9 ms·

What kind of free speech are we exactly advocating here? The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating su

What kind of free speech are we exactly advocating here? The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they're violating your freedom of speech. Popper taught us that we can't be tolerant towards intolerants, if we really want to protect our tolerant rule of law. You can still have freedom of speech while implementing moderation to make sure that hate speech, bigotry and fake news don't spread - because if those things spread then they leak into the real world as death. 8chan has been shut down not only because it hosted hate communities, but because it refused to apply any moderation there. However, the problem is not 8chan alone. It's good to shut down websites where hate speech proliferates without constraints, but a couple of days or weeks later new *chan websites are likely to pop up to replace them, or maybe they'd make a Telegram group. The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech.

mLuby 7y ago
I get the gut reaction toward moderation at the corporate level, but United States law already covers these situations: hate speech, criminal conspiracy, and murder. The issue is lack of law enforcement.
- Lazare 7y ago
  There is no law against hate speech, and any such law would be unconstitutional. Many attempts at passing such laws have been struck down. It's an oddly pervasive delusion that hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.
  - ptah 7y ago
    I found it odd that the US uniquely protects hate speech. it is peculiar
    - drak0n1c 7y ago
      It’s not so odd when you see countries with laws labeling and controlling “hate speech”, such as the UK, end up prosecuting people for blaspheming religious prophets and critiquing religion. There are obvious pros and cons to nebulous hate speech laws. They codify assumptions about what is currently culturally sacrosanct into law without regard for consequences.
      - ptah 7y ago
        The UK approach is generally to only address an issue when necessary. these laws will have specific case law backing them up
        drak0n1c 7y ago
        Here are some examples of excessive policing and prosecution: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075328/Man-jailed-leaving-bacon-sandwiched-outside-mosque-dead-prison-half-way-12-month-sentence.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075328/Man-jailed-... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-47638527 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-47638527 https://www.france24.com/en/20181031-blasphemy-middle-east-asia-bibi-europe-law-religion-ireland https://www.france24.com/en/20181031-blasphemy-middle-east-a...
    - squeaky-clean 7y ago
      It's not that we protect hate speech. We protect speech. Regardless of content (in 99.999% of uses). As has been brought up in a different comment branch, there is no single perfect definition of "hate speech." It's nice while a hate speech ban matches everything you agree with, but too easy to pivot into something worse.
      - ptah 7y ago
        so it is an oversight? granted the drafters of the US constitution were very young and inexperienced but surely they would have mentioned hate speech separately?
baybal2 7y ago
Can you tell what country do you live in? I live in China, a textbook totalitarian state. What you say is awfully similar to what CPC puts as their justification of censorship. The prevailing narrative among the "dotcom" community in the West, and what you have said wrote is very similar to their position.
- arrrg 7y ago
  That is why context is important. The dream of the perfect context free golden rule does not exist. We have to pay attention and make hard decisions. None of this is simple.
  - collinstevens 7y ago
    The golden rule does exist, freedom of speech.
    - majewsky 7y ago
      In your value system. Not in mine.
      - raxxorrax 7y ago
        This is a far more likely explanation why we are in danger of getting fascism back in Europe. Strong-arming bad opinions like this one.
        bart_spoon 7y ago
        I can't speak for Europe, but rising fascism movements in the US are entirely riding a wave of anti-PC, fake news, and grassroots social networks, all under the guise of free-speech. I won't argue that these mean free speech must be restricted necessarily, but its absolutely clear that free-speech is enabling these particular movements.
        7y ago
rlonn 7y ago
I'm sorry, but how can anyone say "what kind" of free speech...? Don't you see that labeling or discriminating between "free speech of type A, allowed" and "free speech of type B, disallowed" defeats the whole notion of "free"? Somehow people tend to think that their own discrimination isn't, while others is.
- ketzo 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - nextmemorandum 7y ago
    That does not change the fact that people have the natural right of freedom of speech.
    - AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
      That is your personal OPINION, not a fact! There is no such thing as a "natural right of freedom of speech". If one sovereign in the history of mankind decides to allow unrestricted freedom of speech in its constitution, it is just that: an episode in the history of legal systems established by humans. It can turn out as a bad idea, or a milestone for better societies. We will see. In no way is it a "natural right". Not even would it be a natural right, if it was mentioned in the bible as one of the 10 commandments from god (disregarding the FACT, that there are some serious restrictions of freedom of speech in that: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour").
      - majewsky 7y ago
