life is a lot of money. That view might have been heavily influenced by being part of a capitialist and individualistic society. However ... [20:59:11] ox4: What they might actually want is security and fun. Within a capitialist and individualistic society, having money is quite possibly an ingredient to this. Within another society, there may be other ways to achieve this. [20:59:16] ox4: Make sense [20:59:17] ox4: ? [20:59:23] nor: yes [20:59:54] nor: so the problematic thing is figuring out exactly what *is* against your values, so as not to support it? [21:01:16] ox4: It might be - to be honest the situation has never arisen. Nobody has every asked for a site that has caused a concern for me ... [21:01:50] ox4: And our 'policy' is very vague - almost taking each request for a site as it comes ... [21:03:02] ox4: I think it's important to note here that there is a very high level of trust between me and the other ox4 person, so I haven't felt the need to fuly document which types of site are OK and which are not. We just discuss each one as it comes up [21:03:36] nor: yeh, seems you've got a good system [21:03:42] nor: or lack of system rather [21:04:07] ox4: Process has value. But none of it works without trust [21:04:28] nor: funny how many debates come down to that point! [21:05:11] ox4: and 'funny' how many people seem to think that having a really detailed process will overcome trust issues [21:05:27] nor: indeed [21:05:33] nor: words of wisdom for sure!