13 ms·

I'm not sure I understand what those here rallying in defense of "free speech" are arguing. Free speech has not been violated. The government did not mandate th

I'm not sure I understand what those here rallying in defense of "free speech" are arguing. Free speech has not been violated. The government did not mandate this. As an individual citizen, I am allowed to say whatever I want under the protection of free speech. But I am not entitled to others providing me a platform for my speech. Other people/companies can't be coerced to provide me such a platform. And even if every person and company refuses to provide me a platform, my rights still aren't being violated, so long as the government isn't mandating it. Its just tough nuts.

Ajedi32 7y ago
As has been explained in this thread multiple times now, Free Speech is a principle, not a law. If, for example, someone in North Korea spoke against their government and was executed for it, that'd be a violation of Free Speech. Arguing "but North Korea doesn't have a law protecting people who speak against the government" would be ridiculous. Similarly, if a person or organization in the United States is silenced because they were deplatformed by a corporate oligarchy, it's ridiculous to argue "the US doesn't have any law which prevents that, so Free Speech has not been violated". Free Speech has absolutely been impinged by this decision.
- Traster 7y ago
  This is a very strange idea of what Free Speech is. The reason Free Speech is related to government is that government has a monopoly on violence. Government can turn up with guns at your house and stop you speaking in a way that no other body can. What is happening here is very different. Cloudflare isn't preventing anyone from saying anything. All that is happening is Cloudflare is using it's freedom of association not to associate with this website. This has nothing to do with 8Chan's ability to publish what they want - only their ability to use Cloudflare's services to do so. As the article mentions - because the US has the principle of Free Speech enshrined in law, 8chan has the ability to go and use other services, or to develop the services that Cloudflare provided. This will not impact 8chan's ability to publish whatever they like. Now there is a theoretical point of view, that if a company has a monopoly - it is effectively able to police speech, but that's absolutely not the case here, as is demonstrated in the past by companies going elsewhere to exercise their right. What is being proposed as an understanding of Free Speech is not allowing private individuals from refusing to service to you. This would seem to be mandating someone to act - which is a principle quite far away from any law I've heard of.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    Cloudflare may not be a monopoly, but they don't necessarily need to be a monopoly to be able to effectively police speech. A duopoly or oligopoly can be just as effective at that task, provided all competitors have similar rules about what sort of speech they disallow. Now maybe we're not quite at that point yet (after all, the Daily Stormer did eventually find a CDN that would take them), but we may very well be getting close; there are only so many CDNs big enough to effectively shrug off large-scale DDOS attacks after all. You also have to consider how difficult it is to match the quality of service provided by Cloudflare, and the hassle involved in switching to a new CDN. Cloudflare's refusal to service some organizations on the basis of ideology might have a chilling effect on Free Speech, even if it's not an insurmountable barrier. I agree there is a balance between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. The question is: where do we draw the line?
    - themagician 7y ago
      Free Speech doesn’t require a CDN. Lol. It’s not like the First Amendment comes with a 99.999% uptime guarantee. Some of you are so dense. Free speech is about not being dragged off in the middle of the night and sent to a gulag. There’s no fine line here, no slippery slope. Everyone on 8chan is free to continue publishing whatever they want. It just won’t be published over a high availability CDN. It also won’t show up in Times Square.
      - Ajedi32 7y ago
        There is a fine line, and I think that's easily illustrated with a few hypothetical counterexamples. If you truly believe that "free speech is about not being dragged off in the middle of the night and sent to a gulag", and that that's all it's about for you, then would you, for example, be okay with a law stating that social media companies in the US are required to automatically filter any content critical of actions taken by the US military, and not display that content to people inside the US? Yes, that's an extreme example, and yes it'd be illegal under the current US constitution, but it would be consistent with the extremely narrow definition of Free Speech you specified in your previous comment. So, assuming that's not actually where you draw the line, where do you draw it? How much suppression of speech are you willing to tolerate before you would consider it unacceptable?
