6 ms·

> If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely. The issue here is more nuanced. It's about any site on the

> If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely. The issue here is more nuanced. It's about any site on the Internet being censored by a mob. That's why the YouTube or Facebook analogies don't hold. You could always host the content yourself. But DDoS can knock out any unprotected host anywhere. And DDoS protection isn't really something you can DIY. So the issue here is not about being silenced by a corporate vendor. It's about being silenced, period, wherever you host.

mirimir 9y ago
It's harder to DDoS Tor onion sites.
jamespo 9y ago
Comes down to the argument of "how dare you be intolerant of my intolerance"
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I think we're all intolerant of hate. Some of us just think that due process should be applied even when the conclusion is obvious.
- abalone 9y ago
  It really doesn't. The issue is what is an acceptable way to express that intolerance: with speech or by forcefully shutting the mouths of those you disagree with?
  - jamespo 9y ago
    DDoS attacks could be considered forcefully shutting those mouths, and I don't agree with that. Do you propose forcing a private entity (Cloudflare et al) to publish those they disagree with?
    - abalone 9y ago
      You raise a very good question. We agree that DDoS is the digital equivalent of forcing someone to shut up, and that is contrary to freedom of speech. It's also true that private entities don't have any legal obligation to honor freedom of speech. Certainly you or I would not enjoy Instagram more if there was a bunch of hate speech on it. But we can make a distinction between destinations, like Instagram, and infrastructure, like streets and public parks and libraries that allows you to access the destinations of your choice. DDoS is something that kicks people off of the very infrastructure of the Internet itself, thus denying others the choice to visit them. The underlying problem is that core Internet infrastructure is managed by private entities. This is unlike "meatspace" where there are public spaces protected by the police / government who block the physical equivalent of DDoS (duct taping mouths / burning down printing presses). So, what does this mean as more of our communication as a society moves into the digital realm? Is it a blessing that it is more privately managed, empowering those managers to block "bad" speech? Or should we extend the same "meatspace" principles of free speech for all by requiring Internet infrastructure providers to provide unimpeded access to all?
      - jamespo 9y ago
        Part of the problem with this is that on the internet, extreme ideologies have a reach that is impossible and hence manageable in "meatspace".
howlgram 9y ago
Free speech doesn't stop a child's parents from shunning him when he swears at them, free speech doesn't mean that you get to yell in church with diplomatic immunity towards being silenced, free speech doesn't mean that you go around soliciting sex in public without possibly getting arrested. You get silenced if you act like a cunt, that's freedom, and it's not an issue.
- lmm 9y ago
  All those things are contrary to the principle of free speech. There are some things we consider important enough to override that principle - the right to avoid people you don't like, or to form a private association that excludes people you don't like (I won't get into the sex one because there's no clear simple principle there, rather we have a lot of complex and entangled notions). It's important that a small private business should have the right to not do business with someone they don't want to do business with, but that's not an absolute principle, just as free speech is not[1]. Or rather, all of our principles can come into conflict. The idea that an entity that processes 10% of internet traffic can exclude someone from expressing their opinions - vile and hateful as they may be - via that entity, is scary. Scarier than not being able to express a given opinion in many countries, frankly. I'm not even saying CloudFlare is necessarily in the wrong here, but it's certainly not a non-issue. [1] Not to be confused with the US First Amendment, which is very close to absolute where it applies, but does not apply to many cases where the principle of free speech is relevant.
  - intended 9y ago
    It is a non issue. Look, the spirit behind free speech is the principle of the bazaar of ideas. The place where everyone can meet, exchange and learn. If someone sells something and it's distasteful, well you learn that you don't like it. That's the spirit, which too many people don't understand, or don't go far enough to understand. In this bazaar are now thugs, they sell wares designed to disrupt the bazaar, to addict customers, and to stop more complex goods from being sold. They choose to disrupt the bazaar, and they count on those who repeat "free speech", to tie themselves down and not stop them. Like a child taunting someone by saying "prove that 2+2 is not = 5." Valid questions which have hard proofs are regularly used to tie up discussion. It's done intentionally in order to "win". There's no victory here- the opposition isn't playing by the rules. when there is no good faith, then there is no discussion.
sdenton4 9y ago
Ok cool. The question stands. How do you feel about ISIS does? Do you leave terrorist recruitment up or take it down? And if ISIS does have to go, why are white terrorists different?
- abalone 9y ago
  Good questions. The EFF answers them better than I could: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/industry-efforts-censor-pro-terrorism-online-content-pose-risks-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/industry-efforts-censo...

