10 ms·

If anything, Cloudflare actually exercised their right to freedom of association (or disassociation, in this case) by dropping 8chan. The right to free speech

If anything, Cloudflare actually exercised their right to freedom of association (or disassociation, in this case) by dropping 8chan. The right to free speech in the context of the Constitution only applies when it's the government trying to restrict it.

daxorid 7y ago
Devil's advocate: The moral reasoning behind restraining the government from denying speech and other rights is that the government is a monopoly (in this case of force). This reasoning extends to restrictions on the ability of other monopolies, such as local utilities, to deny service. If every service provider with the capacity to serve the needs of Website X were to deny service, the DE FACTO effect is precisely the same as a single monopoly doing so. In which case, the moral reasoning behind restraint of government and other monopolies comes into play.
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  Does an individual have an inalienable right to run a web forum?
- bradstewart 7y ago
  The de facto effect is the same. But is a decision independently reached by multiple parties really the same as a decision by a single monopoly? I can't confidently say one way or another, but it feels more acceptable to me. Assuming each company did reach that decision independently (and that's a big assumption) and not as a result of bad PR brought on by an angry internet mob.
- klntsky 7y ago
  > the DE FACTO effect is precisely the same as a single monopoly doing so The effect is the same, but the legal interpretation of the situation isn't, as long as new players are free to join the game. You can find lots of examples where two cases of real-world events are the same, but are interpreted differently by law, depending on the context that is purely juridical. > the moral reasoning behind restraint of government and other monopolies comes into play. Governments hold the monopoly on violence, thus they are fundamentally different from any other entity.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
  - Alex3917 7y ago
    > White nationalists murdering 29 people in 24 hours demonstrates quite clearly that the government does not have a monopoly on force. The Dayton shooter was a leftist, not a white nationalist.
- vkou 7y ago
  The real reason for restraining the government from restricting speech is the hope that people use the soap box, and the ballot box, instead of the bullet box to make the changes they want to see in the world. The monopoly on violence does not necessarily have much to do with this.

daxorid 7y ago

Devil's advocate: The moral reasoning behind restraining the government from denying speech and other rights is that the government is a monopoly (in this case of force). This reasoning extends to restrictions on the ability of other monopolies, such as local utilities, to deny service. If every service provider with the capacity to serve the needs of Website X were to deny service, the DE FACTO effect is precisely the same as a single monopoly doing so. In which case, the moral reasoning behind restraint of government and other monopolies comes into play.

mrguyorama 7y ago
Does an individual have an inalienable right to run a web forum?
bradstewart 7y ago
The de facto effect is the same. But is a decision independently reached by multiple parties really the same as a decision by a single monopoly? I can't confidently say one way or another, but it feels more acceptable to me. Assuming each company did reach that decision independently (and that's a big assumption) and not as a result of bad PR brought on by an angry internet mob.
klntsky 7y ago
> the DE FACTO effect is precisely the same as a single monopoly doing so The effect is the same, but the legal interpretation of the situation isn't, as long as new players are free to join the game. You can find lots of examples where two cases of real-world events are the same, but are interpreted differently by law, depending on the context that is purely juridical. > the moral reasoning behind restraint of government and other monopolies comes into play. Governments hold the monopoly on violence, thus they are fundamentally different from any other entity.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- Alex3917 7y ago
  > White nationalists murdering 29 people in 24 hours demonstrates quite clearly that the government does not have a monopoly on force. The Dayton shooter was a leftist, not a white nationalist.
vkou 7y ago
The real reason for restraining the government from restricting speech is the hope that people use the soap box, and the ballot box, instead of the bullet box to make the changes they want to see in the world. The monopoly on violence does not necessarily have much to do with this.