8 ms·

CloudFlare is not a notice board. They are practically a utility. PG&E aren’t a government, and they can’t cut off your electricity because you’re an extremist.

CloudFlare is not a notice board. They are practically a utility. PG&E aren’t a government, and they can’t cut off your electricity because you’re an extremist. What about ISPs? Should Cox, Comcast, Frontier, etc be liable for what flows through their pipes? Media companies say yes, but what do you do when your ISP says “bye” because you visit 4chan? Go to another ISP? In most areas of the US, you can’t

King-Aaron 7y ago
> They are practically a utility. LOL. They are not.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  Then when would they become one?
  - King-Aaron 7y ago
    I dunno, when you need cloud storage to live. In the same way you need water, power, gas, and these days communication (ISP, etc). But hosting your files is not crucial to your survival I don't believe.
    - busymom0 7y ago
      You don't need ISP to be able to live. Also CloudFlare is NOT hosting them. They were the CDN, content delivery network. They are the messenger which carries the message. They shouldn't be deciding whose message they want to carry. They are forgetting the "don't shoot the messenger" saying.
      - ebg13 7y ago
        > They shouldn't be deciding whose message they want to carry Being a messenger doesn't require being amoral.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        > They shouldn't be deciding whose message they want to carry. Why? There is no reason they should be forced to host content they find objectionable.
- SheinhardtWigCo 7y ago
  They kinda are. DDoS protection is only viable at massive scale, but is table stakes for any website with content that someone out there might find objectionable.
  - ggggtez 7y ago
    E-mail isn't even a utility. Please educate yourself on the law here. Most everyone in tech wants the internet to be a utility, but it's not. An individual internet company's product offering is definitely not a utility.
  - voidwtf 7y ago
    Many other providers provide DDoS protection. Just not for free. Let them go to OVH, Azure, etc....
  - kelnos 7y ago
    There are plenty of other companies out there that provide DDoS protection. If they can't find even one that will host them, perhaps they might want to consider the possibility that their content is reprehensible and there's a reason no one wants to do business with them. If Cloudflare was the only game in town (or close to it), I might be more sympathetic to this argument, but... they're not. Not even close.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    lol. There are lots of providers with massive DDoS protection capacity specializing in hosting illegal or otherwise questionable content, they just charge more than cloudflare. Botnet C&Cs, cybercrime forums and card shops all need hosting and face massive attacks. Somehow I never hear the operators of those complaining.
    - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
      They mainly use cloudflare. There have been a lot of discussions over it and also criticism.
  - Taniwha 7y ago
roywiggins 7y ago
Cloudflare is a CDN. 8chan has free choice to pick another. It's not a common carrier or a public service in any way. It's just big, which isn't the same thing.
- muzani 7y ago
  A CDN isn't necessary for a large website to keep running either.
  - toomim 7y ago
    It's necessary to protect against DDOS attacks. The CDN has privileged positioning in the network -- close to the consumer ISPs -- and can block incoming DDOS attacks directly before the traffic flows deeper.
    - pas 7y ago
      8chan can build their own if none are willing to host them. though some ISPs might refuse to peer with them.
      - nextmemorandum 7y ago
        and then do you suggest 8chan to start making their own ISPs around the nation in areas where there are no ISPs that will peer? As an aside, the owner of 8chan already hosts 8chan with his own ISP.
        ricktdotorg 7y ago
        decent peering is neither a right nor a requirement for a website.
        pas 7y ago
        no, but "high traffic forums" are not a "protected class" when it comes to equality. Not legally, nor morally. Morally we can argue that there's virtue (or a lot of global positive utility if we use an utilitarian framework) in making sure that there's an open marketplace for ideas, and every idea has opportunity to be "priced". But there's also virtue in keeping that place healthy, sane and constructive. Hate speech, manifestos, slur memes, and other kinds of low-effort content seems to be rather unhealthy for the place. While at the same time doing a proper academic study on intelligence, brains, genetics, education, socioeconomic status, social mobility, and group dynamics at large is healthy. Context, style, framing is important. Blurting out that "blacks" have lower IQ in some measure might even be true, but that's not really an idea for that marketplace. Connecting the dots, uncovering the causes, the dynamics (noticing that the main driver is not some inherent genetic/cultural inferiority, but simple socioeconomic status due to historical path dependence) - and raising awareness and offering solutions is healthy. Yes, of course, it's upon us to make a value judgement about what's a virtue, what's healthy. And no wonder some people think that even adopting the Golden Rule (do only what you want others to do, see also Rawl's reflective equilibrium) just means we have to "purge the weak" and that "civilizations are destined to clash". Of course we can't do much with that, other than trying to persuade them AND trying to minimize these voices so they remain a weak but vocal minority. (Hence our choice of idea policing is not just because we happen to think equality and pacifism are virtuous, but because our survival, way of life and so might depend on it.) [And in that way, yes cultures are destined to clash, and we ought to think a pacifist-equalist is the one that should win - nothing to do about it, another value judgement to make.]
mikeash 7y ago
A utility is typically a natural monopoly providing some sort of essential service. Cloudflare is neither.
- busymom0 7y ago
  Telecom companies like AT&T aren't providing "essential service". Being able to call/text someone is not a "essential service". Yet they are not supposed to ban people because they are merely the carrier.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Being able to call people is pretty essential in the modern world. That’s why these laws exist and why governments have put so much effort into making these services available to everyone. The phone company is required to serve you even if they disagree with you not because of some high-minded ideas about free speech, but because it’s considered really important for people to have phone service.
  - ggggtez 7y ago
    Why are you talking about telecoms. Cloud Flare is not a telecom. Were you under a rock during Net Neutrality? Don't you realize you are saying nonsense?
  - 2bitencryption 7y ago
    > Telecom companies like AT&T aren't providing "essential service". ...according to Title II, yes, they absolutely are. https://newnetworks.com/titleii/ https://newnetworks.com/titleii/
    - snowwrestler 7y ago
      The FCC just ruled that Internet service is not a Title II service.
      - orpheline 7y ago
robbrown451 7y ago
And all that is addressed in the article. Specifically the paragraph that starts with "We do not take this decision lightly" The point is that what 8chan is doing is egregious enough for them to step in and cease doing business with them. This isn't a slippery slope kind of thing.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  They literally said that they would not kick someone off their platform anymore after they did it to The Daily Storm. Then they did to 8chan because enough people threw a hissy fit
  - denulu 7y ago
    Nope, they said "We've taken measures to ensure that they cannot sign up for Cloudflare's services ever again."
ggggtez 7y ago
>They are practically a utility. How exactly does a person come to believe nonsense like this? The US government doesn't even argue that the internet itself is a utility. I know that net neutrality has been argued about extensively, but people seem to forget that neutrality lost. Even trying to start a discussion from where you are standing is off to a bad start. You are ignoring reality from the get-go.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  So because net neutrality lost, we should move on and not continue the fight?
noobermin 7y ago
There are two connected but distinct problems this thread touches on, freedom of speech and the actual utility nature of modern internet companies. Both are problems here and of course, the internet companies don't want to face either. Although the Cloudfare case is a bit different since it isn't quite a monopoly, yet.

