prospectacle writes:
"An important choice remains for this site. What kind of organisation will we be, practically, legally and financially?
A for-profit, shareholder corporation seems out of the question, by general consensus (correct me if I'm wrong), but other questions remain. The basic choice is this:
Will we be like a charity, a co-op, or a recreational club?
This is a gross simplification, but gives some idea of the options involved. Feel free to offer alternatives. So what should we be, what is our purpose, really? And what kind of a structure is required to make sure we serve that purpose, and that money doesn't end up in the wrong pockets?
Bonus question: which jurisdiction should we set ourselves up in to fulfil our mission most effectively?"
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 12 2014, @11:05AM
I vote for option 1.
And as for jurisdiction, anywhere outside the US and a few other countries is probably fine.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jt on Wednesday March 12 2014, @01:19PM
Could you elaborate on why the US (and I am guessing UK and other 'five eyes') states are not OK, in your opinion? Moral issues with surveillance? Tax? Lawsuit exposure? Publishing news and opinions is key to this place so ideally we would pick somewhere that values free speech. Exactly what that means is open to debate. However, we should not lose sight of basic issues of practicality. The people who will run this place - where are they based? What are they familiar with? Lets not get carried away with esoterica at this stage.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 12 2014, @02:45PM
Iceland.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday March 12 2014, @06:14PM
Unfortunately, most (all) of the workers and volunteers don't live there.
And Iceland has nothing to offer over any of the other countries.
There are really only a couple reasons (other than TAX reasons) to choose any given country:
1) Freedom from Take down notices
2) Demands for submitter IDs and records
I'm not sure all possibility of these can be avoided anywhere. Although with editorial care we can largely avoid the former, and use of a Warrant Canary flag [wikipedia.org] could at least make us aware of the latter.
Press freedom (lets not lose the word NEWS in our name!!!) is still quite strong in the US and court cases have established bloggers as journalists [theatlantic.com], which offers a lot more protection that you would get in France, and possibly Iceland. EU regulations seem to be in a constant state of flux, but in some cases they are actually preferable.
So it seems to me that there should be two things we seek out of an organizational structure, Tax protection and journalistic freedom protection.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 12 2014, @06:55PM
you forget about the NSA and its ability to just bully any US based business into turning over records. Basing a web service in the US shows that the owners care nothing for their user's privacy.
But I forget, your the toadie for the Feds. I can't help but wonder if you are actually Cold Fjord, but I don't have enough evidence yet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday March 12 2014, @09:10PM
Oh climb down from that soap box before you hurt yourself.
Why is it you can't have a discussion without slinging insults?
Its pretty hard to bully anyone into giving you what you don't have. Its even harder for the NSA to do anything with it once they get their hands on it. (What ever "it" might be).
Do you know what a Warrant Cannery is, and how it works?
Do you seriously believe being located anywhere else in the world would be a problem for the NSA?
(Seriously, if you believe this, you haven't been paying attention.)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:18AM
Being elsewhere in the world would make it more difficult. They have to tap the lines or bully a government or infiltrate a data center. With a US host, they just send a national security letter.
So seriously, anybody who hosts in the US (any of the 5 eyes really), simply does not respect their user's privacy.
Here's a list of decent countries for hosting, Iceland being in the list: https://nomadcapitalist.com/2013/12/15/top-5-best- countries-host-website-data-privacy/ [nomadcapitalist.com]- nsa-whistleblower/ [wnd.com]f g-iceland-free-speech-20110403 [latimes.com]
Some officials in Iceland would have welcomed a Snowden assylum request: http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/iceland-opens-door-for
Even before Snowden Iceland was looking to be privacy hub: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/02/world/la-
I can see no reason why SN should be hosted in the US. Why make it a cake walk for the NSA? Obviously if they want something bad enough they'll get it, but make the fuckers work for every bit, and they'll be stealing less stuff due to real world resource constraints.
(Score: 2) by demonlapin on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:08AM
OTOH, you get the First Amendment and US libel laws. I don't know what the right choice is, but there are advantages to being based in the US as well as disadvantages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 12 2014, @07:03PM
Iceland!