- x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
  I'm always amazed at how right wingers are all "property rights, property rights". And when something like this happens, they quickly switch from demanding that the property rights of CloudFlare be observed, to "free speech, free speech" concerning the conservatives on 8chan.
  - bsagdiyev 7y ago
    That's a large brush you're using to paint a group of individuals. I think I would be considered conservative by a lot of the more liberal types here but think that CloudFlare is within their rights to do what they want.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    In this case, "property rights", as you put it are at odds with free speech. I don't think it would be ideologically inconsistent to believe that free speech trumps property rights in cases where the two principles conflict. I also think there's a lot more nuance to this situation than you seem to be implying. I very much doubt there are a significant number of people ("right wingers" or otherwise) who believe property rights are the most important concern in all situations, nor are there many who believe in an absolute right to Free Speech at any cost. (The constitution itself allows for narrow exceptions for both of those rights.)
    - x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
      So CloudFlare gets absolutely no say in what they host and serve on their private property because of "Free Speech"?
      - Ajedi32 7y ago
        Maybe. We've already banned companies from discriminating on the basis of race. Would a limited ban on telecommunications infrastructure companies discriminating on the basis of ideology really be all that bad? If anything, it would certainly free those companies from having to act as arbiters of moral truth.
- burnte 7y ago
  "Free Speech has absolutely been impinged by this decision." No, it hasn't. No one has a moral, legal, or ethical responsibility to pay for someone else's speech. The government must tread lightly, but private individuals are under no compulsion to listen to others. 8chan is NOT having their speech rights infringed, they are simply having a business agreement terminated. They are still 100% free to create a website somewhere else, write a book, or protest in the streets. Do not confuse private property (Cloudflare's servers) with the public square.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    The problem with that argument is that there's no such thing as a "public square" on the internet. Everything on the internet is controlled by a private company in some manner or another. Whether you're talking about DNS, cloud hosting, ISPs, CDNs, or CAs there are always going to be some number of privately controlled intermediaries with the means to censor your speech. For some of these entities, such as CDNs with enough infrastructure to stand up against large-scale DDOS attacks, there may only be a small number of viable options. What happens if all of those companies collectively decide to censor someone? You've effectively created a corporate oligarchy with the power to decide what sort of speech is and isn't allowed on the internet. Now again, maybe we're not quite at that point yet (after all, the Daily Stormer did eventually find a CDN that would take them), but we may very well be getting close. You also have to consider that even without a true oligopoly; there's still a chilling effect created when a large percentage of the internet's major infrastructure providers collectively decide to censor certain speech on the basis of ideology. At what point do you believe freedom of speech outweighs freedom of association? We've already decided freedom from racial discrimination trumps freedom of association, so it's not like this sort of thing would be entirely without precedent.
    - themagician 7y ago
      Do you actually know what Cloudflare does? I'm not sure you quite understand what a CDN is. A CDN isn't necessary. It's a convenience for end users. You don't need a CDN to prevent DDoS. In fact having a CDN is probably the most expensive way to handle DDoS.
agensaequivocum 7y ago
I agree. Similarly, I cannot be forced at gunpoint by the government to provide a cake for a gay wedding if I have a moral objection.
- sv123 7y ago
  Discriminatory business practices should not be conflated with free speech.
  - agensaequivocum 7y ago
    What I produce in my business is an expression of myself that I may or may not exchange with another. I have the right to or not to associate with whomever I choose to.

