5 ms·

According to Cloudflare's logic, ISPs should have stopped peering with Facebook after NZ shooter livestreamed there.

cryptonector 7y ago
Perhaps only if commenters glorified it? I'm sure you can find people to do that on FB or anywhere else, and it may take time to moderate such commentary. But no one would deplatform FB or Twitter -- they're too big. This approach means we have a powerful dynamic in place to limit the reach of any social media that isn't already "too big to deplatform".
- yhamv 7y ago
  In fact Facebook said they didn't remove the nz shooter livestream because nobody bothered to report it until very late
  - dangxiaopin 7y ago
    I would argue that the actual graphic livestream of a real mass murder is a much much more toxic and dangerous material than any theoretical manifesto. It's not even in the same league. But Facebook is too big to be dropped as a customer!
    - ElCapitanMarkla 7y ago
      Is Facebook a customer? I thought they had their own network?
      - yhamv 7y ago
        Pretty sure they are customers of several CDNs.
      - cryptonector 7y ago
        Maybe not, but others could refuse to peer with them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fgdaniels 7y ago
  Please, as if Facebook would be taken down when a few pubescent mongoloids "glorified violence". Glorification is a matter of free speech, because it is an expression of opinion. That you find it distasteful is fine, using that as a weapon is not. Either way, Facebook won't be held accountable because it's funded by large investment funds, and HN won't complain because they're in bed together. The "too big" argument is not a moral argument, that just says "we have money invested in it". If that's acceptable to you you have no morality.
- michannne 7y ago
  >they're too big And therein lies the problem. This sort of behavior is tolerated in Facebook and Twitter simply because they are "large" by some random metric. If FB or Twitter decides one day to mass censor a certain type of content, it somehow isn't a big deal because they are "large"
q3k 7y ago
Facebook implemented automation to ban any reposts of the NZ footage. Facebook routinely bans extremists groups. 8ch actively caters to white supremacists, by letting /pol/ be the second largest board there and not be actively moderated to combat hate speech. 8ch administrators did nothing to prevent hate speech from becoming a large chunk of their discourse. As such, people were looking towards 8ch's providers to do something about this, as it has been the case on the Internet since forever (ISP not reacting to abuse requests concerning their customers? Okay, we have to contact their upstreams then).
- dangxiaopin 7y ago
  Oh so therefore, 8chan was deplatformed not in connection with this manifesto then, but due to their past record of not banning bad speech prior to this crime?
  - q3k 7y ago
    I don't know. I assume this can be the straw that broke the camel's back.
    - dangxiaopin 7y ago
      And I assume you are a "net neutrality" advocate at the same time?
  - toyg 7y ago
    They are not exclusive - this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Perhaps only if commenters glorified it? I'm sure you can find people to do that on FB or anywhere else, and it may take time to moderate such commentary. But no one would deplatform FB or Twitter -- they're too big. This approach means we have a powerful dynamic in place to limit the reach of any social media that isn't already "too big to deplatform".

yhamv 7y ago
In fact Facebook said they didn't remove the nz shooter livestream because nobody bothered to report it until very late
- dangxiaopin 7y ago
  I would argue that the actual graphic livestream of a real mass murder is a much much more toxic and dangerous material than any theoretical manifesto. It's not even in the same league. But Facebook is too big to be dropped as a customer!
  - ElCapitanMarkla 7y ago
    Is Facebook a customer? I thought they had their own network?
    - yhamv 7y ago
      Pretty sure they are customers of several CDNs.
    - cryptonector 7y ago
      Maybe not, but others could refuse to peer with them.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fgdaniels 7y ago
Please, as if Facebook would be taken down when a few pubescent mongoloids "glorified violence". Glorification is a matter of free speech, because it is an expression of opinion. That you find it distasteful is fine, using that as a weapon is not. Either way, Facebook won't be held accountable because it's funded by large investment funds, and HN won't complain because they're in bed together. The "too big" argument is not a moral argument, that just says "we have money invested in it". If that's acceptable to you you have no morality.
michannne 7y ago
>they're too big And therein lies the problem. This sort of behavior is tolerated in Facebook and Twitter simply because they are "large" by some random metric. If FB or Twitter decides one day to mass censor a certain type of content, it somehow isn't a big deal because they are "large"

q3k 7y ago

Facebook implemented automation to ban any reposts of the NZ footage. Facebook routinely bans extremists groups. 8ch actively caters to white supremacists, by letting /pol/ be the second largest board there and not be actively moderated to combat hate speech. 8ch administrators did nothing to prevent hate speech from becoming a large chunk of their discourse. As such, people were looking towards 8ch's providers to do something about this, as it has been the case on the Internet since forever (ISP not reacting to abuse requests concerning their customers? Okay, we have to contact their upstreams then).

dangxiaopin 7y ago
Oh so therefore, 8chan was deplatformed not in connection with this manifesto then, but due to their past record of not banning bad speech prior to this crime?
- q3k 7y ago
  I don't know. I assume this can be the straw that broke the camel's back.
  - dangxiaopin 7y ago
    And I assume you are a "net neutrality" advocate at the same time?
- toyg 7y ago
  They are not exclusive - this was the straw that broke the camel's back.