3 ms·

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 con

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.
      - nl 7y ago
        See, I think 8-chan itself is a troll, and it is entirely reasonable to deal with it by refusing to provide service. 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. No it's not. It's like FedEx declining to deliver for a company which continues to cause it problems, or refusing to service Amazon[1]. Or like Visa refusing to service businesses which have lots of charge-backs. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fedex-amazon-express-delivery.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fedex-amazon-exp...
        ryacko 7y ago
        Actually, it is illegal to mail obscene materials or crime inciting matter through the postal service. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461
        marvin-83 7y ago
        yes, but these are investigated and prosecuted by police, public prosecution services, and courts; not by couriers discontinuing their services.
        marvin-83 7y ago
        if 8chan was cut off because they were subject to extensive network attacks and cloudflare did not see any profit or value in serving them then I am ok with that. I just don't think that's the reason. I expect that a different site with the same contract and payment terms, subject to the same attacks would have continued to be protected. maybe I'm wrong but it looked like a political decision, not a business decision.

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.
    - nl 7y ago
      See, I think 8-chan itself is a troll, and it is entirely reasonable to deal with it by refusing to provide service. 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. No it's not. It's like FedEx declining to deliver for a company which continues to cause it problems, or refusing to service Amazon[1]. Or like Visa refusing to service businesses which have lots of charge-backs. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fedex-amazon-express-delivery.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fedex-amazon-exp...
      - ryacko 7y ago
        Actually, it is illegal to mail obscene materials or crime inciting matter through the postal service. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461
        marvin-83 7y ago
        yes, but these are investigated and prosecuted by police, public prosecution services, and courts; not by couriers discontinuing their services.
      - marvin-83 7y ago
        if 8chan was cut off because they were subject to extensive network attacks and cloudflare did not see any profit or value in serving them then I am ok with that. I just don't think that's the reason. I expect that a different site with the same contract and payment terms, subject to the same attacks would have continued to be protected. maybe I'm wrong but it looked like a political decision, not a business decision.