5 ms·

Not a speech absolutist. I believe certain kind of speeches should be banned. What irked me is that CloudFlare was the one who makes the decision to do censors

Not a speech absolutist. I believe certain kind of speeches should be banned. What irked me is that CloudFlare was the one who makes the decision to do censorship. It's not really a due process. No one argue for the defendant's side. It would seem better coming from US court through a due process or something like two lawyers arguing for both sides and etc. I dislike the rationale of "CloudFlare is a private company. They can do whatever they want" ... like wut? Also, if what those people do is illegal, should we arrest them, instead of merely banning the site? This is the same thing with Trump's speech on Twitter. People yelling at Twitter to ban Trump because what Trump said is very very bad. If it's so bad, he should be arrested, not simply banned from Twitter. ------------ Edit: to address the main concern in my replies. So, we think the speech is so bad that CloudFlare should ban it. But it is not bad enough to be banned by every CDN. That sounds contradictory. For me, the speech is bad and it should be banned by every CDN. But government should make the judgement on the speech through a due process, ban it, and arrest someone if there's illegal activity involved.

ceejayoz 7y ago
Wait, you'd be more comfortable if the censorship came from the government?
- ergocoder 7y ago
  Yes, compared to a censorship coming from companies. One point is that the decision process is rather secretive. Who argued for? Who argued against? What were their supporting arguments and etc.? Doing censorship through court would be better. If you have a different position, could you explain why censorship coming from CloudFlare is better than censorchip coming from US government?
  - mbesto 7y ago
    > Yes, compared to a censorship coming from companies. This is literally the exact opposite intention of the 2nd amendment. > If you have a different position, could you explain why censorship coming from CloudFlare is better than censorchip coming from US government? Cloudflare isn't an entity supported (e.g. paid) by the general populace. CF not hosting their site isn't censoring their content, they are just actively choosing not to do business with them. People on 8chan can certainly say the same exact thing on any other medium (pen/paper, facebook, etc) and no one is stopping them from doing so.
    - ergocoder 7y ago
      That's why it's weird. 1. You think the speech is not wrong. Then, cloudflare taking of an okay speech is pretty strange. 2. You think the speech is wrong. Then, why are you okay with the speech being on a different CDN? Shouldn't it be banned everywhere?
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        1. The speech is wrong. 2. You can think the speech is wrong, and that CDNs shouldn't host it, while having concerns about the US government getting involved in censorship in direct violation of the First Amendment.
        ergocoder 7y ago
        I'd say every CDN decides to not host it is effectively similar to US government bans it. That's why I'd rather see an open process of making such judgement. Also, let's not kid ourselves. US does censor certain kinds of speeches.
        mbesto 7y ago
        > US does censor certain kinds of speeches. Which ones? Please elaborate.
        ergocoder 7y ago
        Here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-...
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        The chances of every CDN in the world jumping on the bandwagon is vanishingly small. The Daily Stormer managed to find hosting. Even child porn manages it. That doesn’t mean Cloudflare has to be the one to do it. That there are minor exceptions to the First Amendment doesn’t mean we should throw it all out.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > If you have a different position, could you explain why censorship coming from CloudFlare is better than censorchip coming from US government? I can engage a different CDN provider. I can't (easily) engage a different government.
    - ergocoder 7y ago
      There's some sort of contradiction here that: you think the speech is bad that CloudFlare should ban it. But not bad enough to be banned from every CDN.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        I think Cloudflare kicking them off their service is the moral and ethical thing to do. I don't think 100% of the CDN providers in the entire world will do the moral and ethical thing, and I recognize that the First Amendment would (should) handily prevent legislation requiring that they do.
        ergocoder 7y ago
        > 100% of the CDN providers in the entire world At best, it seems inconsistent that we are okay with other CDN providers not doing moral and ethical things. (Since we are okay with the speech being hosted elsewhere).
