4 ms·

Actions speak much louder than words. They did it knowing it violated their principles yet they want to eat their cake and have it too. We wouldn't give anoth

Actions speak much louder than words. They did it knowing it violated their principles yet they want to eat their cake and have it too. We wouldn't give another corporation the same benefit of the doubt, but because they are in tech we're willing to use a double standard.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
They were absolutely right in what they did. Free speech does not mean you have to give a platform to people you find abhorrent.
- slededit 8y ago
  That's fine, but if CloudFlare believes that then they shouldn't write long winded blog posts explaining how they believe the exact opposite immediately after de-platforming someone. Its the two-faced nature of it I object to.
- trothamel 8y ago
  Being a common carrier does, though. If they want to be treated like a common carrier - and I think there's a reasonable case for treating infrastructure providers like that - they should be expected to act like one.
  - omnimus 8y ago
    Well i would like to see you if some hardcore communists were claiming you are supporting them because you let them use your service? Its private company - those can choose who they make bussiness with. Also lets not forget they are nothing like carrier. Carrier laws exist because there is no possible alternative. This is just CDN we are talking about. You can quite easily replace it, even yourself.
- atmosx 8y ago
  > Free speech does not mean you have to give a platform to people you find abhorrent. From wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction." A platform either supports free speech or it doesn't. Most of them do not. That's fine as long as we (and they) understand the difference between freedom and censorship. Freedom is awesome but comes at a cost, censorship is good too but comes at a cost...
- simias 8y ago
  I sort of agree with the parent. They clearly had the right to do what they did, and the world is probably a better place for it but then if they're willing to bend their "neutrality" principle for that then why not for other things? And let's be clear, I'm not taking the stance that they shouldn't refuse service to hate speech websites, I'm saying that IMO they morally and ethically should strive not to provide service to obvious scams and malware websites either. I really don't think that the "common carrier" angle holds any water. An ISP requires infrastructure and as a user you don't even have a lot of choice about which one you use. Even if you do have a choice it's not like you can change your ISP easily and quickly. That's why "common carrier" and net neutrality make some sense in that context. Cloudflare is much closer to a web host than an ISP. You can still very much host websites that will be accessible by everybody without Cloudflare's help. If OVH hosted spammers and botnets and refused to do anything about it under the guise of "free speech" would we consider that a good thing? Is it really all that noble?

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago

They were absolutely right in what they did. Free speech does not mean you have to give a platform to people you find abhorrent.

slededit 8y ago
That's fine, but if CloudFlare believes that then they shouldn't write long winded blog posts explaining how they believe the exact opposite immediately after de-platforming someone. Its the two-faced nature of it I object to.
trothamel 8y ago
Being a common carrier does, though. If they want to be treated like a common carrier - and I think there's a reasonable case for treating infrastructure providers like that - they should be expected to act like one.
- omnimus 8y ago
  Well i would like to see you if some hardcore communists were claiming you are supporting them because you let them use your service? Its private company - those can choose who they make bussiness with. Also lets not forget they are nothing like carrier. Carrier laws exist because there is no possible alternative. This is just CDN we are talking about. You can quite easily replace it, even yourself.
atmosx 8y ago
> Free speech does not mean you have to give a platform to people you find abhorrent. From wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction." A platform either supports free speech or it doesn't. Most of them do not. That's fine as long as we (and they) understand the difference between freedom and censorship. Freedom is awesome but comes at a cost, censorship is good too but comes at a cost...
simias 8y ago
I sort of agree with the parent. They clearly had the right to do what they did, and the world is probably a better place for it but then if they're willing to bend their "neutrality" principle for that then why not for other things? And let's be clear, I'm not taking the stance that they shouldn't refuse service to hate speech websites, I'm saying that IMO they morally and ethically should strive not to provide service to obvious scams and malware websites either. I really don't think that the "common carrier" angle holds any water. An ISP requires infrastructure and as a user you don't even have a lot of choice about which one you use. Even if you do have a choice it's not like you can change your ISP easily and quickly. That's why "common carrier" and net neutrality make some sense in that context. Cloudflare is much closer to a web host than an ISP. You can still very much host websites that will be accessible by everybody without Cloudflare's help. If OVH hosted spammers and botnets and refused to do anything about it under the guise of "free speech" would we consider that a good thing? Is it really all that noble?