mirimir 9y ago

It's harder to DDoS Tor onion sites.

jamespo 9y ago

Comes down to the argument of "how dare you be intolerant of my intolerance"

humanrebar 9y ago
I think we're all intolerant of hate. Some of us just think that due process should be applied even when the conclusion is obvious.
abalone 9y ago
It really doesn't. The issue is what is an acceptable way to express that intolerance: with speech or by forcefully shutting the mouths of those you disagree with?
- jamespo 9y ago
  DDoS attacks could be considered forcefully shutting those mouths, and I don't agree with that. Do you propose forcing a private entity (Cloudflare et al) to publish those they disagree with?
  - abalone 9y ago
    You raise a very good question. We agree that DDoS is the digital equivalent of forcing someone to shut up, and that is contrary to freedom of speech. It's also true that private entities don't have any legal obligation to honor freedom of speech. Certainly you or I would not enjoy Instagram more if there was a bunch of hate speech on it. But we can make a distinction between destinations, like Instagram, and infrastructure, like streets and public parks and libraries that allows you to access the destinations of your choice. DDoS is something that kicks people off of the very infrastructure of the Internet itself, thus denying others the choice to visit them. The underlying problem is that core Internet infrastructure is managed by private entities. This is unlike "meatspace" where there are public spaces protected by the police / government who block the physical equivalent of DDoS (duct taping mouths / burning down printing presses). So, what does this mean as more of our communication as a society moves into the digital realm? Is it a blessing that it is more privately managed, empowering those managers to block "bad" speech? Or should we extend the same "meatspace" principles of free speech for all by requiring Internet infrastructure providers to provide unimpeded access to all?
    - jamespo 9y ago
      Part of the problem with this is that on the internet, extreme ideologies have a reach that is impossible and hence manageable in "meatspace".

howlgram 9y ago

Free speech doesn't stop a child's parents from shunning him when he swears at them, free speech doesn't mean that you get to yell in church with diplomatic immunity towards being silenced, free speech doesn't mean that you go around soliciting sex in public without possibly getting arrested. You get silenced if you act like a cunt, that's freedom, and it's not an issue.

lmm 9y ago
All those things are contrary to the principle of free speech. There are some things we consider important enough to override that principle - the right to avoid people you don't like, or to form a private association that excludes people you don't like (I won't get into the sex one because there's no clear simple principle there, rather we have a lot of complex and entangled notions). It's important that a small private business should have the right to not do business with someone they don't want to do business with, but that's not an absolute principle, just as free speech is not[1]. Or rather, all of our principles can come into conflict. The idea that an entity that processes 10% of internet traffic can exclude someone from expressing their opinions - vile and hateful as they may be - via that entity, is scary. Scarier than not being able to express a given opinion in many countries, frankly. I'm not even saying CloudFlare is necessarily in the wrong here, but it's certainly not a non-issue. [1] Not to be confused with the US First Amendment, which is very close to absolute where it applies, but does not apply to many cases where the principle of free speech is relevant.
- intended 9y ago
  It is a non issue. Look, the spirit behind free speech is the principle of the bazaar of ideas. The place where everyone can meet, exchange and learn. If someone sells something and it's distasteful, well you learn that you don't like it. That's the spirit, which too many people don't understand, or don't go far enough to understand. In this bazaar are now thugs, they sell wares designed to disrupt the bazaar, to addict customers, and to stop more complex goods from being sold. They choose to disrupt the bazaar, and they count on those who repeat "free speech", to tie themselves down and not stop them. Like a child taunting someone by saying "prove that 2+2 is not = 5." Valid questions which have hard proofs are regularly used to tie up discussion. It's done intentionally in order to "win". There's no victory here- the opposition isn't playing by the rules. when there is no good faith, then there is no discussion.

sdenton4 9y ago

Ok cool. The question stands. How do you feel about ISIS does? Do you leave terrorist recruitment up or take it down? And if ISIS does have to go, why are white terrorists different?

abalone 9y ago
Good questions. The EFF answers them better than I could: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/industry-efforts-censor-pro-terrorism-online-content-pose-risks-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/industry-efforts-censo...