6 ms·

Basically we should trust you because you're not facebook. Haven't you personally shut down websites because you don't like their content?

afiori 7y ago
I think sharing sources would help your point.
- sverige 7y ago
  https://www.secureworldexpo.com/industry-news/cloudflare-statement-shut-down-8chan https://www.secureworldexpo.com/industry-news/cloudflare-sta... But it's ok, 8chan is a 'hate site,' right? We all know which ones those are.
  - IOT_Apprentice 7y ago
    A site where mass murders are encouraged to post their killing spree videos? Where hate groups and anonymous cowards promote hate, violence and other ideas? Spare us your "" defense of the indefensible.
    - sverige 7y ago
      What crime did 8chan commit? I don't mean what did they do that you don't like, I mean what actual crime?
      - thenewnewguy 7y ago
        Why are they required to have committed a crime? Cloudflare isn't the government, why do you believe they're obligated to serve 8chan? Cloudflare took down one website that was directly related to a major tragedy that cost people their lives. If you want to complain about that go ahead, but I don't care. I don't allow people to use my websites to spread that kind of hate, and I have no problem with Cloudflare doing the same in extreme circumstances.
        sverige 7y ago
        The original comment had to do with whether we should trust Cloudflare more than Facebook. If they as a company want to make editorial decisions, that's fine, but the reality is that also means they are not content agnostic. Interestingly enough, they provide services for known spammers and other shady internet operations. As to whether 8chan 'caused' those abhorrent crimes, I couldn't say, any more than 'violent video games' caused them. I view such crimes as having a root cause of some form of mental illness, which does not (imo) relieve the doers of culpability. The point is that they are demonstrably not exactly what they claim to be, and thus some level of distrust is warranted.
        thenewnewguy 7y ago
        > The point is that they are demonstrably not exactly what they claim to be, and thus some level of distrust is warranted. Where does Cloudflare claim to be content agnostic?
        throw0101a 7y ago
        > Where does Cloudflare claim to be content agnostic? They may want to claim it, one way or the other, as part of their IPO filing so that potential investors have some idea of liability risks with the company.
        sverige 7y ago
        Here's one of their statements about free speech from six years ago. It's essentially what I've always thought of as their brand. It's sad to see them compromise their principles, but sometimes it only takes one little Twitter mob to make people back down. That's why it's reasonable to question their character. https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-and-free-speech/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-and-free-speech/
        afiori 7y ago
        My personal impression was that they did not surrender to a mob, but that the mob made them look closer to what they were hosting. I am not saying it is better, this is just my personal impression.
      - daxorid 7y ago
        8chan's primary crime is not being sufficiently popular. The Christchurch killer livestreamed the event on Facebook, and the enormous well-funded content moderation apparatus within failed to shut it down until well after the innocents were dead. But Grandma uses Facebook, so we can't go after them. The Wal-Mart shooter had a Twitter account, and posted plenty of content questionable enough even for the FBI to take notice. But cousin Jake uses Twitter, so we can't go after them. It doesn't matter what 8chan was used for, because far more popular platforms were used for far worse content. The only thing that mattered here was popularity. And 8chan didn't have it.
        sascha_sl 7y ago
        8chan attracting such people despite being so small is the entire point and i can't believe i have to point that out they want those people there this is where they radicalize each other
        afiori 7y ago
        https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central... quote: There’s an unfortunate corollary to this, which is that if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong commitment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        afiori 7y ago
        As an addition, this is not meant to discourage you from taking this path.
        chessturk 7y ago
      - IOT_Apprentice 7y ago
        Where did I say they created a crime? Perhaps your lust for viewing mass murder in real-time must be slaked by 8chan, but I have no such interest. Nor should it be the go to place to encourage or host such content. Stop being obtuse.
        afiori 7y ago
        Sometimes people see things differently from you without being stupid.
        dang 7y ago
        Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You've done it more than once, and that's not what we're trying for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - chousuke 7y ago
      For such cases, we should have the necessary legal tools to deal with them if the material is truly dangerous enough to be consequential. It is not the job of a corporation to decide, though I suppose they are not under any obligation to provide service, either. I am generally against censorship, because for every case that is "obvious", there are many more that merely seem so on the surface. This is especially important in cases where you might simply disagree with how someone else thinks, since thoughts can never be allowed to become illegal or immoral; it is only actions where such judgements are applicable. The proper approach to combating misinformation and dangerous ideas is education. By understanding why an idea is dangerous, you will also understand why it cannot inform your actions.
      - laughinghan 7y ago
        You and I have completely inverted ideas of what censorship is and why it is bad. Using legal tools would be horrific. Government censors deciding what material is too dangerous for the public is exactly one of the elements of fascism. Private entities on the open market exercising their right to not help promote ideas they object to is a good thing. It means that the more objectionable an idea is, the harder it is to publish and the smaller its reach; and the more in the gray area an idea it is, the easier it is disseminate and the wider its reach. If one of those private entities makes a mistake in judgment, that's an opportunity for a competitor. Governments have a monopoly on violence. Its power is not kept in check by competitors, but by systems like a bill of rights. Weakening those rights to allow legal tools to control ideas would be disastrous. Corporations have no responsibility or ability to educate everyone about misinformation. They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ideas they know are dangerous.
        afiori 7y ago
        the point is that in every jurisdiction in the world there are already laws to stop "encouraging mass murder to post their killing spree". Governments should not interfere in censoring lawful speech. Moreover an actual court of law ruling that 8chan was an illegal site would set a precedent for such thing happening. > They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ideas they know are dangerous. This is literally corporate fascism if done in an extralegal way. And no, the free market is not going to care about the 1-5% of people discarded. To quote a very nice blog[1]: Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
    - anon12345690 7y ago
      welcome to the internet where people can post whatever they want you know this doesnt actually stop the murders right? does it feel better to get outraged at the site instead of the murderer?
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-criticism/ https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-criticism/
- bjeanes 7y ago
  https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xk78x/switter-down-cloudflare-banned-sex-workers-sesta-fosta https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xk78x/switter-down-cloud...
mdb333 7y ago
There's quite a big difference in having a website "shut down" compared to deciding not to provide a given site/company/organization with services. It's the digital equivalent to a No Shirt, No Shoes... No service sign.

