6 ms·

> 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 v

> 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.
  - tidepod12 7y ago
    >ISPs use the public's right of way and air wave spectrum licenses, so I don't think they're good examples. And Cloudflare's business is similarly dependent on these very same rights of way and spectrums. So why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions? Hint: it's because the argument for net neutrality has nothing to do with the ISP's usage of ROW or public spectrum, and everything to do with the effect that it would have on society if ISPs were allowed to arbitrarily filter whatever they want. What's funny about this is that I actually don't need to make this argument, because Cloudflare's CEO Matthew Prince has already made it for me. The entire blog post that he wrote [1] when Daily Stormer was taken off CF is one big explanation of why companies like Cloudflare having the ability to arbitrarily filter sites is bad. That didn't seem to stop him, I guess. > Due Process requires that decisions be public and not arbitrary. It's why we've always said that our policy is to follow the guidance of the law in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Law enforcement, legislators, and courts have the political legitimacy and predictability to make decisions on what content should be restricted. Companies should not. 1: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
    - belltaco 7y ago
      >And Cloudflare's business is similarly dependent on these very same rights of way and spectrums. So why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions? Did Cloudflare sign a document like this one? https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086 https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086 Then 8chan should sue them in court and win. Why didn't Daily Stormer sue them?
      - FireBeyond 7y ago
        > Then 8chan should sue them in court and win. In order for them to win, you'll have to ignore the fact that when they created a CloudFlare account, they agreed that CloudFlare had the right to terminate such services for any or no reason.
- jonathanstrange 7y ago
  You're mixing up net neutrality with freedom of speech issues. Net Neutrality seeks to regulate IP packet filtering and prevent transport providers from selling premium services ("fastlanes") to particular companies only. What content those companies deliver or (re-)transmit is not regulated by net neutrality at all. I'm saying this not because I disagree with your position, but mainly because this confusion was dominating the debate in the US and was to some extent a deliberate strawman pushed by the opponents of net neutrality.
  - javagram 7y ago
    Incorrect , net neutrality also required that ISPs not block. A lot of pro net neutrality people didn’t really understand what they were arguing for, I think, since the same people will turn around and argue that ISPs should be able to censor content they don’t like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 “A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.“
    - jonathanstrange 7y ago
      Sure, blocking is throttling 100%. The point remains that the OP mischaracterized net neutrality. What is important is that net neutrality only concerns transport of IP packets. Content providing companies and web site owners can moderate, block, or censor content as they like and as they deem fit. They have done so in the past under net neutrality, do so in countries with net neutrality laws, and are doing it now in the US without net neutrality. The two issues are frequently mixed up, hence my comment. On a side note, I've never heard anyone argue that ISPs should block content, that seems like a strawman to me, but I guess if you just search hard enough you can find someone on the Internet who argued for that nonsense. > lawful content Good point, that's compatible with restrictions of freedom of speech due to declaring certain kind of content illegal, and clearly illustrates that the two issues are different from each other. Yet people confuse them again and again, and additionally almost always base their arguments on a false dichotomy or on fallacious slippery slope arguments.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
crankylinuxuser 7y ago
> No. Because they are a public utility and that would be a violation of the first amendment. > Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you. That's some pretty strong dissonance there. Here in Indiana, the utilities AND banks are all private entities. And there's no actual state or federal law that would prevent a utility from cutting utilities for "being and speaking of white nationalism". I chose my examples carefully - all are much more regulated than some Walmart or Target or Amazon. My larger discussion was that over very corporate autonomy. Who made them arbiters of what language was acceptable? Why should infrastructure companies be decision makers of what is said online? Years ago, we restricted the phone companies from doing that very thing - and they wanted dearly to forbid classes of speech. Yet somehow when it's "on the interwebz" we throw those ideas and rules out, all so that someone can make a bigger pile of dollars. Don't forget, cloudflare is a US company. There's absolutely 0 reason why they can't be considered an infrastructure company and subject to common carrier rules as well. Or the counter-offer is they can be responsible for speech over their network. I doubt they'd like that either. After all, they're still hosting piles of stressers and ddos merchants.
- belltaco 7y ago
  >That's some pretty strong dissonance there. Here in Indiana, the utilities AND banks are all private entities. And there's no actual state or federal law that would prevent a utility from cutting utilities for "being and speaking of white nationalism". I chose my examples carefully - all are much more regulated than some Walmart or Target or Amazon. I don't see a dissonance. If and when banks and utilities start cutting off neo-Nazis, the public and politicians may find that unpalatable and pass laws restricting it. Or may not. The fact that isn't happening right now means no unnecessary laws are required. If and when society and politicians feel that Cloudflare shouldn't be able to not serve 8chan, it will pass a law doing so. Call your congressman and senator. >Years ago, we restricted the phone companies from doing that very thing - and they wanted dearly to forbid classes of speech Sounds interesting, got any references to read?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Here in Indiana, the utilities AND banks are all private entities. It's likely there's one (or at most, a small handful) of each utility enjoying a state-supported monopoly, even if it's technically run by a private company. The same is not true for banks - I can sign up for one of hundreds of nationwide or online banks even if all the local ones decide I'm an ass.
RaceWon 7y ago
> Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you. Tell this to the bakery refusing to make a cake for a same sex marriage.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The bakery that won their SCOTUS case?
  - RaceWon 7y ago
    > The bakery that won their SCOTUS case? No, [1] the bakery that paid $135,000 in fines, went bankrupt, and is stll bound by the lower courts decision because SCOTUS only remanded the case back to a lower court. And yeah, they might ultimately win... if you want to call that winning. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/scotus-lower-court-should-reexamine-same-sex-couple-wedding-cake-case.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/scotus-lower-court-should-re...
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > and is stll bound by the lower courts decision because SCOTUS only remanded the case back to a lower court. Wrong, they are not bound by the lower court decision, because the Supreme Court vacated the judgement and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the SCOTUS ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop (as stated in the order linked from the source you linked), because that decision set relevant precedent which the lower court did not consider in its judgement (for timing reasons, as the lower court decision predates Masterpiece Cakeshop, I believe.)
      - RaceWon 7y ago
        > Wrong, they are not bound by the lower court decision I am NOT wrong... ... this case is yet to be heard. Therefore; they are still presently bound by the original decision. PS: And they are still Bankrupt.
jonathanstrange 7y ago
However, this was a problem when Visa and Paypal cut off donations to Wikileaks. It was actually quite hard for them for a while to get donations in, even though there were plenty of people willing to donate. Certain banks and their services (e.g. wire transfer), as well as payment providers should be treated like public utilities, especially when they have quasi-monopolies. The same for ISPs in areas in which there is only one or two, and other large companies with quasi-monopolies like Google, Apple and Microsoft. I don't think this applies to companies like Reddit or Cloudflare, though, for which there are easy and widely used substitutes.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  Are there easy and widely used substitutes for Cloudflare's DDoS protection? Because a big reason why I think this is bad is because I thought there are in fact no realistic alternatives to Cloudflare's protection. If there are alternatives, then I am also in the camp of "okay they can decide who to do business with or not". But I was under the impression that, if you are a controversial website, at a certain size (not even that big, depending on your enemies) you are likely to draw DDoS attacks of a severity that only Cloudflare can realistically protect against. The DDoS attacks being relatively cheap for whoever orders them.

