| 2:53 pm on Jun 4, 2001 (gmt 0)|
are you talking about hosting a site for like a hate group or something like that?
| 2:57 pm on Jun 4, 2001 (gmt 0)|
No, I wouldnt touch anything like that.
More like [indymedia.org...] - i.e hopefully about giving information that empowers and frees people.
| 3:00 pm on Jun 4, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I can't say that I have had any experience here, but I can say that that site is not short of content or links!
| 5:11 pm on Jun 4, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Consider emailing webmasters of similar existing sites and asking them if and where they've encountered problems finding hosting.
| 6:28 pm on Jun 14, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I wouldn't worry - the content at Indymedia seems very tame. No legitimate hosting company (we use Verio) would drop you for running a site like that.
| 8:54 pm on Jun 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I had worked for a webhost up until recently and, it was a larger webhost with mostly websites on shared servers (small business and personal websites)
The only time I recall accounts being shut down due to content were: instances of child p*rn and a white supremist website. The link you provided about alternative media seems way more tame than some of the content allowed at this webhost.
Despite that, not all controversial websites were pulled, (they had hosted at one time godhatesfags.com)and AFAIK, the site was never pulled because of inflammatory content.
Customers were more likely to be pulled if they were caught spamming, or running crazy scripts that were bringing down the servers.
Of course, at this host, adult content was/is allowed, so my best guess is, if the host allows adult content, then there is probably less monitoring of content.
(edited by: NFFC at 9:02 pm (gmt) on June 24, 2001)
| 10:29 pm on Jun 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>Consider emailing webmasters of similar existing sites and asking them if and where they've encountered problems finding hosting.
It might also be possible to contact potential web hosts, including the URL of similar sites, and see if they have any policy in place about it.
Just a possibility, but in addition to Terms of Service, there could be a political bias within host management that's less than friendly toward alternative news sources. I'm inclined to think this could be more likely with a corporate type host than an independent, related to possible effects on advertising revenue.
| 9:23 am on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the posts all, my main concern is probably what you touch on Marcia in that I'm more concerned about companies with large pockets throwing money at lawyers than general public outrage. I understand that for many companies it is economically unviable to put up a legal fight on behalf of a site they host.
| 9:51 am on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
perlyking, for a long time *alternative* political theory has been that corporate America *owns* the press, and that media coverage is managed and controlled to suppress what the general public is not supposed to be looking at.
In recent years, funding was cut back and mental hospitals closed down in California; now there are countless ill people homeless and wandering the streets. There was enormous coverage of welfare reform. Purportedly, these (among other) segments of the population were a drain on the economy, and the enormous national debt was a burden on future generations.
Recently there was a massive tax cut. Yet, that's gotten a lot more attention than the fact that the national debt is still growing. Is it no longer a problem? A search on national debt at Google shows otherwise.
This suppression theory is why the alternative news sources, like Pacifica Radio [pacifica.org] and the local station here in Los Angeles, KPFK [kpfk.org], struggle to remain listener supported. Besides, who would risk advertising?
FWIW, regardless of political persuasion, that's the theory. The degree of tolerance might also possibly depend on the country sites are hosted in, as well as whether or not the host is supported in part by advertisers who might object.
| 11:30 am on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I know there are some people who will stop at nothing to destroy any kind of criticism, unfortunately they are the often the same people who wield the power of the allmighty dollar/pound/yen:(
I have in fact spent some of this weekend (and I have to admit I'm enjoying it in a way) trying to publicise some corruption I have become aware of and having my information censored, deleted or anything else they can try to stop me. Don't get me wrong I am nowhere near fighting corporate America but the game is the same :)