We’ve been given notice by our hosting provider that we need to move off the site. The reason is that we were suddenly faced with a big increase in hosting costs, and it wasn’t tenable. (Where’s big oil when you need them?) So they told us we had to move.
Therefore we are moving back to wordpress.com, where we started back in 2007. We will be picking up where we left off when we moved two years ago and migrating all the content of the last two years back to the original site (which I retained in case of just such an emergency).
So, if WUWT becomes flakey or offline at times over the next few days, don’t worry. We have it all backed up.
Thanks for your understanding and patience. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, here’s the deal: if the hosting provider doesn’t want you because you offend the delicate sensibilities of the ecohippies and their ilk, and they are prodding your hosting service into abandoning you to your fate, there’s that little old 1st amendment thingy in the US Constitution that says something like ‘freedom of speech, freedom of the press’, etc., etc., etc.
That needs to be inflicted on those twits at least once, really hard, so that it makes their ears ring and gives them headaches.
Anyone who fears an opposing point of view and wants it shut down has a problem…. a very serious problem.
First Amendment only applies to government, not private businesses.
Wrong answer. It applies to individuals as well as all those other things such as businesses.
I’m afraid Grumpy Bill is right Sara. “Congress shall make no Law…”
Various civil rights laws define protected classes making it a crime to to refuse to hire or do business with someone on the basis of their being in the protected class. For example, because they are black, a woman, a Jew, gay, etc.
These laws do not prevent a business from declining someone’s business on the basis of their actions taken or their speech, although that obviously wouldn’t fly as a practical matter, in the case where the person in question is in a protected class and could pretend that the business’ motivation was discrimination on the basis of their membership in the protected class.
Having a certain opinion does not make you a member of a protected class for purposes of civil rights protections.
As long as Congress (and state legislatures) make no law infringing free speech such as to ban companies from doing business with individuals or organizations who express unpopular views, the First Amendment doesn’t come into it. Individuals and businesses are free to choose their customers on the basis of their actions or speech.
I’m not arguing that it’s the way it should be or that there isn’t a real issue with Big Tech having a practical monopoly over web platforms needed to exercise free speech on the Internet. I’m just pointing out that we don’t have any legal protections from either the First Amendment or civil rights laws in this case.
There is equal protection under the law. All laws passed by government must apply equally to all individuals. There is no general law requiring individuals to treat other individuals equally. There are only laws that prevent individuals from treating others differently on the basis of certain enumerated criteria, that is, there are only limited specific protections.
Anthony being discriminated against on the basis of the views espoused on WUWT is regrettably not illegal.
re: “Anthony being discriminated against on the basis of the views espoused on WUWT is regrettably not illegal.”
We’re in kind of a grey area here; Section §230(c)(1) (of the Communications Decency Act) defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a “publisher or speaker” of information from another provider. When service providers start to act as ‘publishers’ of your material is where a grey area is approached.
The basis for this is in “publishers” (like a Time or Newseek, and the newspapers) versus “common carrier” services (e.g. telephone, telex and telegraph companies, UPS, Fedex, buslines, airlines) offering services to the public; how does his “platform” provider represent himself? These are areas of law being looked at presently with the the biggies e.g. Twitter, Facebook and Google that carry your postings and writings and not specifically theirs. The ‘want ads’ in the back of the newspaper is where “communications for hire” was most often experienced by the public years ago, and you paid by the word (or letter).
Jim, in my view, the idea of requiring a platform to police “decency” is an open invitation to woke censors to run roughshod over conservative freedom of speech. That is what we are seeing today, and as I said already, it is legal behavior. Not ethical or right behavior, but legal. The law needs to change to put a stop to this, by clearly establishing certain internet functions as common carriers who are required to treat all customers equally.
