5 ms·

A lot of not-so-subtle support for 8chan leaking into this thread. Cloudfare aren't a government. They aren't a democracy. I don't know why some people seem to

A lot of not-so-subtle support for 8chan leaking into this thread. Cloudfare aren't a government. They aren't a democracy. I don't know why some people seem to think they should act any differently. If you own a notice board in the real world, and someone put something horrible on it, you would take it down. This is no different.

ng12 7y ago
The problem is we live in a digital society, and comparing Cloudflare to a notice board is wildly reductionist.
ReptileMan 7y ago
They are utility though. Have you thought about that people support neutrality/common carrier style behavior with 8chan existing being the acceptable price to pay and not 8 chan itself?
- King-Aaron 7y ago
  They are not a utility. At all. They are not comparable to your water or your electricity in any way. They are comparable to a self-storage place you might keep your boat. Or an office you might rent to house your business. But they are not anything like a utility.
- ridgeguy 7y ago
  At some point, the price is unacceptable in light of the benefits conferred. And Cloudflare isn't a utility. I agree with Cloudflare's decision. I hope whichever host 8chan runs to will do the same. Free speech is not a suicide pact.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  A common carrier is a specific thing. They're not one.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  Generally, utilities have a regional pseudo-monopoly. It’s unlikely more than one entity runs electric or phone lines to your house, say. CDNs aren’t really utilities, and most of them have long been pretty picky (most won’t deal in porn, say).
- 481092 7y ago
  They host and indirectly disseminate media, just like a news network. Do you expect Fox or CNN to host views they don't find acceptable? If we're going to accept that biased media is legal (news networks) then biased media is legal (Cloudflare), although you'd have a harder time making a case of bias against Cloudflare in comparison to the former.
  - berryfarm 7y ago
    Fox and CNN are indeed liable for what they display because they are publishers. They control the content. That's kind of the point. Cloudflare and social media co's naturally want to be protected as a platform. If they start controlling the content in an ad hoc it's a lot harder for them to claim that.
sb057 7y ago
The problem is that a company named Noticeboardflare has practically monopolized protection of noticeboards, and that if you do not have their approval, your noticeboard is impractical to operate.
- King-Aaron 7y ago
  Well yes, and ultimately noticeboardflare has the right to do whatever the hell they want. And if your noticeboard is inciting nearly weekly mass homicides, maybe the noticeboard you're trying to support is a shitty noticeboard.
  - busymom0 7y ago
    > you're trying to support This isn't about "supporting" someone's views. This is about simply allowing one to speak. Otherwise Google should be held liable for every single illegal thing that happens on their platform (and there are ton of those).
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - ViViDboarder 7y ago
      I don’t think Cloudflare is trying to claim liability (that would be a bad move on their part), but just that they want no part of that kind of behavior. They don’t want to take money from or enable that kind of behavior in any way. Why shouldn’t they have that choice?
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      You don't owe anything to people who are trying to kill you.
      - pferde 7y ago
        What if they are trying to kill you because you owe them something? :)
saagarjha 7y ago
The problem is that Cloudflare keeps trying to position themselves as not being in the business of deciding what can be on the internet, but they have twice made the decision to do so. Also, since you mentioned it and hence made this disclaimer obligatory: I have zero sympathy for 8chan, and I don't agree with the views espoused there.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  They are making it crystal clear that they "do not take this decision lightly." Not everything has to be so black and white.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Unfortunately the greater population will see it as black and white. Cloudflare has repeatedly worked with gray-area sites and stood by their principles that they were neutral and would only respond to law enforcement. Their previous choice with the Dailystormer can be seen as an exception, especially with supporting material that the site was also blaming Cloudflare. Making the choice twice now calls into question hundreds of other properties they work with, and may open the floodgates for all that criticism they have shielded against so far.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- frabbit 7y ago
  That is exactly it. Once they have expressed a private moral judgement about what they consider acceptable they have opened themselves up to being accountable for all the other content they do allow.
  - meowface 7y ago
    Most providers make hundreds or thousands of decisions like this per year. Cloudflare doing it twice ever in 10 years of existence, both times in response to ideologically-inspired mass murder and platforms that stoked the flames (intentionally in the first case and by negligence/refusal in this case), doesn't really mean much.
0x445442 7y ago
As long as they can be sued for liable the way any other publisher can I have no problem with them pulling 8chan. If they're going to selectively hide behind section 230 to promote their political agenda then I do, they can't have it both ways and I hope congress clamps down on this.
- 481092 7y ago
  Do you complain when liberal writers don't get hosted on Fox News? Or when liberal guests don't get as much air time as conservatives? Do you want congress to clamp down and make all sides get equal air time and newspaper time? This 'everyone should host my political agenda and his agenda....ad infinitum, all equally in time and space', is not just ridiculous but impossible. They're a private company doing the same as CNN or Fox, deciding not to host what they don't agree with.
- root_axis 7y ago
  It is their prerogative to operate their business in a partisan fashion if that is their desire. If you don't like their business practices then you can protest, boycott, and spread the word.
  - d0100 7y ago
    This is very bad for minorities
- sschueller 7y ago
  The EU might also hold them liable for tracking content of sites they proxy if they aren't careful.
raxxorrax 7y ago
The better analogy about notice boards matching the current situation is that third parties offended by the content demand the content to be removed. I get the mourning about senseless death, but this is basically killing the messenger. And I do indeed believe that people trying to get these platforms shut down don't really care about it too much and have different motives. Maybe just trying to prove a point. > A lot of not-so-subtle support for 8chan leaking into this thread. I hope I am not supple about when I say that I think the move is idiotic.
aiyodev 7y ago
Correction: Cloudfare wasn't a government until the moment they started governing.
kaolti 7y ago
Is there any data to support that this has a net positive effect, other than imaginary feel good points?

ng12 7y ago

The problem is we live in a digital society, and comparing Cloudflare to a notice board is wildly reductionist.

