Do providers of dedicated hosting generally allow adult sites on the servers or not?

I once read the terms of uk2.net (not great, I know) and they don't allow adult sites on their servers.

How about others? Have VDI and Alabanza a particular policy regarding adult sites?

I think the Alabanza based hosts dunt allow this, but the VDI ones do. This is because, VDI, the NOC doesnt have a problem with it where as the alabanza one has problems with it.

Well not all VDI hosts allow it either, it depends on host to host.

Thanks.

Talking VDI hosts you mean there's people reselling VDI dedicated hosting, but with a more restrictive adult policy? Interesting..

Basically I don't quite understand why a NOC should care if there are adult sites on a colocated box or not.

Responsable for site content is first the site webmaster and eventually the server administrator. A NOC selling dedicated hosting doesn't administrate the servers itself, so I cannot imagine they could be held responsable for site content - other opinions?

Most dedicated server plans allow you to host adult sites, you pay for transfer any how.
There are many "unlimited" shared accounts that do not allow adult sites mostly because they use many GB of transfer.

Maybe, some NOCs do not allow Adult sites because they often spam.

By VDI hosts I mean, people who co-locate or have a dedicated box with them. For example, and just an example, Ultraspeed may not allow Adult sites, while VDI allows it.

Most hosts, wether an NOC, or dedicated or whatever kind, dunt allow it cause of illegal porn.

From what I understand, VDI actually hosts a number of adult sites (I remember seeing a sister site that they use for adult server hosting and such... can't remember the site off hand though).

Tera-Byte dedicated servers (including 4webspace.com, I think) do allow adult hosting as well

Yup they do ..

They do, a 100%.

I'm not trying to advertise or anything, but I don't see the problem with adult content. We allow adult content on our dedicated servers because it isn't our content, but that of the customer. There really aren't many legal restrictions on adult content other than child pornography and directing pornography at children (both strictly not allowed). As long as it isn't either of those why not? I would assume that some companies might have religious or moral reservations against adult content and that is perfectly their right. Some of us can't afford to turn away customers for such reasons and live with it :)

And ofcourse if its illegal, you wont allow it right? But how do you differentiate the legal from the illegal?

While those reasons may apply in some cases, there are other reasons some companies won't allow adult sites, not even on dedicated servers. One is spamming and the associated costs. As a whole, the adult industry has greatly abused the Internet. They have rendered thousands of newsgroups useless by their barrage of spam and have inundated the email boxes of millions of people with their e-mail spam.

All the dirtiest tricks on the Internet have come from the adult industry.

Not all adult sites are like that, though a high percentage are. Many hosts may pass on adult sites not becasue of content, but because the odds of them being spammers are too high. Why take on a client you'll have to cancel after they have caused you greater costs and lots of problems, not to mention the higher bandwidth that they may not have paid for?

I suspect hosts that allow adult sites may have provisions (like big deposits) to protect themselves from the abuses so typical of the industry.

There are hosts that specialize in the adult industry since many won't take them. There are others, like some of those mentioned here (and including Dialtone Internet) that do allow adult sites. There are some that don't spam and can be found on mainstream hosts.

The difficulty in choosing an adult host is that fact that many companies don't make it clear in their TOS as to whether they accept them or not (if they do, it's usually hush-hush). There are a number of major hosting companies out there, however, whose revenue relies significantly on adult hosting.

There are a number of reasons as to why people choose not to host adult. In my experience, the major concerns are worries about what kind of stuff will be posted, moral issues, and traffic/storage capacity..

Anyway, I'm kind of rambling. You can find adult hosts @ http://www.hosts4porn.com or http://www.hottesthosts.com.

Rocket .. you seem to love that host .. are you hosted with them ? if so, what's your URL ?

The acceptable use policy of dedicated hosting providers (even those who allow adult sites) usually contains this clause:

--QUOTE--
You may not use your personal home page site to publish material that *******.com determines, at its sole discretion, to be unlawful, indecent or objectionable.
--END QUOTE--

Anyone have an idea what "indecent" is supposed to mean?

uuh just ran a google search on "indecent" and a load of papers discussing the matter came up, e.g.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9603/cda/index2.html

I guess there's no point to restart the same discussion here :)

Really, everyone on the board could give you *their* opinions of what that means, but I'd think it would be better to ask the host directly if your content falls under this clause or not.