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.
- tidepod12 7y ago
  >ISPs use the public's right of way and air wave spectrum licenses, so I don't think they're good examples. And Cloudflare's business is similarly dependent on these very same rights of way and spectrums. So why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions? Hint: it's because the argument for net neutrality has nothing to do with the ISP's usage of ROW or public spectrum, and everything to do with the effect that it would have on society if ISPs were allowed to arbitrarily filter whatever they want. What's funny about this is that I actually don't need to make this argument, because Cloudflare's CEO Matthew Prince has already made it for me. The entire blog post that he wrote [1] when Daily Stormer was taken off CF is one big explanation of why companies like Cloudflare having the ability to arbitrarily filter sites is bad. That didn't seem to stop him, I guess. > Due Process requires that decisions be public and not arbitrary. It's why we've always said that our policy is to follow the guidance of the law in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Law enforcement, legislators, and courts have the political legitimacy and predictability to make decisions on what content should be restricted. Companies should not. 1: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
  - belltaco 7y ago
    >And Cloudflare's business is similarly dependent on these very same rights of way and spectrums. So why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions? Did Cloudflare sign a document like this one? https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086 https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086 Then 8chan should sue them in court and win. Why didn't Daily Stormer sue them?
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      > Then 8chan should sue them in court and win. In order for them to win, you'll have to ignore the fact that when they created a CloudFlare account, they agreed that CloudFlare had the right to terminate such services for any or no reason.
jonathanstrange 7y ago
You're mixing up net neutrality with freedom of speech issues. Net Neutrality seeks to regulate IP packet filtering and prevent transport providers from selling premium services ("fastlanes") to particular companies only. What content those companies deliver or (re-)transmit is not regulated by net neutrality at all. I'm saying this not because I disagree with your position, but mainly because this confusion was dominating the debate in the US and was to some extent a deliberate strawman pushed by the opponents of net neutrality.
- javagram 7y ago
  Incorrect , net neutrality also required that ISPs not block. A lot of pro net neutrality people didn’t really understand what they were arguing for, I think, since the same people will turn around and argue that ISPs should be able to censor content they don’t like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 “A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.“
  - jonathanstrange 7y ago
    Sure, blocking is throttling 100%. The point remains that the OP mischaracterized net neutrality. What is important is that net neutrality only concerns transport of IP packets. Content providing companies and web site owners can moderate, block, or censor content as they like and as they deem fit. They have done so in the past under net neutrality, do so in countries with net neutrality laws, and are doing it now in the US without net neutrality. The two issues are frequently mixed up, hence my comment. On a side note, I've never heard anyone argue that ISPs should block content, that seems like a strawman to me, but I guess if you just search hard enough you can find someone on the Internet who argued for that nonsense. > lawful content Good point, that's compatible with restrictions of freedom of speech due to declaring certain kind of content illegal, and clearly illustrates that the two issues are different from each other. Yet people confuse them again and again, and additionally almost always base their arguments on a false dichotomy or on fallacious slippery slope arguments.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