Ajedi32 7y ago

As has been explained in this thread multiple times now, Free Speech is a principle, not a law. If, for example, someone in North Korea spoke against their government and was executed for it, that'd be a violation of Free Speech. Arguing "but North Korea doesn't have a law protecting people who speak against the government" would be ridiculous. Similarly, if a person or organization in the United States is silenced because they were deplatformed by a corporate oligarchy, it's ridiculous to argue "the US doesn't have any law which prevents that, so Free Speech has not been violated". Free Speech has absolutely been impinged by this decision.

Traster 7y ago
This is a very strange idea of what Free Speech is. The reason Free Speech is related to government is that government has a monopoly on violence. Government can turn up with guns at your house and stop you speaking in a way that no other body can. What is happening here is very different. Cloudflare isn't preventing anyone from saying anything. All that is happening is Cloudflare is using it's freedom of association not to associate with this website. This has nothing to do with 8Chan's ability to publish what they want - only their ability to use Cloudflare's services to do so. As the article mentions - because the US has the principle of Free Speech enshrined in law, 8chan has the ability to go and use other services, or to develop the services that Cloudflare provided. This will not impact 8chan's ability to publish whatever they like. Now there is a theoretical point of view, that if a company has a monopoly - it is effectively able to police speech, but that's absolutely not the case here, as is demonstrated in the past by companies going elsewhere to exercise their right. What is being proposed as an understanding of Free Speech is not allowing private individuals from refusing to service to you. This would seem to be mandating someone to act - which is a principle quite far away from any law I've heard of.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  Cloudflare may not be a monopoly, but they don't necessarily need to be a monopoly to be able to effectively police speech. A duopoly or oligopoly can be just as effective at that task, provided all competitors have similar rules about what sort of speech they disallow. Now maybe we're not quite at that point yet (after all, the Daily Stormer did eventually find a CDN that would take them), but we may very well be getting close; there are only so many CDNs big enough to effectively shrug off large-scale DDOS attacks after all. You also have to consider how difficult it is to match the quality of service provided by Cloudflare, and the hassle involved in switching to a new CDN. Cloudflare's refusal to service some organizations on the basis of ideology might have a chilling effect on Free Speech, even if it's not an insurmountable barrier. I agree there is a balance between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. The question is: where do we draw the line?
  - themagician 7y ago
    Free Speech doesn’t require a CDN. Lol. It’s not like the First Amendment comes with a 99.999% uptime guarantee. Some of you are so dense. Free speech is about not being dragged off in the middle of the night and sent to a gulag. There’s no fine line here, no slippery slope. Everyone on 8chan is free to continue publishing whatever they want. It just won’t be published over a high availability CDN. It also won’t show up in Times Square.
    - Ajedi32 7y ago
      There is a fine line, and I think that's easily illustrated with a few hypothetical counterexamples. If you truly believe that "free speech is about not being dragged off in the middle of the night and sent to a gulag", and that that's all it's about for you, then would you, for example, be okay with a law stating that social media companies in the US are required to automatically filter any content critical of actions taken by the US military, and not display that content to people inside the US? Yes, that's an extreme example, and yes it'd be illegal under the current US constitution, but it would be consistent with the extremely narrow definition of Free Speech you specified in your previous comment. So, assuming that's not actually where you draw the line, where do you draw it? How much suppression of speech are you willing to tolerate before you would consider it unacceptable?
x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
I'm always amazed at how right wingers are all "property rights, property rights". And when something like this happens, they quickly switch from demanding that the property rights of CloudFlare be observed, to "free speech, free speech" concerning the conservatives on 8chan.
- bsagdiyev 7y ago
  That's a large brush you're using to paint a group of individuals. I think I would be considered conservative by a lot of the more liberal types here but think that CloudFlare is within their rights to do what they want.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  In this case, "property rights", as you put it are at odds with free speech. I don't think it would be ideologically inconsistent to believe that free speech trumps property rights in cases where the two principles conflict. I also think there's a lot more nuance to this situation than you seem to be implying. I very much doubt there are a significant number of people ("right wingers" or otherwise) who believe property rights are the most important concern in all situations, nor are there many who believe in an absolute right to Free Speech at any cost. (The constitution itself allows for narrow exceptions for both of those rights.)
  - x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
    So CloudFlare gets absolutely no say in what they host and serve on their private property because of "Free Speech"?
    - Ajedi32 7y ago
      Maybe. We've already banned companies from discriminating on the basis of race. Would a limited ban on telecommunications infrastructure companies discriminating on the basis of ideology really be all that bad? If anything, it would certainly free those companies from having to act as arbiters of moral truth.
burnte 7y ago
"Free Speech has absolutely been impinged by this decision." No, it hasn't. No one has a moral, legal, or ethical responsibility to pay for someone else's speech. The government must tread lightly, but private individuals are under no compulsion to listen to others. 8chan is NOT having their speech rights infringed, they are simply having a business agreement terminated. They are still 100% free to create a website somewhere else, write a book, or protest in the streets. Do not confuse private property (Cloudflare's servers) with the public square.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  The problem with that argument is that there's no such thing as a "public square" on the internet. Everything on the internet is controlled by a private company in some manner or another. Whether you're talking about DNS, cloud hosting, ISPs, CDNs, or CAs there are always going to be some number of privately controlled intermediaries with the means to censor your speech. For some of these entities, such as CDNs with enough infrastructure to stand up against large-scale DDOS attacks, there may only be a small number of viable options. What happens if all of those companies collectively decide to censor someone? You've effectively created a corporate oligarchy with the power to decide what sort of speech is and isn't allowed on the internet. Now again, maybe we're not quite at that point yet (after all, the Daily Stormer did eventually find a CDN that would take them), but we may very well be getting close. You also have to consider that even without a true oligopoly; there's still a chilling effect created when a large percentage of the internet's major infrastructure providers collectively decide to censor certain speech on the basis of ideology. At what point do you believe freedom of speech outweighs freedom of association? We've already decided freedom from racial discrimination trumps freedom of association, so it's not like this sort of thing would be entirely without precedent.
  - themagician 7y ago
    Do you actually know what Cloudflare does? I'm not sure you quite understand what a CDN is. A CDN isn't necessary. It's a convenience for end users. You don't need a CDN to prevent DDoS. In fact having a CDN is probably the most expensive way to handle DDoS.

agensaequivocum 7y ago

I agree. Similarly, I cannot be forced at gunpoint by the government to provide a cake for a gay wedding if I have a moral objection.

sv123 7y ago
Discriminatory business practices should not be conflated with free speech.
- agensaequivocum 7y ago
  What I produce in my business is an expression of myself that I may or may not exchange with another. I have the right to or not to associate with whomever I choose to.