4 ms·
That's not why they took them down. You can argue for censoring threatening dangerous terrorist speech all you want but it is incorrect to suggest that is the s
by abalone 9y ago
That's not why they took them down. You can argue for censoring threatening dangerous terrorist speech all you want but it is incorrect to suggest that is the stance cloudflare took. They censored because stormfront falsely claimed cloudflare sympathized with their cause and pissed of the CEO. Not because the speech itself presented a clear and present danger.
Foreign hosts are not really the right solution to freedom of speech on the internet. First of all it depends on the agreeability with the opinion rather than the right to express it. But moreover they can be DDoS'd just the same without a service like cloudflare. Cloudflare is a proxy not a host.
The core problem is that the Internet is a modern public space while its management has been handled by private entities. Cloudflare is essentially performing the function of the police permitting the KKK to march, which the US constitution permits. They don't have to do it as a private entity, but if DDoS becomes the norm for unpopular speech then the internet is no longer a public space, just a space for views that don't get DDoS'd.
- aluhut 9y agoWhat is this "public space" statement based on? Only because I can go there? Like in a shop or restaurant? So if I set up a server as a private person, it's a "public space" too? Looks like some heavy reality bending for a questionable cause to me.
- abalone 9y agoNo, your server, shops and restaurants are private spaces. The Internet, the park and the street are public spaces. The questionable cause you speak of is the right to express views in public spaces. DDoS is the internet equivalent of a mob censoring public speech. Proxies like cloudflare are the equivalent of the police protecting the right to speak, no matter the view. Remember that these principles, which date to the Enlightenment, work for all views and have benefited the civil rights, antiwar, suffragist, environment and other movements immeasurably.
- Akujin 9y agoYou do realize that "the internet" is a giant web of mostly private servers right? And therefor not a public space. It's not a park or a street. But even if it was. You must get a permit just like in real life. Which a private entity doesn't have to grant you. Because you know... personal freedom.
- abalone 9y agoStreets are a giant network of mostly private destinations. The streets themselves are public, and the public has a right to access. Cloudflare is operating on the streets level, not the destination level.
- Akujin 9y agoThis is blatantly wrong. Streets are a giant network of publically owned land which is why they are public. Seriously. What are you even talking about?
- Ygg2 9y agoServers aren't necessarily the most expensive part of Internet - it's the last mile. Last mile isn't privately owned in Europe. Not to mention access to Internet is considered a basic right in some countries. So grand parent makes compelling case, just not in US laws.
- askbjoernhansen 9y agoCloudflare got taken over by the government? That’s surely a surprise to everyone and big news...
- astrange 9y agoWe have regulations about ISP filtering (you know, net neutrality?) but they certainly don’t apply to Cloudflare!
- 9y ago
- ncallaway 9y ago> Cloudflare is essentially performing the function of the police permitting the KKK to march, which the US constitution permits The better analogy is that Cloudflare is performing the function of private security instead of a police force. The United State government doesn't require any private entities to provide armed security for political groups they dislike (in fact, the US government couldn't make such a mandate as the mandate itself would fall afoul of the first amendment). If we believe that there must be a steward of this resource that should provide this kind of service in a first amendment protected manner, then we should advocate that the government offer DDoS protection services.
- abalone 9y agoI agree. As our society moves more to Internet-based communication we must consider how to preserve and apply the principles of free speech when so much of it is governed by private entities. Is free speech not a desirable trait? Is it merely something that racists exploit, and thus the move to autocratic private management is a blessing, a relief from the constitutional shackles that would compel, say, a law enforcement officer to beat back a mob intent on torching a KKK newspaper? Is that a better world? Remember that these same principles apply to progressive views as well... which have not historically been as popular, and greatly benefited from free speech protections. I would say we would not be where we are now as a society without them.
- saimiam 9y agoI don't understand your downvotes. I agree with the overall point you are making. Private ownership, for better or worse, is leading to the erosion of free speech itself. Taken to its logical end, a society where everything is conducted through private enterprise is going to turn quiescent or hew to the middle at the very least. As a brown immigrant currently living/working in the States I'm not a Nazi sympathizer by any stretch but I wanted to post in support of your broader point.
- abalone 9y agoMuch appreciated. I'm as Left as they come. It is a bit odd to be arguing basic free speech, Enlightenment principles in this day and age. I think we're all having an emotional moment. But it's good, it's healthy to scrutinize our beliefs and ensure they stand up to challenge. (Which is why freedom of speech is so important.)