The only way that “platforms” can fairly operate is not to be allowed to censor at all. Let government enforce the restrictions on free speech that have legitimately always existed, such as threats and abuse. To require a woke corporation to monitor and enforce “decency” or accuracy standards empowers them to censor political speech under the excuse that they are required to do so by law. But coincidentally, they will only enforce against opinions that they do not like and will fail to notice the indecent or inaccurate content that fits their narratives.
It is an amazing perversion of the original intent of the First Amendment. How ironic that what was once the target of decency laws, pornography primarily, is now mainstream and basically protected, while political speech (or ordinary speech that is interpreted as political by hyper-sensitive intolerant lefties) is the target.
Freedom of political speech and religious practice are the main points of the First Amendment. Pornography and flag burning, neither of which are actual speech, are the leftists’ concept of protected speech. The world is one messed up place that has no clue about history.
Rich, answered above (or below) depending where this comment appears, but this reply will trigger the notification e-mail.
@Rich Davis
re: “Jim, in my view, the idea of requiring a platform to police “decency” is an open invitation to woke censors to run roughshod”
Rich, this is (IMO) moot, or on first face maybe a strawman argument (although unintended to be made) in light of the fact that in 1997, in the landmark case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the act.
Q& A time from a wiki reference:
Q: Is the Communications Decency Act still in effect?
A: The Internet community as a whole objected strongly to the Communications Decency Act, and with EFF’s help, the anti-free speech provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law.
Now let’s take a look at CDA230, full cite is: 47 U.S.C. § 230 (link below *)
Section 230 says basically that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider“. Isn’t this what I was getting at by citing “common carriers” in my first post? Yes, it is.
So, Anthony, Conservatives, Liberals etc. would seem to be covered … no? Why do we find ourselves STILL in a quandary discussing this then? Chalk it up to a general, overall failure of the ‘legal’ circles to inform the public … or maybe enough court cases have not be won yet?
In closing, IANAL but I still discuss these things.
.
.
* http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Jim,
My comments about it being bad to allow or require platforms to enforce decency or accuracy were a response to you raising that point, but were not intended to imply that there is a current law in force that allows for the de-platforming trend that could be repealed. That is as you say, a moot point.
What allows for the current state of affairs is the fact that there is no law overriding the general case that individuals (and corporations) are free to choose with whom they associate and do business.
A great many exceptions have gone into law over the years. Coupled with the fact that no rational business person will want to be seen as treating customers unfairly, it’s commonly assumed that equal treatment is a legal requirement in all cases as a general rule. But that is not true. If a business doesn’t mind being seen as treating certain customers unfairly, then they are free to do that. They are only stopped legally if certain specific protections are triggered in certain specific cases. Hiring based on race, lending based on religion, renting an apartment based on marital status, etc. It is not a general rule, it is a patchwork of specific rules.
Just because a “platform” provider is not a “publisher” liable for any libelous or threatening content put onto the platform, does not preclude the platform provider from setting onerous terms and conditions for the use of their platform. Those terms and conditions may be as blatantly biased as they wish. They may freely choose to ban all persons with the given name James or any derivation thereof. They may state that any comments made that offend any other person may at their discretion result in immediate termination of service.
The fact that a platform is not a publisher and may be “thought of as a common carrier” does not enshrine that thought in law. I’m not sure what protections are granted to customers of common carriers under what specific laws (if any), but before that would mean anything here, there would have to be an explicit definition in law that an internet forum provider is subject to whatever laws regulate common carriers.
Honestly I do not have in mind a good solution to this problem. Freedom of association is a liberty that I would like to see constrained as little as possible. It seems that the issue relates to anti-trust regulation as much as anything. To the extent that there is a functioning free market and no restraints on competitors catering to any segment of the market, that should ordinarily resolve the issue. It’s the network effect that makes this difficult.
