7 ms·

This feels like a misunderstanding of the word freedom. Freedom in speech means that I can say what I want. It does _not_ mean that a hosting company has to ho

by tyre 7y ago

This feels like a misunderstanding of the word freedom. Freedom in speech means that I can say what I want. It does _not_ mean that a hosting company has to host it or that a CDN has to optimize it or that a search company has to rank it or that an ad-network has to monetize it. Each of those players is free to do what they think is best with their time, resources, etc.; which often includes thinking of what "the public" will think of them doing (or not doing) a thing. Freedom does not mean that I have the "right" to be heard or the "right" to be amplified—either as much as the next person or at all. The net, as in a network of computers, is quite close to free. Being a part of a society is not. Ted Kaczynski was not arrested for writing manifestos beyond the pale of normative capitalism from a self-built cabin in Montana. He was arrested for sending bombs. The moment one person freely decides to harmfully affect others, those others can do something about it. It seems much of the hand-wringing about freedom—when we talk about the internet and corporations—is that extremist speech does not have access to the same megaphone, the same means of monetization (and therefore survival). And that…well that's what living in a society is all about. Are there bad parts about tech as we see it today? Absolutely! But it hardly seems like the problem is "not enough shit is allowed on the internet." I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Should that mean a power company can cut off your power because they don't like what you've said? Should that mean the water company can cut your water off for criticizing them? Should that mean that a bank can refuse to give you a loan, because you said something bad, even if your credit is more than acceptable? ------------------------------- Remember this: its the extremist that the law is made around. And soon enough, the law will be wrapped around non-extremists and used as let another tool of influence and control. The worst part is that anyone who speaks against this sort of law is seen to be defending the extremists, and is seen as a despicable person - yet the criticizers never stop to think about the average Joe and Jane.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Power and water companies operate as public utilities for a reason. Cloudflare is not a public utility, nor should they be. Banks can absolutely decide not to do business you, for any reason that's not explicitly forbidden (protected classes, etc.)
- ViViDboarder 7y ago
  > Should that mean a power company can cut off your power because they don't like what you've said? No. Because they are a public utility and that would be a violation of the first amendment. > Should that mean that a bank can refuse to give you a loan, because you said something bad, even if your credit is more than acceptable? Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you. There are very simple rules at play here...
  - tidepod12 7y ago
    Have we all just completely forgotten the years of fighting for net neutrality? The very same net neutrality where we all have been arguing that sometimes even private companies shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily filter whatever they want? If all of the major ISPs launch their own email competitor and then go on to block Google, would you be singing the same tune? "It's okay because AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter are private institutions and are not obligated to do business with Google"? What if it turns out that the AT&T CEO is a Trump supporter, and he decides that anyone who has AT&T as an ISP will no longer be able to access any news site other than Fox News? "It's okay because AT&T is a private company and has no obligation to do business with the Washington Post"? The entire argument for net neutrality is based on the premise that sometimes even private companies become so big that they become very similar to 'public utilities' and it is absolutely in the public interest to force those companies to not arbitrarily filter whatever they feel like. You can argue that Cloudflare, or a bank, or whoever doesn't fit this definition, but you can't both be for something like net neutrality while simultaneously spouting this argument that "private companies can do whatever they want". We have literally centuries of laws that specifically say that no, companies cannot do whatever they want just because they are private.
    - belltaco 7y ago
      ISPs use the public's right of way and air wave spectrum licenses, so I don't think they're good examples. An example right of way agreement between a municipality and Cable company: https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086 https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086 Summary of right of law statutes in different states: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/rowtable.pdf https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/rowtable.p... >but you can't both be for something like net neutrality while simultaneously spouting this argument that "private companies can do whatever they want". One can definitely pick and choose what you want to support, all those laws did exactly the same. Charities are 'picked and chosen' not to pay taxes, even though they are basically private companies. I don't see a contradiction between supporting net neutrality and supporting Cloudflare's decision. >We have literally centuries of laws that specifically say that no, companies cannot do whatever they want just because they are private We have literally centuries of law stating that 'Neo-Nazi White Supremacists' isn't a protected class, hence can be refused service. If and when this is abused by companies causing real problems which society thinks is unacceptable, new laws will be passed restricting discriminating against neo-Nazis. Maybe write to your local congressman and senator asking them to pass a law forcing Cloudflare to serve neo-Nazis.