3 ms·

Here's my comment from the Cloudflare thread, sitting at -4. > But what's the end game? Do service providers have to morally support those who they provide ser

Here's my comment from the Cloudflare thread, sitting at -4. > But what's the end game? Do service providers have to morally support those who they provide service to? Because that's how things are looking. And what do you know. That's exactly what's happening.

Angostura 9y ago
I don’t think that service providers have to suppport them. Just not find them morally entirely repugnant. There's quite a lot of ground between those two points.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Someone in that thread, unironically, said that Google etc. had to allow Nazi's to use their services. And then immediately said "Whatever happened to "Don't be evil"?". Apparently the concept that providing your services to Nazi's could be thought of as evil totally escaped their thoughts. It seems like quite a lot of people have deeply internalized the opinion that "Free Speech" is an unalloyed good, and are confused by anyone who sees this as a matter of shades of gray. I'd argue, the people looking at things in black and white are the ones' being ridiculous here. Is child porn free speech? Is a direct threat free speech? Is copyright infringment? etc. No matter how hardcore a free speech advocate you find, there's going to be a line for them. But apparently anyone who draws their line one step to the side of that is evil and/or stupid because that is the point where the slippery slope starts, conveniently just to the side of their own line, which is on firm and solid ground.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Not necessarily evil, but attempting to abridge their rights.
- leereeves 9y ago
  And would you draw that line so far toward censorship that you would ban a platform merely for not practicing censorship? (Gab)
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Unless the platform that hosts it, has made the same uncompromising decision, then of course. It would be like hosting an app that freely declares it will host viruses on your platform that scans for viruses. They're telling you upfront that they have no intention of following your platform rules. Not accidentally letting a few slip through, not being overwhelmed by scale and doing a crappy job, but as a point of principle not following the rules you are trying to enforce.
    - smokeyj 9y ago
      What about links to archive.org? Surely they're not an extremist organization.
- mcbruiser3 9y ago
  the difficulty with shades of gray wrt to free speech is that what is intolerable is a matter of opinion and I don't trust ANYONE to make that decision for me. free speech must be absolute, so yes, in this case it is black and white, sorry you don't see it that way.
  - mcbruiser3 9y ago
    um, why is this being downvoted? does anyone seriously want to live in a censored world? seriously? man, we're more doomed than I thought :(
    - leereeves 9y ago
      Certainly, a lot of people want to live in a censored world, as long as they agree with the censors.
      - mcbruiser3 9y ago
        because... they can't handle being offended? are people really that delicate?

Angostura 9y ago

I don’t think that service providers have to suppport them. Just not find them morally entirely repugnant. There's quite a lot of ground between those two points.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Someone in that thread, unironically, said that Google etc. had to allow Nazi's to use their services. And then immediately said "Whatever happened to "Don't be evil"?". Apparently the concept that providing your services to Nazi's could be thought of as evil totally escaped their thoughts. It seems like quite a lot of people have deeply internalized the opinion that "Free Speech" is an unalloyed good, and are confused by anyone who sees this as a matter of shades of gray. I'd argue, the people looking at things in black and white are the ones' being ridiculous here. Is child porn free speech? Is a direct threat free speech? Is copyright infringment? etc. No matter how hardcore a free speech advocate you find, there's going to be a line for them. But apparently anyone who draws their line one step to the side of that is evil and/or stupid because that is the point where the slippery slope starts, conveniently just to the side of their own line, which is on firm and solid ground.

ameister14 9y ago
Not necessarily evil, but attempting to abridge their rights.
leereeves 9y ago
And would you draw that line so far toward censorship that you would ban a platform merely for not practicing censorship? (Gab)
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Unless the platform that hosts it, has made the same uncompromising decision, then of course. It would be like hosting an app that freely declares it will host viruses on your platform that scans for viruses. They're telling you upfront that they have no intention of following your platform rules. Not accidentally letting a few slip through, not being overwhelmed by scale and doing a crappy job, but as a point of principle not following the rules you are trying to enforce.
  - smokeyj 9y ago
    What about links to archive.org? Surely they're not an extremist organization.
mcbruiser3 9y ago
the difficulty with shades of gray wrt to free speech is that what is intolerable is a matter of opinion and I don't trust ANYONE to make that decision for me. free speech must be absolute, so yes, in this case it is black and white, sorry you don't see it that way.
- mcbruiser3 9y ago
  um, why is this being downvoted? does anyone seriously want to live in a censored world? seriously? man, we're more doomed than I thought :(
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Certainly, a lot of people want to live in a censored world, as long as they agree with the censors.
    - mcbruiser3 9y ago
      because... they can't handle being offended? are people really that delicate?