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        “It will happen” and “we are okay with it” are not the same thing.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    One is censorship and the other isn't. One need not carry a brief for Cloudflare to recognize that, protected categories aside, like any business they have the right to refuse service to anyone. 8chan falling into no protected categories, and there in any case being no shortage of other network service providers, you need first to establish that Cloudflare has acted wrongly, and your arguments thus far fall somewhat short of compelling agreement on that score.
- falcrist 7y ago
  The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements for due process and such. By contrast, none of the corporations that host the sites you use daily have any such restrictions. If Google wants to delist your website, that's too bad for you. If AWS no longer wants to host it, you have no recourse. If Comcast decides to block you, there's nothing you can do. Do you want the corporations that control everything you see on the internet to be more neutral? That will require oversite by the government (probably the FCC specifically). If you want to be really cynical, you could say the government is controlled by corporate money... but then what does it matter? IMO, blind cynicism isn't helping anyone, and the government is at least ostensibly supposed to do what's in the interest of the nation, and has some limits about what it can and cannot censor. I'd rather that, than an amoral corporation motivated only by money.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements for due process and such. Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power. > By contrast, none of the corporations that host the sites you use daily have any such restrictions. If Google wants to delist your website, that's too bad for you. If AWS no longer wants to host it, you have no recourse. If Comcast decides to block you, there's nothing you can do. Sure there is - you go elsewhere. Just like 8chan will, just like the Daily Stormer did.
    - falcrist 7y ago
      > Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power. Ok, I'll try again. Corporations can actively censor you. The government is more restricted in what speech it can stomp on. > Sure there is - you go elsewhere. How do you "go elsewhere" when Comcast refuses to allow customers to see your website? How do you "go elsewhere" when google delists you? If 8ch gets hosted in a foreign country after being delisted from google and refused by US hosts, that's censorship. That's an infringement on freedom of speech. If you're ok with that freedom of speech, then you are saying that it's ok for corporations to censor. That's a coherent stance... but one with which I vehemently disagree. I don't want ANYONE to have the power to censor, but with multinational mega-corps controlling the vast majority of the internet, that's simply not possible. Considering the fact that internet providers and online services control the vast majority of the content I consume, I'd much rather have some regulation that limits what these companies can do.
iooi 7y ago
> I dislike the rationale of "CloudFlare is a private company. They can do whatever they want" ... like wut? Doesn't CloudFlare have the same free speech rights to express their own views towards hate speech (i.e., by not providing service to white supremacists)?
- ergocoder 7y ago
  Yes, they do. But that's not the world we should strive for. In your opinion, would it be better for a government to make this kind of judgement than a company? Do you think the speech should be banned everywhere? Or should it be banned only on CloudFlare? Or you don't have your judgement on this specific speech? That's why it's weird that people are cheering Cloudflare for making the right decision. Then, put forward an argument that "well, the speech can be on another platform".
throwanem 7y ago
Your argument here is that something which does not legally constitute censorship would be better replaced by something which does.
- doubleunplussed 7y ago
  The US constitution does not have a monopoly on the definition of "censorship". Just because government censorship is the only kind it talks about doesn't mean the word doesn't extend to censorship imposed by other entities.
arwineap 7y ago
> What irked me is that CloudFlare was the one who makes the decision to do censorship. I'm not sure what makes you think cloudfront is "censoring" anyone; 8chan no longer is using cloudflare's (likely) free service, so they need to reconfigure their DNS and go about their day. A good majority of the internet does not use cloudflare; free or paid.
amyjess 7y ago
> What irked me is that CloudFlare was the one who makes the decision to do censorship. It's their property, and they have an absolute right to decide how their property is to be used. The right to freedom of association is the most fundamental human right there is.

