4 ms·
> "It's important that what we did today not set a precedent," Prince added. "The right answer is for us to be consistently content neutral." Huh? What changed
by untangle 9y ago
> "It's important that what we did today not set a precedent," Prince added. "The right answer is for us to be consistently content neutral."
Huh? What changed then – why even do it? Cloudflare's action today could set a dangerous precedent. Prince now seems to be arguing for a committee of some sort to arbitrate who gets taken down. To me, that's not much better.
IMO the internet should be free. Let filtering be conducted at the edge and driven by users.
- aplummer 9y agoI find the free speech thing to be unappealing in the anything goes case. Like what if you trace an anti-vaxxer website causally to enough dead children. What if it's not even the person visiting the site's children. Should your children be at risk because this garbage inspires loons? Is there really a slippery slope if you just ban nazis, or is it the slippery slope fallacy. I think a lot of people who haven't visited it would change their minds about totally free speech being so infallible if they went to Berkenau
- docdeek 9y agoI think the problem lies in defining who a Nazi is. At Birkenau it is clear, and for a lot/most/all of those chanting ‘blood and soil’ in Charlottesville it is pretty clear, too. There are many shades of grey between right wing and Nazi, though, and if we decide that Nazi speech is to be banned then we also need to start drawing a very clear line as to what is ‘Nazi enough to ban’ and what is just ‘approaching Nazi’. I’m live and work in a country where the public denial of crimes against humanity is punished by fines and prison. I don’t deny crimes like the Holocaust or Srebrenica or Rwanda and I despise the people who do, but I still feel uncomfortable with laws that criminalise that sort of speech. This situation is not exactly the same - Daily Stormer can probably find someone else to support their site - but there’s something to the slippery slope argument.
- patrickg_zill 9y agoIn USA, anything less than full throated adherence to the party line of a San Francisco Marxist professor, is labeled "Nazi" by someone, somewhere.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- celticninja 9y agoI think if you are marching with a swastika flag then you get the Nazi moniker regardless of what your exact political stance is.
- andriesm 9y agoNo forget all this labeling of people as Nazis.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoPeople who march under the swastika banner, adorn themselves with Nazi iconography, chant 'blood and soil' and identify themselves as Nazi can legitimately be labelled as Nazi. The term is often over-used; not in this case.
- aplummer 9y agoI'm not surprised about the downvotes, I would point out they had nazi flags and yelled a known nazi slogan as a group.
- aplummer 9y agoWow down-voted again on this post for pointing out two simple facts about the rally. It would be great to get a comment from the anon on here about what was so wrong.
- celticninja 9y agoThey clarified why they changed their position in this instance. Daily Stormer started telling people that Clodflare and Prince supported them, this took away from the neutral content provider stance that cloudlfare took. If daily stormer had not mentioned cloudlfare they would still be able to use its services.
- Sacho 9y agoWhat exactly did the Daily Stormer say about Cloudflare and Prince? I haven't found a source for it anywhere.
- celticninja 9y agoI believe it was on their site as the articles usually say something like: "the web blog's administrators suggested Cloudflare was protecting them because it secretly agreed with the site's neo-Nazi articles." So you need to visit the site to confirm why cloudlfare dropped them and their site is down because Cloudlfare dropped them. Joseph Heller would be proud.