5 ms·

I don't follow; CloudFlare is not the government, therefore freedom of expression isn't really the issue here. Who they choose to give a voice to says a lot abo

I don't follow; CloudFlare is not the government, therefore freedom of expression isn't really the issue here. Who they choose to give a voice to says a lot about them. I would oppose the government censoring ISIS; however, I would be proud of any company that refused to to business with them.

gozo 11y ago
Shouldn't you also be upset over all the other service providers including your own ISP that also doesn't block those sites? Unless it's specifically against protecting people against criminal activity, in which case we are really going down a slippery slope.
- voidlogic 11y ago
  >Shouldn't you also be upset over all the other service providers including your own ISP that also doesn't block those sites? I would argue that the moral dilemma is different if you choose to allow ISIS traffic to pass through you, vs have them as a client.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    I would argue it's better for them to have their own site rather than fostering a samizdat culture.
  - erkkie 11y ago
    It might, but the business model Cloudflare is on makes the distinction less clear. For example with their free plans would they need to identify all clients, scan their content and judge accordingly? For paid clients, I might be more sympathetic to the argument, but even then the (moral?) rules (for nonbusiness) are incredibly tricky to figure out and keep consistent. Selective enforcement is bad for everyone in the uncertainty it spawns.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      >For example with their free plans would they need to identify all clients, scan their content and judge accordingly? Ever heard of this little thing called abuse reports?
ceejayoz 11y ago
> Who they choose to give a voice to says a lot about them. I don't think they're choosing to give anyone specific a voice. I think they're choosing not to make judgement calls. Once you start blocking anyone, you've weakened your ability to refuse to block others. You'd see greater demands for blocking Wikileaks, censoring articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime, enforcing Europe's right-to-be-forgotten, etc. on the basis of "well you were willing to block ISIS".
hackinthebochs 11y ago
CloudFlare isn't the government, and so they are under no legal obligation to allow certain content. But their hands-off approach is precisely what gives them the rational standing not to censor any website any group finds distasteful. Furthermore, the threat of censorship does not only come from governments. I don't want to live in a world where a handful of corporations can decide what speech is allowed to be disseminated. Opinions like yours lead us head first to such a world.
JesperRavn 11y ago
If no ISP will host your content, then your message cannot reach anyone, and you effectively have no freedom of expression. I wonder why you oppose government censorship, if you applaud private businesses achieving the same effect? Certainly your reasons cant be the same as the post you're replying to[0], and so you're missing their point. [0] in particular Are there ideas so dangerous that they do not deserve to be exposed to public discourse and judged on their merits? I don't think so.

gozo 11y ago

Shouldn't you also be upset over all the other service providers including your own ISP that also doesn't block those sites? Unless it's specifically against protecting people against criminal activity, in which case we are really going down a slippery slope.

voidlogic 11y ago
>Shouldn't you also be upset over all the other service providers including your own ISP that also doesn't block those sites? I would argue that the moral dilemma is different if you choose to allow ISIS traffic to pass through you, vs have them as a client.
- duaneb 11y ago
  I would argue it's better for them to have their own site rather than fostering a samizdat culture.
- erkkie 11y ago
  It might, but the business model Cloudflare is on makes the distinction less clear. For example with their free plans would they need to identify all clients, scan their content and judge accordingly? For paid clients, I might be more sympathetic to the argument, but even then the (moral?) rules (for nonbusiness) are incredibly tricky to figure out and keep consistent. Selective enforcement is bad for everyone in the uncertainty it spawns.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    >For example with their free plans would they need to identify all clients, scan their content and judge accordingly? Ever heard of this little thing called abuse reports?

ceejayoz 11y ago

> Who they choose to give a voice to says a lot about them. I don't think they're choosing to give anyone specific a voice. I think they're choosing not to make judgement calls. Once you start blocking anyone, you've weakened your ability to refuse to block others. You'd see greater demands for blocking Wikileaks, censoring articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime, enforcing Europe's right-to-be-forgotten, etc. on the basis of "well you were willing to block ISIS".

hackinthebochs 11y ago

CloudFlare isn't the government, and so they are under no legal obligation to allow certain content. But their hands-off approach is precisely what gives them the rational standing not to censor any website any group finds distasteful. Furthermore, the threat of censorship does not only come from governments. I don't want to live in a world where a handful of corporations can decide what speech is allowed to be disseminated. Opinions like yours lead us head first to such a world.

JesperRavn 11y ago

If no ISP will host your content, then your message cannot reach anyone, and you effectively have no freedom of expression. I wonder why you oppose government censorship, if you applaud private businesses achieving the same effect? Certainly your reasons cant be the same as the post you're replying to[0], and so you're missing their point. [0] in particular Are there ideas so dangerous that they do not deserve to be exposed to public discourse and judged on their merits? I don't think so.