        > There is no such thing as a "natural right of freedom of speech". In fact, there is no such thing as a natural right at all. Rights are derived from value systems, and the choice of value system is mostly based on aesthetics. There is no way to say whether the Western Christianity-based value system is "better" than, say, the Confucian value system, because the word "better" cannot be defined from first principles (without invoking a particular value system).
Lazare 7y ago
> The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they're violating your freedom of speech. Popper taught us that we can't be tolerant towards intolerants, if we really want to protect our tolerant rule of law. Everything you just said is essentially untrue when it comes to government censorship of speech in the US. Hate speech is certainly protected by the first amendment, with only a few narrow exceptions. Personally addressed, face-to-face insults, if deemed likely to start an imminent fight is not constitutionally protected. (This is sometimes called the "fighting words" exception, and it's much narrower than you might think. The law is quite clear that just because the words might yield a violent reaction, they're still protected. Cantwell v. Connecticut involved anti-Catholic "hate speech", as we'd now term it, expressed in public in a neighbourhood that was 90% Catholic, enraged many listeners, and almost started some violence. Still protected.) > You can still have freedom of speech while implementing moderation to make sure that hate speech, bigotry and fake news don't spread Only if done, as here, by private organisations. Regulating bigotry on message boards is the precise thing type of things that the first amendment prevents. There is no hate speech exception in the constitution. Hate speech is generally an example of what is most protected.
- ptah 7y ago
  yes, i think this is a serious flaw in the US constitution. other countries are more sensible and reasonable when it comes to dealing with hate speech
  - collinstevens 7y ago
    Not a flaw, intent. Freedom implies freedom.
    - ptah 7y ago
      is that like "brexit means brexit"? :)
vmurthy 7y ago
> The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech. I doubt that only Americans are the problem in this case. I think what has happened is that hate speech and other undesirable (subjective word but bear with me) content is a hack into human psychology and a small percent of human beings regardless of nationality will always be influenced by hate speech and caste-ism and what not. The problem is that as the internet has reached the masses, the lone fanatic has a very large soapbox to shout and a very loud speaker to listen from.
rjf72 7y ago
Why do you think it might have been that the founding fathers were such advocates for freedom of speech? Do you think they were unaware that it would lead to the normalization of unpleasant things being said? These questions can be answered quite succinctly by asking one other question. In a nation without freedom of speech, who gets to determine what can and cannot be said? The Treason Felony Act 1848 [1] is something that is still technically a part of the law in the United Kingdom even if not actively enforced. In 2001 The Guardian made a legal effort to finally have it officially removed from the books, and failed [2]. The act makes it illegal to call for the abolition of the monarchy within the United Kingdom, even "imagining" such is sufficient to conviction. The max penalty is life imprisonment -- quite progressive as it used to be death. This is a stark reminder of why and where the desire for free free speech came from. Imagine our past without freedom of speech. There undoubtedly would have been numerous states that would have made the mere advocacy for abolition illegal, others that would have made advocating for suffrage of various groups also illegal, and so on. You may think it simple to demarcate a line between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' speech but it's not so easy and ultimately the individuals that get to decide as such are those with the most power in society. The lines end up being drawn as fairly and reasonably as our states draw the lines laying out their voting districts. Laws against free speech invariably end up being exploited to help entrench whatever political ideology happens to get a grip on power within a nation, as the UK laws past and present are a reminder of. Such laws can even be used to enforced bigoted views. For instance in the UK in 2017 a 19 year old lady was arrested and convicted, forced to wear a ankle monitoring device, abide a curfew, etc for "sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network." Her crime? Quoting lyrics from a Snoop Dog song on Instagram. That conviction was overturned a couple of years later. In another case (again in the UK) a Christian preacher was arrested for stating that, while he was not homophobic, he believed that the Bible taught homosexuality was a sin. Again it was overturned, yet being arrested, let alone convicted, for such "offenses" is hardly a society any should thrive to emulate. Ultimately, I think people only see things they disagree with as being affected. In reality once free speech goes it will also include some of your views you find in no way unacceptable. In Germany until 2018 it was illegal to publicly insult any head of state. It was revoked only when it became inconvenient to the powers that be. Following a comedian reading an obscene poem about Turkish president Erdoğan, Turkey demanded and lawfully received prosecution which ultimately led to the law's removal. Laws which make it illegal to "defame" the President of the German Federal Republic remain on the books. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848 [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abolition-monarchy-illegal-uk-justice-ministry https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abol...