King-Aaron 7y ago

> They are practically a utility. LOL. They are not.

colejohnson66 7y ago
Then when would they become one?
- King-Aaron 7y ago
  I dunno, when you need cloud storage to live. In the same way you need water, power, gas, and these days communication (ISP, etc). But hosting your files is not crucial to your survival I don't believe.
  - busymom0 7y ago
    You don't need ISP to be able to live. Also CloudFlare is NOT hosting them. They were the CDN, content delivery network. They are the messenger which carries the message. They shouldn't be deciding whose message they want to carry. They are forgetting the "don't shoot the messenger" saying.
    - ebg13 7y ago
      > They shouldn't be deciding whose message they want to carry Being a messenger doesn't require being amoral.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > They shouldn't be deciding whose message they want to carry. Why? There is no reason they should be forced to host content they find objectionable.
SheinhardtWigCo 7y ago
They kinda are. DDoS protection is only viable at massive scale, but is table stakes for any website with content that someone out there might find objectionable.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  E-mail isn't even a utility. Please educate yourself on the law here. Most everyone in tech wants the internet to be a utility, but it's not. An individual internet company's product offering is definitely not a utility.
- voidwtf 7y ago
  Many other providers provide DDoS protection. Just not for free. Let them go to OVH, Azure, etc....
- kelnos 7y ago
  There are plenty of other companies out there that provide DDoS protection. If they can't find even one that will host them, perhaps they might want to consider the possibility that their content is reprehensible and there's a reason no one wants to do business with them. If Cloudflare was the only game in town (or close to it), I might be more sympathetic to this argument, but... they're not. Not even close.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  lol. There are lots of providers with massive DDoS protection capacity specializing in hosting illegal or otherwise questionable content, they just charge more than cloudflare. Botnet C&Cs, cybercrime forums and card shops all need hosting and face massive attacks. Somehow I never hear the operators of those complaining.
  - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
    They mainly use cloudflare. There have been a lot of discussions over it and also criticism.
- Taniwha 7y ago

roywiggins 7y ago

Cloudflare is a CDN. 8chan has free choice to pick another. It's not a common carrier or a public service in any way. It's just big, which isn't the same thing.

