8 ms·

There's always something "undesirable" for someone in a big crowdsourced website.

rocqua 7y ago
The cloudfare 8chan action was based on a direct link with multiple actual mass-shootings. Moreover, as they took the decision they went to great pains to explain this was an exceptional case. Going from that to 'undesired political speech will be censored' requires more of a slippery cliff than a slippery slope.
- gruez 7y ago
  >The cloudfare 8chan action was based on a direct link with multiple actual mass-shootings What is this "direct link" you speak of? Did the shooters plan/recruit/organize their attacks on 8chan?
  - nl 7y ago
    There are multiple instances of them announcing them and implying they are follow-ups of previous discussions on 8chan. These include the Christchurch shootings, the Poway synagogue shooting and the El Paso Walmart shootin. The Christchurch shooter shared his Facebook stream to 8chan before the shooting started, and it was spread from there. The Poway shooter blamed/thanked 8chan for his views.
    - dangxiaopin 7y ago
      So FB's internet peers should depeer Facebook then in their routers, since the original material (the stream) was on FB? Or you prefer your justice selective?
      - nl 7y ago
        I'm sure you already realize this, but to make it clear: FB has enormous utility for billions of people outside that and that is worth defending. You are expanding a lot of effort defending 8chan here. Perhaps consider that it might not be worth defending.
        dangxiaopin 7y ago
        8ch had a lot of very interesting and non-violent stuff. Have you been reading it regularly? I did. I lived in a socialist country and you did not. Perhaps consider that you might not know where these current trends are pointing to.
        nl 7y ago
        I lived in a socialist country I'm glad you understand the risks associated with any kind of absolute positions then. There's a good reason why most of the world is entirely comfortable with restricting the ability of extremists to spread their shit.
        marvin-83 7y ago
        you're not really engaging with his point. Effectively banning 8chan by removing network protection does not just restrict extremists; it restricts anyone who used that forum. Ultimately, such matters should be prosecuted by courts. It is inappropriate for organisations like cloudflare to leverage their position within essential network infrastructure to start editorialising what passes through their network.
        nl 7y ago
        It is inappropriate for organisations like cloudflare to leverage their position within essential network infrastructure to start editorialising what passes through their network. No, I think it's entirely appropriate. "Don't troll" and methods for dealing with trolls has been a thing all sites have done since the internet was invented. I don't see any difference here at all.
        marvin-83 7y ago
        the difference is their position in the stack. Cloudflare blocking people that abuse the network is legitimate (e.g. spam, denial-of-service), just like it is legitimate for forum admins to block people that abuse the forum (trolling, explicit posts). But cloudflare, or any other network infrastructure provider, shouldn't be determining permissible content for websites because they are not hosts/administrators for that content. It is like a postal service reading your letters and then saying "we don't like what is being said, so you can't send letters anymore." They can and should stop people sending dangerous materials by post, but they should not be determining permissible content of letters.
  - rocqua 7y ago
    The direct link is that they announced these attacks there. Beyond that, given the announcement there, it stands to reason they were convinced to do it there.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > What is this "direct link" you speak of? Did the shooters plan/recruit/organize their attacks on 8chan? Legally, a "direct link" is irrelevant, you can rarely find a "direct link" between two of anything. What matters legally is whether 8chan was a "proximate cause" in creating the mass shootings. Whether one thing is the "proximate cause" of another is often pretty difficult to discern. However, as a helpful guide towards determining proximate cause, lawyers ask whether one thing was the "but for" cause of another, i.e., would the mass shootings occur "but for" 8Chan? Put another way, if 8Chan did not exist, would these shootings occur? Unfortunately, we do not have an alternative reality to play out events without 8Chan, so we cannot know for certain, but we can use evidence (e.g., 8Chan chats, how the shooter interacted with 8Chan and others on the service, etc) to try to simulate that alternative reality. All of this analysis also needs to consider related issues like freedom of speech on public forums and any commercial interests. I'm not saying 8Chan is guilty or innocent, just that the existence (or lack thereof) of a "direct link" is pretty meaningless.