otabdeveloper4 7y ago
> The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? So cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against majorities are okay? Glad I don't live in your country. Enjoy the hellhole you've created.
vast 7y ago
You are simplifying. Google shopping for example doesn't list WWII products in germany. Without any exception. Without decision between right wing propaganda and historical teaching material it is an attempt to deny the holocaust. And that's as simple as it is.
PunchTornado 7y ago
I don't agree. I think people should be free to say their opionions online and offline, no matter how bad those opinions are. I disagree with cloudfare's decision.
- boomlinde 7y ago
  > I think people should be free to say their opionions online and offline, no matter how bad those opinions are. So do I, but outside essential utility monopolies, I also believe that no one should be forced to facilitate those opinions. That Cloudflare choose not to do so is ultimately an expression of their own opinions and values.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Or they were "convinced" from outside from people that think their opinions to be worth a damn.
    - boomlinde 7y ago
      It's still an expression of their opinions and values, even if their opinions and values are simply that they should maintain a favorable public image or that they should retain customers who would otherwise boycott them. Oh, and you ever thought that Cloudflare should stop providing their services to 8chan, and that your opinion was worth a damn, guess what—your opinion was worth a damn.
      - raxxorrax 7y ago
        > your opinion was worth a damn It can have consequences while not being worth anything.
        boomlinde 7y ago
        If you want to go down the road of ignoring idiomatic phrases, sure, of course. I'd go as far as to argue that nothing has inherent worth, but I'd much rather stick to the topic and hear what your response to anything that actually pertains to the discussion is.
raxxorrax 7y ago
We have enough examples of information declared as fake news that turned out to be true in the end that the concept of content classification you are proposing just isn't feasible.
austhrow743 7y ago
>The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? Yes. If the speech isn't terrible it doesn't really need advocating for or protecting does it? Arguing for free speech is inextricably linked to arguing for people to be able to say despicable things.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  So by this logic, filtering spam is violating freedom of speech?
  - austhrow743 7y ago
    You don't need to listen to the terrible things they're saying.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      You don't need to read all the spam that would show up in your inbox if not for those censorious filters!
      - jpd- 7y ago
        There's a difference between filtering incoming information and preventing someone from sending it in the first place.
  - bena 7y ago
    Your rights stop where mine begin. So you are free to send spam. I'm free to refuse it. I'm not required to transport your junk if I don't want to.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      But Cloudflare should be required to transport 8chan's junk? What exactly are you arguing?
edanm 7y ago
> The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech. That is a baseless and offensive statement. Very unhappily, this kind of irrational hatred (and polarization) is on the rise in many parts of the West. It is not a problem with Americans.
HyperTalk2 7y ago
What's wrong with hate, exactly? Last I checked, hate is the emotion that one experiences in response to the realization that someone else is doing horrible things to them or the people they love. This then compels one to protect themselves and those they love from the hated individuals, which is good.
- danso 7y ago
  That’s not the connotation of “hate” when used in the term, “hate speech”.
makomk 7y ago
Define "fake news". For instance, the Guardian ran an article last week "Facebook says it was 'not our role' to remove fake news during Australian election"[1] criticising Facebook for not removing claims that the Labor party would introduce a "death tax" they said they wouldn't. If you click through to the previous article[2], the supposed "misinformation" included posts quoting their statements that they wouldn't introduce a "death tax" and then arguing that they couldn't be trusted not to do it anyway. Should tech companies be expected to supress the idea that certain political parties can't be trusted to do what they promise (not all of them, obviously - I can't imagine this is meant to apply to Republicans or any of the Australian right-wing parties)? Because that is definitely something that's being pushed for in the name of fighting "fake news". [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/31/facebook-says-it-was-not-our-role-to-remove-fake-news-during-australian-election https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/31/facebook-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/08/it-felt-like-a-big-tide-how-the-death-tax-lie-infected-australias-election-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/08/it-fe...
dang 7y ago
Nationalistic flamewar will get you banned here. Please don't post like this to HN again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
importantbrian 7y ago
> The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech. That's an incredibly offensive and hateful comment. Fortunately for you, in America the first amendment protects your right to say it. Maybe you can see where allowing the government to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech might be problematic.