muzani 7y ago
A CDN isn't necessary for a large website to keep running either.
- toomim 7y ago
  It's necessary to protect against DDOS attacks. The CDN has privileged positioning in the network -- close to the consumer ISPs -- and can block incoming DDOS attacks directly before the traffic flows deeper.
  - pas 7y ago
    8chan can build their own if none are willing to host them. though some ISPs might refuse to peer with them.
    - nextmemorandum 7y ago
      and then do you suggest 8chan to start making their own ISPs around the nation in areas where there are no ISPs that will peer? As an aside, the owner of 8chan already hosts 8chan with his own ISP.
      - ricktdotorg 7y ago
        decent peering is neither a right nor a requirement for a website.
      - pas 7y ago
        no, but "high traffic forums" are not a "protected class" when it comes to equality. Not legally, nor morally. Morally we can argue that there's virtue (or a lot of global positive utility if we use an utilitarian framework) in making sure that there's an open marketplace for ideas, and every idea has opportunity to be "priced". But there's also virtue in keeping that place healthy, sane and constructive. Hate speech, manifestos, slur memes, and other kinds of low-effort content seems to be rather unhealthy for the place. While at the same time doing a proper academic study on intelligence, brains, genetics, education, socioeconomic status, social mobility, and group dynamics at large is healthy. Context, style, framing is important. Blurting out that "blacks" have lower IQ in some measure might even be true, but that's not really an idea for that marketplace. Connecting the dots, uncovering the causes, the dynamics (noticing that the main driver is not some inherent genetic/cultural inferiority, but simple socioeconomic status due to historical path dependence) - and raising awareness and offering solutions is healthy. Yes, of course, it's upon us to make a value judgement about what's a virtue, what's healthy. And no wonder some people think that even adopting the Golden Rule (do only what you want others to do, see also Rawl's reflective equilibrium) just means we have to "purge the weak" and that "civilizations are destined to clash". Of course we can't do much with that, other than trying to persuade them AND trying to minimize these voices so they remain a weak but vocal minority. (Hence our choice of idea policing is not just because we happen to think equality and pacifism are virtuous, but because our survival, way of life and so might depend on it.) [And in that way, yes cultures are destined to clash, and we ought to think a pacifist-equalist is the one that should win - nothing to do about it, another value judgement to make.]

mikeash 7y ago

A utility is typically a natural monopoly providing some sort of essential service. Cloudflare is neither.

busymom0 7y ago
Telecom companies like AT&T aren't providing "essential service". Being able to call/text someone is not a "essential service". Yet they are not supposed to ban people because they are merely the carrier.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Being able to call people is pretty essential in the modern world. That’s why these laws exist and why governments have put so much effort into making these services available to everyone. The phone company is required to serve you even if they disagree with you not because of some high-minded ideas about free speech, but because it’s considered really important for people to have phone service.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  Why are you talking about telecoms. Cloud Flare is not a telecom. Were you under a rock during Net Neutrality? Don't you realize you are saying nonsense?
- 2bitencryption 7y ago
  > Telecom companies like AT&T aren't providing "essential service". ...according to Title II, yes, they absolutely are. https://newnetworks.com/titleii/ https://newnetworks.com/titleii/
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    The FCC just ruled that Internet service is not a Title II service.
    - orpheline 7y ago

robbrown451 7y ago

And all that is addressed in the article. Specifically the paragraph that starts with "We do not take this decision lightly" The point is that what 8chan is doing is egregious enough for them to step in and cease doing business with them. This isn't a slippery slope kind of thing.

colejohnson66 7y ago
They literally said that they would not kick someone off their platform anymore after they did it to The Daily Storm. Then they did to 8chan because enough people threw a hissy fit
- denulu 7y ago
  Nope, they said "We've taken measures to ensure that they cannot sign up for Cloudflare's services ever again."

ggggtez 7y ago

>They are practically a utility. How exactly does a person come to believe nonsense like this? The US government doesn't even argue that the internet itself is a utility. I know that net neutrality has been argued about extensively, but people seem to forget that neutrality lost. Even trying to start a discussion from where you are standing is off to a bad start. You are ignoring reality from the get-go.

colejohnson66 7y ago
So because net neutrality lost, we should move on and not continue the fight?

noobermin 7y ago

There are two connected but distinct problems this thread touches on, freedom of speech and the actual utility nature of modern internet companies. Both are problems here and of course, the internet companies don't want to face either. Although the Cloudfare case is a bit different since it isn't quite a monopoly, yet.