crankylinuxuser 7y ago

> No. Because they are a public utility and that would be a violation of the first amendment. > Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you. That's some pretty strong dissonance there. Here in Indiana, the utilities AND banks are all private entities. And there's no actual state or federal law that would prevent a utility from cutting utilities for "being and speaking of white nationalism". I chose my examples carefully - all are much more regulated than some Walmart or Target or Amazon. My larger discussion was that over very corporate autonomy. Who made them arbiters of what language was acceptable? Why should infrastructure companies be decision makers of what is said online? Years ago, we restricted the phone companies from doing that very thing - and they wanted dearly to forbid classes of speech. Yet somehow when it's "on the interwebz" we throw those ideas and rules out, all so that someone can make a bigger pile of dollars. Don't forget, cloudflare is a US company. There's absolutely 0 reason why they can't be considered an infrastructure company and subject to common carrier rules as well. Or the counter-offer is they can be responsible for speech over their network. I doubt they'd like that either. After all, they're still hosting piles of stressers and ddos merchants.

belltaco 7y ago
>That's some pretty strong dissonance there. Here in Indiana, the utilities AND banks are all private entities. And there's no actual state or federal law that would prevent a utility from cutting utilities for "being and speaking of white nationalism". I chose my examples carefully - all are much more regulated than some Walmart or Target or Amazon. I don't see a dissonance. If and when banks and utilities start cutting off neo-Nazis, the public and politicians may find that unpalatable and pass laws restricting it. Or may not. The fact that isn't happening right now means no unnecessary laws are required. If and when society and politicians feel that Cloudflare shouldn't be able to not serve 8chan, it will pass a law doing so. Call your congressman and senator. >Years ago, we restricted the phone companies from doing that very thing - and they wanted dearly to forbid classes of speech Sounds interesting, got any references to read?
ceejayoz 7y ago
> Here in Indiana, the utilities AND banks are all private entities. It's likely there's one (or at most, a small handful) of each utility enjoying a state-supported monopoly, even if it's technically run by a private company. The same is not true for banks - I can sign up for one of hundreds of nationwide or online banks even if all the local ones decide I'm an ass.

RaceWon 7y ago

> Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you. Tell this to the bakery refusing to make a cake for a same sex marriage.

ceejayoz 7y ago
The bakery that won their SCOTUS case?
- RaceWon 7y ago
  > The bakery that won their SCOTUS case? No, [1] the bakery that paid $135,000 in fines, went bankrupt, and is stll bound by the lower courts decision because SCOTUS only remanded the case back to a lower court. And yeah, they might ultimately win... if you want to call that winning. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/scotus-lower-court-should-reexamine-same-sex-couple-wedding-cake-case.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/scotus-lower-court-should-re...
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > and is stll bound by the lower courts decision because SCOTUS only remanded the case back to a lower court. Wrong, they are not bound by the lower court decision, because the Supreme Court vacated the judgement and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the SCOTUS ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop (as stated in the order linked from the source you linked), because that decision set relevant precedent which the lower court did not consider in its judgement (for timing reasons, as the lower court decision predates Masterpiece Cakeshop, I believe.)
    - RaceWon 7y ago
      > Wrong, they are not bound by the lower court decision I am NOT wrong... ... this case is yet to be heard. Therefore; they are still presently bound by the original decision. PS: And they are still Bankrupt.

jonathanstrange 7y ago

However, this was a problem when Visa and Paypal cut off donations to Wikileaks. It was actually quite hard for them for a while to get donations in, even though there were plenty of people willing to donate. Certain banks and their services (e.g. wire transfer), as well as payment providers should be treated like public utilities, especially when they have quasi-monopolies. The same for ISPs in areas in which there is only one or two, and other large companies with quasi-monopolies like Google, Apple and Microsoft. I don't think this applies to companies like Reddit or Cloudflare, though, for which there are easy and widely used substitutes.

tripzilch 7y ago
Are there easy and widely used substitutes for Cloudflare's DDoS protection? Because a big reason why I think this is bad is because I thought there are in fact no realistic alternatives to Cloudflare's protection. If there are alternatives, then I am also in the camp of "okay they can decide who to do business with or not". But I was under the impression that, if you are a controversial website, at a certain size (not even that big, depending on your enemies) you are likely to draw DDoS attacks of a severity that only Cloudflare can realistically protect against. The DDoS attacks being relatively cheap for whoever orders them.