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Your hypos fall well short of the level of actions undertaken by the two sites which have been terminated by CloudFlare, which advocated for, championed, and celebrated violent actions against innocent and blameless third parties, including children. Your argument fails to credibly address the situation at hand.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    I might add: violent and deadly.
- pault 7y ago
  Cloudflare didn't and can't "cut off” 8chan. They can stop providing CDN distribution and bandwidth services to 8chan. As it happens, 8chan's web host _did_ cut off 8chan, so you should be directing your rants at them.
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
When you use the tired, old "businesses can refuse to serve anybody they want" argument, understand that you are using the same arguments used in the past to refuse business to various races, creeds, orientations etc. that are now protected classes. That really ought to make you queasy and perhaps you should contemplate why. By the way, some states are now recognizing that political affiliation needs to be a protected class as well: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-affiliation-discrimination.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff.... It may not be in keeping with modern progressive thought but is certainly in the spirit of classical liberalism as well as an important first step in depolarizing the country.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  A black person cannot stop being black, nor is there any reason they should. A person who believes black people should be killed or kicked out of the U.S. can always change their mind, and they should. Advocating bigotry or violence is not a political affiliation nor is it a protected class.
  - DATACOMMANDER 7y ago
    That doesn’t change the fact that the CRA restricted freedom of association. Still, the better argument for legislating platform neutrality is that those platforms enjoy special legal status based on the notion that they can’t be held responsible for user-generated content. If you can spare resources to purge content that offends your political sensibilities, then you are making a choice not to remove content that is, e.g., defamatory, infringes on copyright, etc.
  - BlackFly 7y ago
    Historically, some of the most discriminated people have been people of a different religion. In principle you can "stop believing in your religion" as easily as you can stop believing that immigrants are destroying your country. In practice, nobody cares to protect bigots and a lot of people want to protect gays, immigrants, women, etc. It is troubling that we only protect certain classes of people since maybe the next group that comes along after the current group of bigots will actually deserve protection but the arguments we built to allow the lack of protection for bigots will be used to deny protection to that group.
wastedhours 7y ago
Beautifully summed up by this XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- themaninthedark 7y ago
  So does that count for all the Brianna Wu's and Anita Sarkeesian's as well? All the outroar and backlash to the was called harassment and transphobia.
notSupplied 7y ago
No one has the "right" to have their speech amplified by 3rd parties. However, I don't think Cloudflare is in the business of providing amplification, they are in the business of providing access, which I think is closer to censorship than restricting amplification. Access means people who WANT this content can get it easily. If you're making it harder for people who voluntarily choose to view 8chan content, you're restricting access. Amplification means getting content in front of new eyeballs that wouldn't have otherwise seen it. E.g. if Facebook determined that given this user's age, race, zip-code, and favorite TV shows they might be in interested in this racist-meme sharing group that one of their friends joined, and then surfaces that content, that's amplification.
- pault 7y ago
  Cloudflare can't block access to a website. They can protect their customers from DDOS attacks, and they happen to do it more cheaply and effectively than one could do alone. If they refuse to service a website and that website gets DDOSed off the internet, that is not cloudflare's fault.
- thephyber 7y ago
  > Amplification means getting content in front of new eyeballs that wouldn't have otherwise seen it. Which a CDN does as well. If a user visits the site during peak demand and the site without a CDN can't handle it, the user doesn't get the site in front of their eyeballs. With a CDN, they might. Analogy also works during DDoS attacks. Both assume that the user doesn't have infinite memory and patience to keep trying (because that's a realistic assumption). "Amplification" has be overloaded. You are talking about a viral marketing definition, whereas CDNs are a hardware+software force multiplier for performance.