mLuby 7y ago

I get the gut reaction toward moderation at the corporate level, but United States law already covers these situations: hate speech, criminal conspiracy, and murder. The issue is lack of law enforcement.

Lazare 7y ago
There is no law against hate speech, and any such law would be unconstitutional. Many attempts at passing such laws have been struck down. It's an oddly pervasive delusion that hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.
- ptah 7y ago
  I found it odd that the US uniquely protects hate speech. it is peculiar
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    It’s not so odd when you see countries with laws labeling and controlling “hate speech”, such as the UK, end up prosecuting people for blaspheming religious prophets and critiquing religion. There are obvious pros and cons to nebulous hate speech laws. They codify assumptions about what is currently culturally sacrosanct into law without regard for consequences.
    - ptah 7y ago
      The UK approach is generally to only address an issue when necessary. these laws will have specific case law backing them up
      - drak0n1c 7y ago
        Here are some examples of excessive policing and prosecution: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075328/Man-jailed-leaving-bacon-sandwiched-outside-mosque-dead-prison-half-way-12-month-sentence.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075328/Man-jailed-... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-47638527 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-47638527 https://www.france24.com/en/20181031-blasphemy-middle-east-asia-bibi-europe-law-religion-ireland https://www.france24.com/en/20181031-blasphemy-middle-east-a...
  - squeaky-clean 7y ago
    It's not that we protect hate speech. We protect speech. Regardless of content (in 99.999% of uses). As has been brought up in a different comment branch, there is no single perfect definition of "hate speech." It's nice while a hate speech ban matches everything you agree with, but too easy to pivot into something worse.
    - ptah 7y ago
      so it is an oversight? granted the drafters of the US constitution were very young and inexperienced but surely they would have mentioned hate speech separately?

baybal2 7y ago

Can you tell what country do you live in? I live in China, a textbook totalitarian state. What you say is awfully similar to what CPC puts as their justification of censorship. The prevailing narrative among the "dotcom" community in the West, and what you have said wrote is very similar to their position.

arrrg 7y ago
That is why context is important. The dream of the perfect context free golden rule does not exist. We have to pay attention and make hard decisions. None of this is simple.
- collinstevens 7y ago
  The golden rule does exist, freedom of speech.
  - majewsky 7y ago
    In your value system. Not in mine.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      This is a far more likely explanation why we are in danger of getting fascism back in Europe. Strong-arming bad opinions like this one.
      - bart_spoon 7y ago
        I can't speak for Europe, but rising fascism movements in the US are entirely riding a wave of anti-PC, fake news, and grassroots social networks, all under the guise of free-speech. I won't argue that these mean free speech must be restricted necessarily, but its absolutely clear that free-speech is enabling these particular movements.
        7y ago

rlonn 7y ago

I'm sorry, but how can anyone say "what kind" of free speech...? Don't you see that labeling or discriminating between "free speech of type A, allowed" and "free speech of type B, disallowed" defeats the whole notion of "free"? Somehow people tend to think that their own discrimination isn't, while others is.

ketzo 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- nextmemorandum 7y ago
  That does not change the fact that people have the natural right of freedom of speech.
  - AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
    That is your personal OPINION, not a fact! There is no such thing as a "natural right of freedom of speech". If one sovereign in the history of mankind decides to allow unrestricted freedom of speech in its constitution, it is just that: an episode in the history of legal systems established by humans. It can turn out as a bad idea, or a milestone for better societies. We will see. In no way is it a "natural right". Not even would it be a natural right, if it was mentioned in the bible as one of the 10 commandments from god (disregarding the FACT, that there are some serious restrictions of freedom of speech in that: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour").
    - majewsky 7y ago
      > There is no such thing as a "natural right of freedom of speech". In fact, there is no such thing as a natural right at all. Rights are derived from value systems, and the choice of value system is mostly based on aesthetics. There is no way to say whether the Western Christianity-based value system is "better" than, say, the Confucian value system, because the word "better" cannot be defined from first principles (without invoking a particular value system).