Anyone could start up a competitor to twitter, maybe call it blather, bubble, or echochamber. What good would that do? All the conservatives could abandon the public square to the woke fascists and huddle together on their chosen platform. Some benefits of twitter could be retained, but not all. You could still share ideas with like-minded people, organize, etc. But if you’re trying to engage undecided minds, you can’t do that on a fringe site where all minds are on the same wavelength already. If you’re trying to engage opposing viewpoints so that undecided people can see the strength of your arguments, you surely can’t do that on a fringe conservative site. So the platform that has the largest network is categorically different from any other platform even if it is so technically identical as to infringe copyrights. If you don’t have a facebook account you just aren’t going to keep up with your cousins’ latest exploits. Getting a myspace account isn’t going to fit the bill.
Rich,
NO amount of ‘pining’ by you or by me is going to change this a whit. I cited the applicable law (AND the basis for ‘common carrier’ justification; there is much on this front in other areas of business, no doubt you are unaware of), there isn’t much more one man (myself) can do except enlighten (as I have tried) another man (you). I’d say “save your breath for the courtroom” if you’re a lawyer, otherwise, ride your congressman and senator like they were red-headed step children as you seem to be one who has no loss of words on this subject, I suggest your energy be directed ‘for effect’ as mentioned in the paragraph above.
I don’t know if you are aware, but our president has sought (IIRC) the involvement of several federal agencies which have overlapping jurisdiction in this area, including the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and the FEC (Federal Election Commission). It might behoove you to do a little digging on this aspect and see where investigations are WRT those agencies and if any other alphabet agencies were tasked with looking into this issue as well.
ONE CAVEAT: Do not fall victim (as many people are prone to do) on ‘falling back’ in what you think are well-justified arguments concerning ‘freedom of speech’ and the rights and responsibilities some ‘platform’ may arbitrarily decide on, e.g. deciding whom to provide service to. There is much law and case law concerning common carriers and the like in the US and the free world. Perhaps you need some further introduction to this avenue of thinking?
The business of physical transport of people and goods, a “common carrier”:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/common+carrier
A common carrier, in telecommunications: an entity that provides wired and wireless communication services to the general public for a fee. … In the United States, the common carrier designation made by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under authorization of the Telecommunications Act of 1934.
“Common Carriers Under the Communications Act”
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4236&context=uclrev
The ‘rules and regulations’, “47 U.S. Code Part I— Common Carrier Regulation”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I
Ok Jim, let me put it succinctly as I can. Twitter, facebook, YouTube are web applications which you may get an account on if you bind yourself to their terms of service. They are not sufficiently like a pure common carrier to be legally-bound to act as such. In practice, they are not being treated that way, even if in practice they act very similar to a common carrier. If the solution is to force them to behave as a common carrier, then it will take a new law. And a new law means getting Nancy The Ripper out of the Speaker’s seat.
I’m neither a big fan nor an enemy of our president. It just seems to me that the twitter covfefe is ultimately what the Clintonistas used to call “boob bait for the bubbas”. There’s zero chance that administration posturing is going to prevail in changing how internet platforms are regulated, but a certainty that it will play well at a rally.
And I’ll overlook your fighting words “if you’re a lawyer” 🙂
c.f. Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2
re: “let me put it succinctly as I can.”
You have not read a single thing I’ve written or linked.
Apparently, you’re relying entirely on the ‘model’ of the world you’ve built in your head, having had a classical ‘liberal’ education. I cautioned against such ‘constructs’, to no avail, apparently.
Have a good day.
I read what you wrote, Jim, all snark and insults included. Did not return fire. It is you who misrepresented what I said and refuse to address the real world.
Just because you like the arguments of people who think that twitter is a common carrier doesn’t make it so under the law. And what is more relevant is that it doesn’t matter whether the letter of the law can be plausibly stretched to fit your interpretation. What matters is whether the courts will rule as you think they should.
In a world where courts block the executive from enforcing explicit immigration law, you apparently imagine that the same administration is going to prevail in an ambiguous case.
Wake up! The law is becoming a thin fig leaf covering the naked exercise of arbitrary power. Even if we had explicit statutory protections requiring platforms to behave as common carriers, I’m not so sure that that would be a resolution because the courts would likely gut the law.