Creg3D-
I do not have my own server there. i am a webdesigner and am sharing the space with someone...it is only a part-time deal for me. But they seem to be doing a good job.

Chicken: I have more the impression the hosts don't know either. The wording of this clause seems to be taken from what they call the "communications decency act", and its meaning shall be whatever meaning a court will give to it.

The clause is there for the host to be on the safe side. Whenever complaints should be addressed to the NOC concerning "indecent" content of a website hosted on one of its servers, this clause shall allow them to take that site down no questions asked ("at their sole discretion...") and without being liable for damage caused to the site owner because of downtime.

This is completely arbitrary but that's what the clause means.

Actually it's this "communications decency act" using undetermined terminology, which is the source of all the trouble.

One could therefore argue the hosts are simply protecting themselves. But I find them egoist: ISPs using such an arbitrary clause seek the easiest solution for themselves and don't care about the interests of their clients!

As I recall the Supreme Court found the Communications Decency Act (CDA) unconstitutional.

You recall correctly. The CDA was shot down in the highest court. It is long defunct now and is no longer a law.

That's good to hear. But then even more I'm asking myself if that clause in the acceptable use policy couldn't be replaced by something that also takes into account the rights of hosting customers, at least a little bit?

For example:

1. ISP reserves the right to shut down sites with _CLEARLY ILLEGAL_ content, no questions asked.

2. In other cases, where ISP considers content "indecent" or "maybe illegal", ISP may invite the customer to modify the site or find another host within 30 days.

(just an idea, no legal advise)

Most AUPs and TOS are decidedly slanted and completely ignore fairness and the perspective of the customer. That's for general hosting. For adult sites, it can only be worse, or at least just as bad only with more provisos.

I started a discussion about this last year, in essence asking people to contribute fair terms to the discussion.

This is also one reason why attorneys should not write TOS. It's not their job to run the business or be fair to customers. It's their job to shield their clients as much as possible and make them aware of their liablities. That doesn't have to run contrary to customers' interests, though it might.

Thank you Duster, we're on the same line!

It's generally the same terms for all hosting, but adult webmasters are particularly concerned by an "indecency" clause and the like.

I guess drafting AUP/TOS is an attorney job, but I fully agree with you, they shouldn't completely forget what can reasonably be accepted by the customers.

[Edited by astra4 on 01-06-2001 at 11:22 PM]

We're not on the same line at all and you have missed one point I made. Attorneys should not draft AUP/TOS. That's the job of the business owner. Attorneys should review those policies, not draft them.

The same is true of many other things. In the past, I refused to sign employment contracts that had unfair clauses (written by attorneys) until those clauses were removed.

It's not the job of an attorney to be fair. That's why policies should be set by a business person with a concept of fairness.

It's not the job of an attorney to be fair
---

Neither is it the job of a business owner to be fair, but some fairness is good for the business I guess.

The terms of service are part of the hosting contract and since contract drafting requires some legal skills it's not the worst idea to have an attorney do this job.

The terms of service are "business terms" and it's just normal that they are drafted to serve the interest of the business and not to be "fair".

Well, I still think we're somewhat on the same line, we both don't like arbitrary terms of service ;).

We're not only not on the same page, but we're not on the same book! We may not even be in the same library!


Neither is it the job of a business owner to be fair, but some fairness is good for the business I guess.
Any business that feels that way is not a business I will knowingly do business with. If you have to guess about fairness being a good thing, you have a lot to learn about good business.

You probably feel that sales means putting something over on a customer. While that does happen in many lower level sales, that's not how professionals operate. Professional transactions occur when fair value is recieved on both ends of the transaction.

A properly run business has equity in its transactions. They are fair to the business and fair to its customers. Both parties end up satisfied. Anything else is unbalanced and amateurish, the mark of the mediocre (or worse).


__________________
So as not to mislead, I want to clarify something I said. While it is not the job of an attorney to be fair, contracts which are excessively unbalanced can cause a business to lose in a law suit when it is demonstrated that no reasonable fairness was intended. What I referred to above is some of the finer details in contracts.