ceejayoz 7y ago

Wait, you'd be more comfortable if the censorship came from the government?

ergocoder 7y ago
Yes, compared to a censorship coming from companies. One point is that the decision process is rather secretive. Who argued for? Who argued against? What were their supporting arguments and etc.? Doing censorship through court would be better. If you have a different position, could you explain why censorship coming from CloudFlare is better than censorchip coming from US government?
- mbesto 7y ago
  > Yes, compared to a censorship coming from companies. This is literally the exact opposite intention of the 2nd amendment. > If you have a different position, could you explain why censorship coming from CloudFlare is better than censorchip coming from US government? Cloudflare isn't an entity supported (e.g. paid) by the general populace. CF not hosting their site isn't censoring their content, they are just actively choosing not to do business with them. People on 8chan can certainly say the same exact thing on any other medium (pen/paper, facebook, etc) and no one is stopping them from doing so.
  - ergocoder 7y ago
    That's why it's weird. 1. You think the speech is not wrong. Then, cloudflare taking of an okay speech is pretty strange. 2. You think the speech is wrong. Then, why are you okay with the speech being on a different CDN? Shouldn't it be banned everywhere?
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      1. The speech is wrong. 2. You can think the speech is wrong, and that CDNs shouldn't host it, while having concerns about the US government getting involved in censorship in direct violation of the First Amendment.
      - ergocoder 7y ago
        I'd say every CDN decides to not host it is effectively similar to US government bans it. That's why I'd rather see an open process of making such judgement. Also, let's not kid ourselves. US does censor certain kinds of speeches.
        mbesto 7y ago
        > US does censor certain kinds of speeches. Which ones? Please elaborate.
        ergocoder 7y ago
        Here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-...
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        The chances of every CDN in the world jumping on the bandwagon is vanishingly small. The Daily Stormer managed to find hosting. Even child porn manages it. That doesn’t mean Cloudflare has to be the one to do it. That there are minor exceptions to the First Amendment doesn’t mean we should throw it all out.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > If you have a different position, could you explain why censorship coming from CloudFlare is better than censorchip coming from US government? I can engage a different CDN provider. I can't (easily) engage a different government.
  - ergocoder 7y ago
    There's some sort of contradiction here that: you think the speech is bad that CloudFlare should ban it. But not bad enough to be banned from every CDN.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      I think Cloudflare kicking them off their service is the moral and ethical thing to do. I don't think 100% of the CDN providers in the entire world will do the moral and ethical thing, and I recognize that the First Amendment would (should) handily prevent legislation requiring that they do.
      - ergocoder 7y ago
        > 100% of the CDN providers in the entire world At best, it seems inconsistent that we are okay with other CDN providers not doing moral and ethical things. (Since we are okay with the speech being hosted elsewhere).
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        “It will happen” and “we are okay with it” are not the same thing.
- throwanem 7y ago
  One is censorship and the other isn't. One need not carry a brief for Cloudflare to recognize that, protected categories aside, like any business they have the right to refuse service to anyone. 8chan falling into no protected categories, and there in any case being no shortage of other network service providers, you need first to establish that Cloudflare has acted wrongly, and your arguments thus far fall somewhat short of compelling agreement on that score.
falcrist 7y ago
The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements for due process and such. By contrast, none of the corporations that host the sites you use daily have any such restrictions. If Google wants to delist your website, that's too bad for you. If AWS no longer wants to host it, you have no recourse. If Comcast decides to block you, there's nothing you can do. Do you want the corporations that control everything you see on the internet to be more neutral? That will require oversite by the government (probably the FCC specifically). If you want to be really cynical, you could say the government is controlled by corporate money... but then what does it matter? IMO, blind cynicism isn't helping anyone, and the government is at least ostensibly supposed to do what's in the interest of the nation, and has some limits about what it can and cannot censor. I'd rather that, than an amoral corporation motivated only by money.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements for due process and such. Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power. > By contrast, none of the corporations that host the sites you use daily have any such restrictions. If Google wants to delist your website, that's too bad for you. If AWS no longer wants to host it, you have no recourse. If Comcast decides to block you, there's nothing you can do. Sure there is - you go elsewhere. Just like 8chan will, just like the Daily Stormer did.
  - falcrist 7y ago
    > Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power. Ok, I'll try again. Corporations can actively censor you. The government is more restricted in what speech it can stomp on. > Sure there is - you go elsewhere. How do you "go elsewhere" when Comcast refuses to allow customers to see your website? How do you "go elsewhere" when google delists you? If 8ch gets hosted in a foreign country after being delisted from google and refused by US hosts, that's censorship. That's an infringement on freedom of speech. If you're ok with that freedom of speech, then you are saying that it's ok for corporations to censor. That's a coherent stance... but one with which I vehemently disagree. I don't want ANYONE to have the power to censor, but with multinational mega-corps controlling the vast majority of the internet, that's simply not possible. Considering the fact that internet providers and online services control the vast majority of the content I consume, I'd much rather have some regulation that limits what these companies can do.

iooi 7y ago

> I dislike the rationale of "CloudFlare is a private company. They can do whatever they want" ... like wut? Doesn't CloudFlare have the same free speech rights to express their own views towards hate speech (i.e., by not providing service to white supremacists)?

ergocoder 7y ago
Yes, they do. But that's not the world we should strive for. In your opinion, would it be better for a government to make this kind of judgement than a company? Do you think the speech should be banned everywhere? Or should it be banned only on CloudFlare? Or you don't have your judgement on this specific speech? That's why it's weird that people are cheering Cloudflare for making the right decision. Then, put forward an argument that "well, the speech can be on another platform".

throwanem 7y ago

Your argument here is that something which does not legally constitute censorship would be better replaced by something which does.

doubleunplussed 7y ago
The US constitution does not have a monopoly on the definition of "censorship". Just because government censorship is the only kind it talks about doesn't mean the word doesn't extend to censorship imposed by other entities.

arwineap 7y ago

> What irked me is that CloudFlare was the one who makes the decision to do censorship. I'm not sure what makes you think cloudfront is "censoring" anyone; 8chan no longer is using cloudflare's (likely) free service, so they need to reconfigure their DNS and go about their day. A good majority of the internet does not use cloudflare; free or paid.

amyjess 7y ago

> What irked me is that CloudFlare was the one who makes the decision to do censorship. It's their property, and they have an absolute right to decide how their property is to be used. The right to freedom of association is the most fundamental human right there is.