The cloudfare 8chan action was based on a direct link with multiple actual mass-shootings. Moreover, as they took the decision they went to great pains to explain this was an exceptional case. Going from that to 'undesired political speech will be censored' requires more of a slippery cliff than a slippery slope.

gruez 7y ago
>The cloudfare 8chan action was based on a direct link with multiple actual mass-shootings What is this "direct link" you speak of? Did the shooters plan/recruit/organize their attacks on 8chan?
- nl 7y ago
  There are multiple instances of them announcing them and implying they are follow-ups of previous discussions on 8chan. These include the Christchurch shootings, the Poway synagogue shooting and the El Paso Walmart shootin. The Christchurch shooter shared his Facebook stream to 8chan before the shooting started, and it was spread from there. The Poway shooter blamed/thanked 8chan for his views.
  - dangxiaopin 7y ago
    So FB's internet peers should depeer Facebook then in their routers, since the original material (the stream) was on FB? Or you prefer your justice selective?
    - nl 7y ago
      I'm sure you already realize this, but to make it clear: FB has enormous utility for billions of people outside that and that is worth defending. You are expanding a lot of effort defending 8chan here. Perhaps consider that it might not be worth defending.
      - dangxiaopin 7y ago
        8ch had a lot of very interesting and non-violent stuff. Have you been reading it regularly? I did. I lived in a socialist country and you did not. Perhaps consider that you might not know where these current trends are pointing to.
        nl 7y ago
        I lived in a socialist country I'm glad you understand the risks associated with any kind of absolute positions then. There's a good reason why most of the world is entirely comfortable with restricting the ability of extremists to spread their shit.
        marvin-83 7y ago
        you're not really engaging with his point. Effectively banning 8chan by removing network protection does not just restrict extremists; it restricts anyone who used that forum. Ultimately, such matters should be prosecuted by courts. It is inappropriate for organisations like cloudflare to leverage their position within essential network infrastructure to start editorialising what passes through their network.
        nl 7y ago
        It is inappropriate for organisations like cloudflare to leverage their position within essential network infrastructure to start editorialising what passes through their network. No, I think it's entirely appropriate. "Don't troll" and methods for dealing with trolls has been a thing all sites have done since the internet was invented. I don't see any difference here at all.
        marvin-83 7y ago
        the difference is their position in the stack. Cloudflare blocking people that abuse the network is legitimate (e.g. spam, denial-of-service), just like it is legitimate for forum admins to block people that abuse the forum (trolling, explicit posts). But cloudflare, or any other network infrastructure provider, shouldn't be determining permissible content for websites because they are not hosts/administrators for that content. It is like a postal service reading your letters and then saying "we don't like what is being said, so you can't send letters anymore." They can and should stop people sending dangerous materials by post, but they should not be determining permissible content of letters.
- rocqua 7y ago
  The direct link is that they announced these attacks there. Beyond that, given the announcement there, it stands to reason they were convinced to do it there.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > What is this "direct link" you speak of? Did the shooters plan/recruit/organize their attacks on 8chan? Legally, a "direct link" is irrelevant, you can rarely find a "direct link" between two of anything. What matters legally is whether 8chan was a "proximate cause" in creating the mass shootings. Whether one thing is the "proximate cause" of another is often pretty difficult to discern. However, as a helpful guide towards determining proximate cause, lawyers ask whether one thing was the "but for" cause of another, i.e., would the mass shootings occur "but for" 8Chan? Put another way, if 8Chan did not exist, would these shootings occur? Unfortunately, we do not have an alternative reality to play out events without 8Chan, so we cannot know for certain, but we can use evidence (e.g., 8Chan chats, how the shooter interacted with 8Chan and others on the service, etc) to try to simulate that alternative reality. All of this analysis also needs to consider related issues like freedom of speech on public forums and any commercial interests. I'm not saying 8Chan is guilty or innocent, just that the existence (or lack thereof) of a "direct link" is pretty meaningless.