First, let me restate something I wrote on the post: I want my service to be free from politics, and I was ready to consider any hosting service that I could trust would allow me to do that.

The word "partisan" is a bit ambiguous in your comment: just to clarify my position, disagreeing with one side (however strongly!) doesn't mean supporting the others.

The reason I wrote that lengthy argument against choosing Scaleway for this project, is that Scaleway was in a grey area for me: while it is obvious that the other two providers I mentioned aren't a good fit for this particular project, Scaleway is extremely competitive in many regards, and I've had to go through a lengthy reasoning to imagine what could go wrong for this particular project.

That said, I can see how a lengthy reasoning shouldn't always imply a lengthy phrasing, and in fact I agree that the statement in the post seems to mean the opposite of what I meant: since I wrote many more words about Scaleway, it does seem like I was trying to be mean to them, which is quite the opposite of what I really meant.

So, thanks for making me see that, I've fixed it in the post.

> but saying they "organized a militia against its fellow citizens" is about as honest as saying "the US government is running extermination camps" because it detains immigrants.

Detaining migrants is not exterminating them. Private people paid by to go beat up random protesters are usually called militiae. Moreover, Valeurs Actuelles is quite different from Fox News: in particular, Fox News is not explicitly promoting the slavery of black people, nor promoting military coups against the US government.

My only point here is: I believe people should be able to express and discuss any opinion that doesn't contradict my freedom to disagree. Note that in my (now amended) blog post, I didn't mention anything "political" in the sense of "open to debate".

> Scaleway is out of bounds because its largest owner is a supporter of the President of the Republic

Sorry, but you got that completely wrong. I obviously failed to communicate an essential difference I see between what I call politics (i.e. debatable opinions) and the "other thing", which is a denial of the basic right of others to disagree.

My point in the post was, someone who buys press outlets might not hesitate to do the same for contents they dislike on web services they host, or at least there is no strong indication that they won't do that. Given the fact that some cloud providers have done it in other European countries (as stated in the blog post), I wouldn't be surprised myself.

But even more strongly, I don't understand what to expect from that "other thing", and that scares me.

> What's next, you're not allowed to connect to a Pijul database if your ISP is Free

Again completely wrong (ironically, my mobile phone is on Free, and I've never used another ISP at home): the perspective from an ISP point of view is different from the hosting point of view. If one ISP decides to censor a website, this doesn't hurt the website very much, since users can change at a very low cost. This doesn't apply for cloud hosting, where the cost of moving can be really high.

> You're not allowed to contribute to the code if you were taught at the 42 School? (yes, I'm caricaturing, but still)

How is that even remotely connected to the issue of deciding where to host a web service?

> But advertising "we won't work with this company because a shareholder is a support of the president and the president went on French Fox News once" is the kind of ultra-divisive

It is actually the opposite of divisive: I want my service to be usable by people regardless of their political opinions, and this is only compatible with basic values of respect, tolerance and free speech. What I'm talking about here is even weaker than free speech, it's only the right to disagree without being humiliated (caricatured as a slave) or beaten up.