The same discussion could be had talking about how the Interstate Commerce clause has been misinterpreted by the courts for a century. Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional. But that ship has sailed.
So indeed, good day to you. I don’t know what accounts for your animosity, but I’ll choose not to share it. If this is how you plan to persuade a Reaganite like me, I’m wondering how you imagine you can persuade Hillary and Bernie voters.
Just a gentle reminder, winning elections isn’t about being right, it’s about convincing more people that you’re right than there are people who think you’re wrong.
If you wish to have the last word, have at it.
This is what happens when nothing is done against the beginning of antisocial movements.
If WUWT had taken a clear position instead of making Switzerland, these things would not have happened.
If a handful of activists are enough to put you in crisis, you could also close the whole shack.
We have to do analyzes and observations, not just publish four antics that activists do.
Lullaby.
Anthony, thanks for giving us WUWT!
We’ll definitively hold on patiently through the transition.
This has a baleful feel to it, if the current hosts are buckling to cancel culture pressure one wonders if WP can hold out against it.
This could be the twilight of the internet.
I’m sure that someone has mentioned this before , but I was staggered when on a google search for your sight, there was Google’s own analysis and summary of WUWT…and it said something to the effect, The world’s foremost or most popular CLIMATE DENIAL sight. I was staggered at the utter prejudicial description.
However at least WUWT was the first entry on the first page of the WEB page search. I just now googled it , and the sight is not even mentioned on the first page Instead we have this:
“What Up with That?” is a recurring sketch on the NBC television series Saturday Night Live which first aired in 2009. It stars Kenan Thompson as DAndre Cole, host of a talk show on BET.
Wikipedia.
WUWT only now occurs on the fourth page of references to websites . Maybe this is owing to the change in the hosting…or maybe not.
I’ve given up on Google. Duckduckgo promptly brings this site up when you type in “WUWT”.
You might try Google too.
http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=WUWT
I get this message on your link. Don’t know what it means.
Web Page Blocked
An error occurred while trying to rate the website using the webfiltering service.
Web filter service error: no correct FortiGuard information
Client IP: 10.0.0.34
Server IP: 91.121.227.33
User name:
Group name:
Given your 10.x.x.x address, you’re behind a firewall. It looks like the filters there don’t want you accessing locations like letmegooglethat.com
Looks pretty benign to me.
$ host 91.121.227.33 192.168.0.1
Using domain server:
Name: 192.168.0.1
Address: 192.168.0.1#53
Aliases:
33.227.121.91.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer s1115.myfasthosting.com.
Ric, from your link, a outright smear:
Watts Up With That? is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006
Second your recommendation to use Duckduckgo instead of Google.
Because of its politically inspired ministrations, Google has managed to make itself the last choice for search engines on my browsers.
My google search for WUWT gives seven results on the first page.
The first and third are legitimate.
The 7th is a Union City, TN low-power TV station.
The other four first-page results are all leftist disinformation pages about WUWT: from Wikipaganda, ATTP, DeSmogBlog, and SourceWatch, respectively.
SourceWatch / PRWatch = The Center for Media and Democracy, which is a far-left propaganda outfit. Lies are their stock-in-trade. They openly admire notorious Stalinist I.F. “Izzy” Stone, and they boast of receiving an award named after him.
DeSmogBlog is the climate disinformation site which conspired with Dr. Peter Gleick to smear Heartland Institute with a forged “strategy memo” in the Fakegate scandal.
Wikipaganda lies just as blatantly, calling WUWT “a blog promoting climate change denial… generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change.”
Ken Rice’s ATTP is the least blatantly dishonest of the four. He’s one of the brighter climate alarmists out there, but he strictly censors his blog to promote climate alarmism, thereby converting what could be a useful forum into a propaganda site.
DuckDuckGo is slightly better. Only two of their first-page results are leftist disinformation pages.
