Leaderboard

Thanks. Bought another year. Been an AirVPN customer for 6 years now.

@rock3716 It's an interesting case for us too. It's a very odd behavior by the provider, because it poses mere conduit problems (*). If a hosting provider intervenes to censor the content published by a customer without solicitation by a court order or at least a communication by a third party, it means they have editorial control, so they might be held liable (secondary liability) for the content published by their customers. In the reply, they clearly admit that they intervene against disinformation and misinformation, and suggest that a crime has been committed ("endangering public health"), as if they were omniscient to decide what disinformation and misinformation are, and they have the ability to monitor all the content of all of their customers. A safer approach for them would have been reporting to the competent authorities to decide whether something infringes the law or not, ensure to the publisher of the content the right to a defense, and optionally make the content unavailable while the case is ongoing. because of a third party warning, and not for their ability to check everything in their infrastructure uploaded by customers. Tons of things must be verified, but if the reports and the reply are authentic and not fake, the provider is walking on a slippery slope: apparently it is naively operating to hog editorial control, a catastrophe for any hosting/housing provider etc. (*) Directive 2000/31/EC has been transposed not only in the 27 EU Member States, but also in iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.. Kind regards