ReptileMan 7y ago

They are utility though. Have you thought about that people support neutrality/common carrier style behavior with 8chan existing being the acceptable price to pay and not 8 chan itself?

King-Aaron 7y ago
They are not a utility. At all. They are not comparable to your water or your electricity in any way. They are comparable to a self-storage place you might keep your boat. Or an office you might rent to house your business. But they are not anything like a utility.
ridgeguy 7y ago
At some point, the price is unacceptable in light of the benefits conferred. And Cloudflare isn't a utility. I agree with Cloudflare's decision. I hope whichever host 8chan runs to will do the same. Free speech is not a suicide pact.
roywiggins 7y ago
A common carrier is a specific thing. They're not one.
rsynnott 7y ago
Generally, utilities have a regional pseudo-monopoly. It’s unlikely more than one entity runs electric or phone lines to your house, say. CDNs aren’t really utilities, and most of them have long been pretty picky (most won’t deal in porn, say).
481092 7y ago
They host and indirectly disseminate media, just like a news network. Do you expect Fox or CNN to host views they don't find acceptable? If we're going to accept that biased media is legal (news networks) then biased media is legal (Cloudflare), although you'd have a harder time making a case of bias against Cloudflare in comparison to the former.
- berryfarm 7y ago
  Fox and CNN are indeed liable for what they display because they are publishers. They control the content. That's kind of the point. Cloudflare and social media co's naturally want to be protected as a platform. If they start controlling the content in an ad hoc it's a lot harder for them to claim that.

sb057 7y ago

The problem is that a company named Noticeboardflare has practically monopolized protection of noticeboards, and that if you do not have their approval, your noticeboard is impractical to operate.

King-Aaron 7y ago
Well yes, and ultimately noticeboardflare has the right to do whatever the hell they want. And if your noticeboard is inciting nearly weekly mass homicides, maybe the noticeboard you're trying to support is a shitty noticeboard.
- busymom0 7y ago
  > you're trying to support This isn't about "supporting" someone's views. This is about simply allowing one to speak. Otherwise Google should be held liable for every single illegal thing that happens on their platform (and there are ton of those).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ViViDboarder 7y ago
    I don’t think Cloudflare is trying to claim liability (that would be a bad move on their part), but just that they want no part of that kind of behavior. They don’t want to take money from or enable that kind of behavior in any way. Why shouldn’t they have that choice?
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    You don't owe anything to people who are trying to kill you.
    - pferde 7y ago
      What if they are trying to kill you because you owe them something? :)

saagarjha 7y ago

The problem is that Cloudflare keeps trying to position themselves as not being in the business of deciding what can be on the internet, but they have twice made the decision to do so. Also, since you mentioned it and hence made this disclaimer obligatory: I have zero sympathy for 8chan, and I don't agree with the views espoused there.

robbrown451 7y ago
They are making it crystal clear that they "do not take this decision lightly." Not everything has to be so black and white.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Unfortunately the greater population will see it as black and white. Cloudflare has repeatedly worked with gray-area sites and stood by their principles that they were neutral and would only respond to law enforcement. Their previous choice with the Dailystormer can be seen as an exception, especially with supporting material that the site was also blaming Cloudflare. Making the choice twice now calls into question hundreds of other properties they work with, and may open the floodgates for all that criticism they have shielded against so far.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
frabbit 7y ago
That is exactly it. Once they have expressed a private moral judgement about what they consider acceptable they have opened themselves up to being accountable for all the other content they do allow.
- meowface 7y ago
  Most providers make hundreds or thousands of decisions like this per year. Cloudflare doing it twice ever in 10 years of existence, both times in response to ideologically-inspired mass murder and platforms that stoked the flames (intentionally in the first case and by negligence/refusal in this case), doesn't really mean much.

0x445442 7y ago

As long as they can be sued for liable the way any other publisher can I have no problem with them pulling 8chan. If they're going to selectively hide behind section 230 to promote their political agenda then I do, they can't have it both ways and I hope congress clamps down on this.

481092 7y ago
Do you complain when liberal writers don't get hosted on Fox News? Or when liberal guests don't get as much air time as conservatives? Do you want congress to clamp down and make all sides get equal air time and newspaper time? This 'everyone should host my political agenda and his agenda....ad infinitum, all equally in time and space', is not just ridiculous but impossible. They're a private company doing the same as CNN or Fox, deciding not to host what they don't agree with.
root_axis 7y ago
It is their prerogative to operate their business in a partisan fashion if that is their desire. If you don't like their business practices then you can protest, boycott, and spread the word.
- d0100 7y ago
  This is very bad for minorities
sschueller 7y ago
The EU might also hold them liable for tracking content of sites they proxy if they aren't careful.

raxxorrax 7y ago

The better analogy about notice boards matching the current situation is that third parties offended by the content demand the content to be removed. I get the mourning about senseless death, but this is basically killing the messenger. And I do indeed believe that people trying to get these platforms shut down don't really care about it too much and have different motives. Maybe just trying to prove a point. > A lot of not-so-subtle support for 8chan leaking into this thread. I hope I am not supple about when I say that I think the move is idiotic.

aiyodev 7y ago

Correction: Cloudfare wasn't a government until the moment they started governing.

kaolti 7y ago

Is there any data to support that this has a net positive effect, other than imaginary feel good points?