I never use Google, just DDG
Anthony, thank you for all you do. I watch this forum regularly and know I tread with the giants here (with the exception of a few trolls). I sent a donation.
Thanks yet again to Anthony and the team for keeping WUWT going through thick and thin. We wish you all Good luck with the move over, and thank you for all your hard work! We will hang on during the bumpy ride.
What a coincidence…
After the transition is successfully made, we would like a summary of how all of this transpired.
Finally made a small donation. You’ve been a source of enlightenment for me for several years.
Suspicious. Hosting costs are going down industry-wide, and there is fierce competition to drive them down further.
Maybe you can find a hosting provider in Switzerland?
From Chile, the end of the world, thank you very much for all the information and opinions, and of course the humor.
I haven’t commented as frequently as I used too (twist and turns in real life that effect my “typing time”) but I’m still here and will continue to be.
Anthony: I realize you likely want to remain independent, but maybe WUWT should follow Volkh to reason, or Insty to PJ media. I think you would retain editorial independence without the maintenance issues.
I will continue to read this, the bet science site on the web.
Volokh?
Donation sent
This site has to be maintained or I would need to find something else to do first thing in the morning.
I called Charles. Dunno if the many contributions already proffered here will cover the WUWT Deplatform conversion costs back to WP. But told him to tell Anthony that I will cover any financial WUWT shortfall, no matter what it may be. Don’t fret it, just do it.
And Charles already knows my unlimited cover offer is good way beyond any conceivable cost limits.
Rud,
That is a most generous and wonderful offer! As one who loves WUWT, thank you!
That’s an honourable offer indeed.
Rud Istvan
Top Man!
Top banana, Rud!
Thanks Rud. We have it covered so far.
Thank you, Rud, for your generous offer to Anth*ny.
So the price of FREE SPEECH has been increased again .
Congratulations, Anthony!
The fact that you’ve been deplatformed is prima facie evidence that you still drive the climate clowns crazy!
Keep up the good work!
You might want to take a glance at https://cis.net. I am not sure what you’re paying for hosting but the minimum sites are fairly low cost and they have plenty of bandwidth. Our site is a bit more because we have multiple domains and a more complex email system tied to the site. They have Word Press support however we are running Simple Machines so I don’t know how good the Word Press support is.
I also use cis.net as my hosting provider. They are wonderful! Been with them for 4 years already and there support staff is amazing! Definitely recommend these guys.
Fahrenheit 451, digital style?
There is a drive to digitise all books one usually finds in a library and put them online. I think Google is the big driver in that. This can mean only one thing.
Anthony,
Do you need some contributions? Money is tight, but I could find some play in the budget if it means helping you do your work. Let us all know.
Does this mean that I have to, finally, either figure out what my WordPress password is or reset it?
I don’t suppose the passwords and accounts switch over automatically?
Just donated $50. Keep up the good job!
Check out Hosting Matters – https://hostmatters.com/
Been using them since 2003 and very very happy.
Good luck with the move Anthony.
Thanks for your tireless efforts, as always WUWT remains number one on evidence based climate science.
This might be a mistake. A number of websites have been banned from wordpress, and they don’t get their files back either.
brief list of banned wordpress sites:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/tag/wordpress-censorship
https://twitter.com/memoryholeblog/status/1029415973500137479
https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/291375-wordpress-blocks-latest-guccifer-20-docs
And before you say “We’re not as crazy as those conspiracy theory/misogynist/etc nuts”, the slope is *extremely* slippery. Hopefully that’s obvious by now.
I suggest giving Epik a call. Rob Monster (love the name) is very pro free speech as long as it’s moderated. wattsupwithat.com would fit right in. And no I’m not marketing them, they’ve just solved a number of deplatforming issues over the last year such as Gab.
To read up on how to watch for “woke” corporations, I suggest the book by Vox Day called “Corporate Cancer”. I tells you what patterns to look for (e.g. in their terms of service), and even how to fight back (think, scalable arbitration assymetric lawfare)