The answer to this is a thundering "so what?" The right to free speech is not accompanied anywhere by the obligation of anyone to provide a soapbox. Never has been -- just as the inability to find a publisher does not constitute censorship. I'd you want to talk about media concentration or the difficulty to be heard, go ahead. But that's no longer a free speech argument. So please stop phrasing it as such. - Evan (sent from my Android phone) On 2011-01-11 4:50 PM, "Karl Auerbach" <karl@cavebear.com> wrote: On 01/11/2011 11:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I continue to be bewildered by the baseless assert... Sure - but lack of a domain name is a handicap.
By way of analogy - One can speak freely without owning a TV network (such as Fox News), but it sure makes your voice a lot louder if you have one. Similarly one can speak on the net without a domain name, but that means giving up a lot of decibels in the form of search engine listings, historical persistence, reputation, cross-linkage with other forms of speech/media, control of the message, etc. And by forcing individuals to give up their power of being anonymous with a domain name that one thereby gives greater power to aggregate structures - largely corporations - that can easily launder their identity through any number of intermediaries. It's sort of like stuffing a rag into the mouths of individuals on the internet while giving a megaphone to others. --karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-li...