[Edited by Duster on 01-07-2001 at 02:16 AM]

Well yes, I just don't see the difference between your point of view and mine :).

I also think that a business should behave in a fair way. But the reason is that in the long run a correct business conduct is indispensable in order to be successful, and not because the company is sort of a charity organization.

Any business with a salvation army type charity CEO is not a business I would buy shares of.

An attorney who drafts terms too arbitrary to be upheld and enforced in a trial isn't a good attorney.

Sometimes attorneys tend to draft long winded, complicated and impossible to read texts (probably to impress their client). For an example see http://www.unitedtec.net/about/tos.htm

However, in general I think it's a good idea to have an attorney make a draft first. It's then up to the business owner to review it if he thinks it doesn't comply with the company's fairness policy.

Fairness has nothing to do with charity. You're not giving anything away by being fair. Being fair is smart and good for the business.

Our perspectives are very different and I've already explained mine as clearly as I can. I would suggest you read In Search of Excellence. You might learn a few things.

Two rules I believe in for any business:

You don't have the attorneys set the policies and you don't let the accountants run the business. Consult with both in their respective fields of expertise, and do the job of a business person, run the business.

Fairness has nothing to do with charity

You're welcome to give a definition.

Being fair is smart and good for the business

Exactly my words.

Our perspectives are very different

If a difference in view is so evident to you, why don't you point out in what that difference consists?

I would suggest you read In Search of Excellence. You might learn a few things

Not worth a comment.

You don't have the attorneys set the policies and you don't let the accountants run the business

Well, unlike other business policies, the acceptable use policy is mainly dictated by internet regulation and contract law, i.e. the "field of expertise" of an attorney.

Originally posted by astra4

You're welcome to give a definition. [of fairness]

I already did. See above.

"Being fair is smart and good for the business"

Exactly my words.

The difference is that you seem to see it as a sales tool while I see it as an integral part of business, a professional one anyway. You did say it's not the job of a business owner to be fair. I disagree.


"If a difference in view is so evident to you, why don't you point out in what that difference consists?"

See above.

Well, unlike other business policies, the acceptable use policy is mainly dictated by internet regulation and contract law, i.e. the "field of expertise" of an attorney.

That's why you have attorneys review the policies, not write them from scratch. When they write them, you end up with complaints like yours
[quote]
"But then even more I'm asking myself if that clause in the acceptable use policy couldn't be replaced by something that also takes into account the rights of hosting customers, at least a little bit?

Case closed.

... you seem to see it [fairness] as a sales tool while I see it as an integral part of business

I say the first and foremost objectif of a business owner is to make profit. He'll therefore seek to offer quality service (fair TOS...) in order to make his clients happy, and at the same time charge as much as possible for this service. If that's what you call "being fair", then indeed "you're not giving anything away by being fair".

But on the other hand you seem to unserstand "fairness" more generally as a synonym of "equity":

--QUOTE--
Professional transactions occur when fair value is recieved on both ends of the transaction.

A properly run business has equity in its transactions.
--END QUOTE--

I agree with this.

Now, what is a "fair value"? The answer to this question is given by market conditions and not by a superior principle of fairness or equity. In contract negotiations a business man seeks the best deal for himself and not make concessions which would make the contract more "equitable" than necessary.

I understand equity as a superior principle of "justice", which can be appreciated objectively e.g. by a court. Such equity type "fairness" is not the job of a business owner, because using other than economic criteria to decide how much to give away would be a charity type approach.

I hope this clarifies what I mean by fairness and still think our positions are not all that far from one another.

Concerning the attorney question:

--QUOTE--
It's not their job to run the business or be fair to customers. It's their job to shield their clients as much as possible and make them aware of their liablities.
--END QUOTE--

When hired for contract drafting, I see the attorney as a consultant. He's not hired to fight the customers :) but rather to do what is good for business. If being fair is good for the business (which is the case) he has to take that into account as well.

Finally it's maybe not all that important who drafts and who reviews. In any case I agree the business owner should have a look at the result and not blindly use what the attorney produced.