31 ms·

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

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.
        ergocoder 7y ago
        Ok, so your position is: - the speech is bad - Cloudflare's action is ethical. - Other CDNs are also ethical for not banning it. - Government shouldn't ban it even though the speech is bad. - You are okay with the speech being hosted elsewhere. We aren't talking about a grey area here. We are talking about promoting mass-shooting. Every sane person, including you and me, agrees the speech is extremely bad. Wouldn't you want it to be banned everywhere? This is the main point I'm trying to drive. We are somehow oddly satisfied that the speech is banned on CloudFlare. Shouldn't we try to get this specific speech banned everywhere?
        ceejayoz 7y ago
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.

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.
      - ergocoder 7y ago
        Ok, so your position is: - the speech is bad - Cloudflare's action is ethical. - Other CDNs are also ethical for not banning it. - Government shouldn't ban it even though the speech is bad. - You are okay with the speech being hosted elsewhere. We aren't talking about a grey area here. We are talking about promoting mass-shooting. Every sane person, including you and me, agrees the speech is extremely bad. Wouldn't you want it to be banned everywhere? This is the main point I'm trying to drive. We are somehow oddly satisfied that the speech is banned on CloudFlare. Shouldn't we try to get this specific speech banned everywhere?
        ceejayoz 7y ago

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.