Lazare 7y ago

> The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they're violating your freedom of speech. Popper taught us that we can't be tolerant towards intolerants, if we really want to protect our tolerant rule of law. Everything you just said is essentially untrue when it comes to government censorship of speech in the US. Hate speech is certainly protected by the first amendment, with only a few narrow exceptions. Personally addressed, face-to-face insults, if deemed likely to start an imminent fight is not constitutionally protected. (This is sometimes called the "fighting words" exception, and it's much narrower than you might think. The law is quite clear that just because the words might yield a violent reaction, they're still protected. Cantwell v. Connecticut involved anti-Catholic "hate speech", as we'd now term it, expressed in public in a neighbourhood that was 90% Catholic, enraged many listeners, and almost started some violence. Still protected.) > You can still have freedom of speech while implementing moderation to make sure that hate speech, bigotry and fake news don't spread Only if done, as here, by private organisations. Regulating bigotry on message boards is the precise thing type of things that the first amendment prevents. There is no hate speech exception in the constitution. Hate speech is generally an example of what is most protected.

ptah 7y ago
yes, i think this is a serious flaw in the US constitution. other countries are more sensible and reasonable when it comes to dealing with hate speech
- collinstevens 7y ago
  Not a flaw, intent. Freedom implies freedom.
  - ptah 7y ago
    is that like "brexit means brexit"? :)

vmurthy 7y ago

> The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech. I doubt that only Americans are the problem in this case. I think what has happened is that hate speech and other undesirable (subjective word but bear with me) content is a hack into human psychology and a small percent of human beings regardless of nationality will always be influenced by hate speech and caste-ism and what not. The problem is that as the internet has reached the masses, the lone fanatic has a very large soapbox to shout and a very loud speaker to listen from.

rjf72 7y ago

Why do you think it might have been that the founding fathers were such advocates for freedom of speech? Do you think they were unaware that it would lead to the normalization of unpleasant things being said? These questions can be answered quite succinctly by asking one other question. In a nation without freedom of speech, who gets to determine what can and cannot be said? The Treason Felony Act 1848 [1] is something that is still technically a part of the law in the United Kingdom even if not actively enforced. In 2001 The Guardian made a legal effort to finally have it officially removed from the books, and failed [2]. The act makes it illegal to call for the abolition of the monarchy within the United Kingdom, even "imagining" such is sufficient to conviction. The max penalty is life imprisonment -- quite progressive as it used to be death. This is a stark reminder of why and where the desire for free free speech came from. Imagine our past without freedom of speech. There undoubtedly would have been numerous states that would have made the mere advocacy for abolition illegal, others that would have made advocating for suffrage of various groups also illegal, and so on. You may think it simple to demarcate a line between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' speech but it's not so easy and ultimately the individuals that get to decide as such are those with the most power in society. The lines end up being drawn as fairly and reasonably as our states draw the lines laying out their voting districts. Laws against free speech invariably end up being exploited to help entrench whatever political ideology happens to get a grip on power within a nation, as the UK laws past and present are a reminder of. Such laws can even be used to enforced bigoted views. For instance in the UK in 2017 a 19 year old lady was arrested and convicted, forced to wear a ankle monitoring device, abide a curfew, etc for "sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network." Her crime? Quoting lyrics from a Snoop Dog song on Instagram. That conviction was overturned a couple of years later. In another case (again in the UK) a Christian preacher was arrested for stating that, while he was not homophobic, he believed that the Bible taught homosexuality was a sin. Again it was overturned, yet being arrested, let alone convicted, for such "offenses" is hardly a society any should thrive to emulate. Ultimately, I think people only see things they disagree with as being affected. In reality once free speech goes it will also include some of your views you find in no way unacceptable. In Germany until 2018 it was illegal to publicly insult any head of state. It was revoked only when it became inconvenient to the powers that be. Following a comedian reading an obscene poem about Turkish president Erdoğan, Turkey demanded and lawfully received prosecution which ultimately led to the law's removal. Laws which make it illegal to "defame" the President of the German Federal Republic remain on the books. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848 [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abolition-monarchy-illegal-uk-justice-ministry https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abol...

otabdeveloper4 7y ago

> The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? So cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against majorities are okay? Glad I don't live in your country. Enjoy the hellhole you've created.

vast 7y ago

You are simplifying. Google shopping for example doesn't list WWII products in germany. Without any exception. Without decision between right wing propaganda and historical teaching material it is an attempt to deny the holocaust. And that's as simple as it is.