by tyre 7y ago

crankylinuxuser 7y ago

Should that mean a power company can cut off your power because they don't like what you've said? Should that mean the water company can cut your water off for criticizing them? Should that mean that a bank can refuse to give you a loan, because you said something bad, even if your credit is more than acceptable? ------------------------------- Remember this: its the extremist that the law is made around. And soon enough, the law will be wrapped around non-extremists and used as let another tool of influence and control. The worst part is that anyone who speaks against this sort of law is seen to be defending the extremists, and is seen as a despicable person - yet the criticizers never stop to think about the average Joe and Jane.

ceejayoz 7y ago
Power and water companies operate as public utilities for a reason. Cloudflare is not a public utility, nor should they be. Banks can absolutely decide not to do business you, for any reason that's not explicitly forbidden (protected classes, etc.)
ViViDboarder 7y ago
> Should that mean a power company can cut off your power because they don't like what you've said? No. Because they are a public utility and that would be a violation of the first amendment. > Should that mean that a bank can refuse to give you a loan, because you said something bad, even if your credit is more than acceptable? Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you. There are very simple rules at play here...
- tidepod12 7y ago
  Have we all just completely forgotten the years of fighting for net neutrality? The very same net neutrality where we all have been arguing that sometimes even private companies shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily filter whatever they want? If all of the major ISPs launch their own email competitor and then go on to block Google, would you be singing the same tune? "It's okay because AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter are private institutions and are not obligated to do business with Google"? What if it turns out that the AT&T CEO is a Trump supporter, and he decides that anyone who has AT&T as an ISP will no longer be able to access any news site other than Fox News? "It's okay because AT&T is a private company and has no obligation to do business with the Washington Post"? The entire argument for net neutrality is based on the premise that sometimes even private companies become so big that they become very similar to 'public utilities' and it is absolutely in the public interest to force those companies to not arbitrarily filter whatever they feel like. You can argue that Cloudflare, or a bank, or whoever doesn't fit this definition, but you can't both be for something like net neutrality while simultaneously spouting this argument that "private companies can do whatever they want". We have literally centuries of laws that specifically say that no, companies cannot do whatever they want just because they are private.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    ISPs use the public's right of way and air wave spectrum licenses, so I don't think they're good examples. An example right of way agreement between a municipality and Cable company: https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086 https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086 Summary of right of law statutes in different states: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/rowtable.pdf https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/rowtable.p... >but you can't both be for something like net neutrality while simultaneously spouting this argument that "private companies can do whatever they want". One can definitely pick and choose what you want to support, all those laws did exactly the same. Charities are 'picked and chosen' not to pay taxes, even though they are basically private companies. I don't see a contradiction between supporting net neutrality and supporting Cloudflare's decision. >We have literally centuries of laws that specifically say that no, companies cannot do whatever they want just because they are private We have literally centuries of law stating that 'Neo-Nazi White Supremacists' isn't a protected class, hence can be refused service. If and when this is abused by companies causing real problems which society thinks is unacceptable, new laws will be passed restricting discriminating against neo-Nazis. Maybe write to your local congressman and senator asking them to pass a law forcing Cloudflare to serve neo-Nazis.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Your hypos fall well short of the level of actions undertaken by the two sites which have been terminated by CloudFlare, which advocated for, championed, and celebrated violent actions against innocent and blameless third parties, including children. Your argument fails to credibly address the situation at hand.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  I might add: violent and deadly.
pault 7y ago
Cloudflare didn't and can't "cut off” 8chan. They can stop providing CDN distribution and bandwidth services to 8chan. As it happens, 8chan's web host _did_ cut off 8chan, so you should be directing your rants at them.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

When you use the tired, old "businesses can refuse to serve anybody they want" argument, understand that you are using the same arguments used in the past to refuse business to various races, creeds, orientations etc. that are now protected classes. That really ought to make you queasy and perhaps you should contemplate why. By the way, some states are now recognizing that political affiliation needs to be a protected class as well: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-affiliation-discrimination.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff.... It may not be in keeping with modern progressive thought but is certainly in the spirit of classical liberalism as well as an important first step in depolarizing the country.

snowwrestler 7y ago
A black person cannot stop being black, nor is there any reason they should. A person who believes black people should be killed or kicked out of the U.S. can always change their mind, and they should. Advocating bigotry or violence is not a political affiliation nor is it a protected class.
- DATACOMMANDER 7y ago
  That doesn’t change the fact that the CRA restricted freedom of association. Still, the better argument for legislating platform neutrality is that those platforms enjoy special legal status based on the notion that they can’t be held responsible for user-generated content. If you can spare resources to purge content that offends your political sensibilities, then you are making a choice not to remove content that is, e.g., defamatory, infringes on copyright, etc.
- BlackFly 7y ago
  Historically, some of the most discriminated people have been people of a different religion. In principle you can "stop believing in your religion" as easily as you can stop believing that immigrants are destroying your country. In practice, nobody cares to protect bigots and a lot of people want to protect gays, immigrants, women, etc. It is troubling that we only protect certain classes of people since maybe the next group that comes along after the current group of bigots will actually deserve protection but the arguments we built to allow the lack of protection for bigots will be used to deny protection to that group.

wastedhours 7y ago

Beautifully summed up by this XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

themaninthedark 7y ago
So does that count for all the Brianna Wu's and Anita Sarkeesian's as well? All the outroar and backlash to the was called harassment and transphobia.

notSupplied 7y ago

No one has the "right" to have their speech amplified by 3rd parties. However, I don't think Cloudflare is in the business of providing amplification, they are in the business of providing access, which I think is closer to censorship than restricting amplification. Access means people who WANT this content can get it easily. If you're making it harder for people who voluntarily choose to view 8chan content, you're restricting access. Amplification means getting content in front of new eyeballs that wouldn't have otherwise seen it. E.g. if Facebook determined that given this user's age, race, zip-code, and favorite TV shows they might be in interested in this racist-meme sharing group that one of their friends joined, and then surfaces that content, that's amplification.

pault 7y ago
Cloudflare can't block access to a website. They can protect their customers from DDOS attacks, and they happen to do it more cheaply and effectively than one could do alone. If they refuse to service a website and that website gets DDOSed off the internet, that is not cloudflare's fault.
thephyber 7y ago
> Amplification means getting content in front of new eyeballs that wouldn't have otherwise seen it. Which a CDN does as well. If a user visits the site during peak demand and the site without a CDN can't handle it, the user doesn't get the site in front of their eyeballs. With a CDN, they might. Analogy also works during DDoS attacks. Both assume that the user doesn't have infinite memory and patience to keep trying (because that's a realistic assumption). "Amplification" has be overloaded. You are talking about a viral marketing definition, whereas CDNs are a hardware+software force multiplier for performance.