> I compared the Linode and AWS terms of service and neither has anything like this.
"No Illegal, Harmful, or Offensive Use or Content" is literally the first point in the AWS ToS and is all about what is "offensive" http://aws.amazon.com/aup/
> You may not use, or encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to use, the Services or AWS Site for any illegal, harmful or offensive use, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, or offensive.
That's pretty standard boilerplate language for a ToS. It essentially protects DO from someone suing them because a client is doing something offensive (like say, running a mail server to email the Goatse pic to as many people as possible)
Wouldn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio... protect them regardless?
Yes. And their lawyers know that. This is a permission to kick any client they wish, but it looks like it is boilerplate protection from abuse stuff.
Re:The Meteoric Rise of DigitalOcean
by trekky1700 on Thursday June 13, 2013 @05:31PM
(#5876717)
Wait, people actually read the Terms of Service?
If you're going to use it for your business it might be a good idea.
Most "people" don't, but if you're on Hacker News, I'm going to assume you're a little more tech-oriented than most "people."
In that case, check out ToS's on the services you use. They're, suprisingly, usually not that long or hard to read.
"2.5 You agree that you will NOT use DigitalOcean's services to: [..] Transmit, distribute, post, store, link, or otherwise traffic in information, software, or materials that is offensive, abusive, inappropriate, malicious, or detrimental"
Almost anything can be offensive to someone. I compared the Linode and AWS terms of service and neither has anything like this. While none of my own content is by any means extreme, the presence of this provision seems like a red flag and has kept me from switching to DO.