4 ms·

Neutrality is not support

by simula67 7y ago

root_axis 7y ago
Rebroadcasting the message across the internet is supporting it.
- simula67 7y ago
  If a message and its opposing message has equal access to the platform for rebroadcast, the platform is not supporting any particular message.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    Rebroadcasting a message, regardless of whether or not the opposite message has equal access, is still tacit support for that message, or at least a lack of desire to get involved. Cloudflare has decided that, for the most part, they won't get involved, but that there are some things that do actually cross the line (a line they are perfectly free to define for themselves), and they refuse to rebroadcast. If you don't like that, don't support CF with your business. Otherwise, I'm not sure what horse you have in this race.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - simula67 7y ago
      I am arguing that if you believe in free speech, it must be admitted that that it is deeply immoral for them to get involved. It is up to their users to define what does and does not cross the line and respond with counter-arguments.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        It's not immoral. Belief in free speech includes the freedom to choose which speech you want to support with your private resources. If anything, it's immoral to force private citizens to carry messages they disagree with. If the owners of CF are ideologically opposed to the ideas that 8chan represent, they should not be forced to be a vehicle for those ideas. Of course, booting people from the platform is bad for businesses, so it is wise for them to be as neutral as possible, but they have no moral obligation to support ideas they view as reprehensible. In fact, complicating normal business operations to take a stand against reprehensible ideologies is the moral thing to do.
        simula67 7y ago
        Even private property rights have limits: a factory owner cannot pollute a water supply for personal profit. If you believe in free speech it can be argued that it should not be OK for a company like Cloudflare to pollute public discourse by injecting the biases of its leaders into it. They should not be allowed to ban certain types of speech by fiat.
        root_axis 7y ago
        > Even private property rights have limits: a factory owner cannot pollute a water supply for personal profit That's not a limitation on property rights. A farmer polluting the water supply is an example of the farmer damaging a shared resource that does not belong to him. > Cloudflare to pollute public discourse by injecting the biases of its leaders into it. This has nothing to do with "public discourse". CF is a privately owned business refusing to provide a service to a privately owned website. CF is not obligated to do business with them for any reason, and frankly, it's pretty reasonable for a company to want to have nothing to do with a website where domestic terrorism is regarded as funny at best and actually put into action at worst.
        simula67 7y ago
        I am saying that public forums like the Internet is a kind of shared resource. It is the new town square.
        root_axis 7y ago
        I don't accept your town-square analogy, but even if it were apt, not everyone is welcome in the town square. If you're endorsing visions of racist violence and supporting those who actually act out racist violence then you'll be removed from the public square.
        simula67 7y ago
        If you believe in the principle of free speech you might be better positioned by saying that everyone is welcome to come to the town square, but if you make poor speech then you will be refuted.
    - iamnothere 7y ago
      > or at least a lack of desire to get involved This sounds like the very definition of neutrality. Neutrality in a dispute is about not getting involved. Neutrality is the store owner who chooses to ignore two customers who are loudly arguing about something. He will sell his wares to either customer, but he doesn't want to alienate either one by stepping in. Maybe one of the customers is obviously at fault, but as a neutral party he stays out of it. It sounds like what you are implying is that there is no such thing as neutrality, either in this specific case or more broadly. Or you could be saying that neutrality itself is "wrong" in some sense, that's a philosophical argument and you could try to make a convincing argument. But if you accept the existence of neutrality as a concept, claiming that a clearly neutral party is not actually neutral because they are acting neutrally is a hard sell.

Neutrality is not support

root_axis 7y ago

Rebroadcasting the message across the internet is supporting it.

simula67 7y ago
If a message and its opposing message has equal access to the platform for rebroadcast, the platform is not supporting any particular message.
- kelnos 7y ago
  Rebroadcasting a message, regardless of whether or not the opposite message has equal access, is still tacit support for that message, or at least a lack of desire to get involved. Cloudflare has decided that, for the most part, they won't get involved, but that there are some things that do actually cross the line (a line they are perfectly free to define for themselves), and they refuse to rebroadcast. If you don't like that, don't support CF with your business. Otherwise, I'm not sure what horse you have in this race.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - simula67 7y ago
    I am arguing that if you believe in free speech, it must be admitted that that it is deeply immoral for them to get involved. It is up to their users to define what does and does not cross the line and respond with counter-arguments.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      It's not immoral. Belief in free speech includes the freedom to choose which speech you want to support with your private resources. If anything, it's immoral to force private citizens to carry messages they disagree with. If the owners of CF are ideologically opposed to the ideas that 8chan represent, they should not be forced to be a vehicle for those ideas. Of course, booting people from the platform is bad for businesses, so it is wise for them to be as neutral as possible, but they have no moral obligation to support ideas they view as reprehensible. In fact, complicating normal business operations to take a stand against reprehensible ideologies is the moral thing to do.
      - simula67 7y ago
        Even private property rights have limits: a factory owner cannot pollute a water supply for personal profit. If you believe in free speech it can be argued that it should not be OK for a company like Cloudflare to pollute public discourse by injecting the biases of its leaders into it. They should not be allowed to ban certain types of speech by fiat.
        root_axis 7y ago
        > Even private property rights have limits: a factory owner cannot pollute a water supply for personal profit That's not a limitation on property rights. A farmer polluting the water supply is an example of the farmer damaging a shared resource that does not belong to him. > Cloudflare to pollute public discourse by injecting the biases of its leaders into it. This has nothing to do with "public discourse". CF is a privately owned business refusing to provide a service to a privately owned website. CF is not obligated to do business with them for any reason, and frankly, it's pretty reasonable for a company to want to have nothing to do with a website where domestic terrorism is regarded as funny at best and actually put into action at worst.
        simula67 7y ago
        I am saying that public forums like the Internet is a kind of shared resource. It is the new town square.
        root_axis 7y ago
        I don't accept your town-square analogy, but even if it were apt, not everyone is welcome in the town square. If you're endorsing visions of racist violence and supporting those who actually act out racist violence then you'll be removed from the public square.
        simula67 7y ago
        If you believe in the principle of free speech you might be better positioned by saying that everyone is welcome to come to the town square, but if you make poor speech then you will be refuted.
  - iamnothere 7y ago
    > or at least a lack of desire to get involved This sounds like the very definition of neutrality. Neutrality in a dispute is about not getting involved. Neutrality is the store owner who chooses to ignore two customers who are loudly arguing about something. He will sell his wares to either customer, but he doesn't want to alienate either one by stepping in. Maybe one of the customers is obviously at fault, but as a neutral party he stays out of it. It sounds like what you are implying is that there is no such thing as neutrality, either in this specific case or more broadly. Or you could be saying that neutrality itself is "wrong" in some sense, that's a philosophical argument and you could try to make a convincing argument. But if you accept the existence of neutrality as a concept, claiming that a clearly neutral party is not actually neutral because they are acting neutrally is a hard sell.