PunchTornado 7y ago

I don't agree. I think people should be free to say their opionions online and offline, no matter how bad those opinions are. I disagree with cloudfare's decision.

boomlinde 7y ago
> I think people should be free to say their opionions online and offline, no matter how bad those opinions are. So do I, but outside essential utility monopolies, I also believe that no one should be forced to facilitate those opinions. That Cloudflare choose not to do so is ultimately an expression of their own opinions and values.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Or they were "convinced" from outside from people that think their opinions to be worth a damn.
  - boomlinde 7y ago
    It's still an expression of their opinions and values, even if their opinions and values are simply that they should maintain a favorable public image or that they should retain customers who would otherwise boycott them. Oh, and you ever thought that Cloudflare should stop providing their services to 8chan, and that your opinion was worth a damn, guess what—your opinion was worth a damn.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      > your opinion was worth a damn It can have consequences while not being worth anything.
      - boomlinde 7y ago
        If you want to go down the road of ignoring idiomatic phrases, sure, of course. I'd go as far as to argue that nothing has inherent worth, but I'd much rather stick to the topic and hear what your response to anything that actually pertains to the discussion is.

raxxorrax 7y ago

We have enough examples of information declared as fake news that turned out to be true in the end that the concept of content classification you are proposing just isn't feasible.

austhrow743 7y ago

>The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? Yes. If the speech isn't terrible it doesn't really need advocating for or protecting does it? Arguing for free speech is inextricably linked to arguing for people to be able to say despicable things.

ForHackernews 7y ago
So by this logic, filtering spam is violating freedom of speech?
- austhrow743 7y ago
  You don't need to listen to the terrible things they're saying.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    You don't need to read all the spam that would show up in your inbox if not for those censorious filters!
    - jpd- 7y ago
      There's a difference between filtering incoming information and preventing someone from sending it in the first place.
- bena 7y ago
  Your rights stop where mine begin. So you are free to send spam. I'm free to refuse it. I'm not required to transport your junk if I don't want to.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    But Cloudflare should be required to transport 8chan's junk? What exactly are you arguing?

edanm 7y ago

> The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech. That is a baseless and offensive statement. Very unhappily, this kind of irrational hatred (and polarization) is on the rise in many parts of the West. It is not a problem with Americans.

HyperTalk2 7y ago

What's wrong with hate, exactly? Last I checked, hate is the emotion that one experiences in response to the realization that someone else is doing horrible things to them or the people they love. This then compels one to protect themselves and those they love from the hated individuals, which is good.

danso 7y ago
That’s not the connotation of “hate” when used in the term, “hate speech”.

makomk 7y ago

Define "fake news". For instance, the Guardian ran an article last week "Facebook says it was 'not our role' to remove fake news during Australian election"[1] criticising Facebook for not removing claims that the Labor party would introduce a "death tax" they said they wouldn't. If you click through to the previous article[2], the supposed "misinformation" included posts quoting their statements that they wouldn't introduce a "death tax" and then arguing that they couldn't be trusted not to do it anyway. Should tech companies be expected to supress the idea that certain political parties can't be trusted to do what they promise (not all of them, obviously - I can't imagine this is meant to apply to Republicans or any of the Australian right-wing parties)? Because that is definitely something that's being pushed for in the name of fighting "fake news". [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/31/facebook-says-it-was-not-our-role-to-remove-fake-news-during-australian-election https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/31/facebook-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/08/it-felt-like-a-big-tide-how-the-death-tax-lie-infected-australias-election-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/08/it-fe...

dang 7y ago

Nationalistic flamewar will get you banned here. Please don't post like this to HN again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

importantbrian 7y ago

> The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech. That's an incredibly offensive and hateful comment. Fortunately for you, in America the first amendment protects your right to say it. Maybe you can see where allowing the government to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech might be problematic.