afiori 7y ago

I think sharing sources would help your point.

sverige 7y ago
https://www.secureworldexpo.com/industry-news/cloudflare-statement-shut-down-8chan https://www.secureworldexpo.com/industry-news/cloudflare-sta... But it's ok, 8chan is a 'hate site,' right? We all know which ones those are.
- IOT_Apprentice 7y ago
  A site where mass murders are encouraged to post their killing spree videos? Where hate groups and anonymous cowards promote hate, violence and other ideas? Spare us your "" defense of the indefensible.
  - sverige 7y ago
    What crime did 8chan commit? I don't mean what did they do that you don't like, I mean what actual crime?
    - thenewnewguy 7y ago
      Why are they required to have committed a crime? Cloudflare isn't the government, why do you believe they're obligated to serve 8chan? Cloudflare took down one website that was directly related to a major tragedy that cost people their lives. If you want to complain about that go ahead, but I don't care. I don't allow people to use my websites to spread that kind of hate, and I have no problem with Cloudflare doing the same in extreme circumstances.
      - sverige 7y ago
        The original comment had to do with whether we should trust Cloudflare more than Facebook. If they as a company want to make editorial decisions, that's fine, but the reality is that also means they are not content agnostic. Interestingly enough, they provide services for known spammers and other shady internet operations. As to whether 8chan 'caused' those abhorrent crimes, I couldn't say, any more than 'violent video games' caused them. I view such crimes as having a root cause of some form of mental illness, which does not (imo) relieve the doers of culpability. The point is that they are demonstrably not exactly what they claim to be, and thus some level of distrust is warranted.
        thenewnewguy 7y ago
        > The point is that they are demonstrably not exactly what they claim to be, and thus some level of distrust is warranted. Where does Cloudflare claim to be content agnostic?
        throw0101a 7y ago
        > Where does Cloudflare claim to be content agnostic? They may want to claim it, one way or the other, as part of their IPO filing so that potential investors have some idea of liability risks with the company.
        sverige 7y ago
        Here's one of their statements about free speech from six years ago. It's essentially what I've always thought of as their brand. It's sad to see them compromise their principles, but sometimes it only takes one little Twitter mob to make people back down. That's why it's reasonable to question their character. https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-and-free-speech/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-and-free-speech/
        afiori 7y ago
        My personal impression was that they did not surrender to a mob, but that the mob made them look closer to what they were hosting. I am not saying it is better, this is just my personal impression.
    - daxorid 7y ago
      8chan's primary crime is not being sufficiently popular. The Christchurch killer livestreamed the event on Facebook, and the enormous well-funded content moderation apparatus within failed to shut it down until well after the innocents were dead. But Grandma uses Facebook, so we can't go after them. The Wal-Mart shooter had a Twitter account, and posted plenty of content questionable enough even for the FBI to take notice. But cousin Jake uses Twitter, so we can't go after them. It doesn't matter what 8chan was used for, because far more popular platforms were used for far worse content. The only thing that mattered here was popularity. And 8chan didn't have it.
      - sascha_sl 7y ago
        8chan attracting such people despite being so small is the entire point and i can't believe i have to point that out they want those people there this is where they radicalize each other
        afiori 7y ago
        https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central... quote: There’s an unfortunate corollary to this, which is that if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong commitment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        afiori 7y ago
        As an addition, this is not meant to discourage you from taking this path.
        chessturk 7y ago
    - IOT_Apprentice 7y ago
      Where did I say they created a crime? Perhaps your lust for viewing mass murder in real-time must be slaked by 8chan, but I have no such interest. Nor should it be the go to place to encourage or host such content. Stop being obtuse.
      - afiori 7y ago
        Sometimes people see things differently from you without being stupid.
      - dang 7y ago
        Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You've done it more than once, and that's not what we're trying for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - chousuke 7y ago
    For such cases, we should have the necessary legal tools to deal with them if the material is truly dangerous enough to be consequential. It is not the job of a corporation to decide, though I suppose they are not under any obligation to provide service, either. I am generally against censorship, because for every case that is "obvious", there are many more that merely seem so on the surface. This is especially important in cases where you might simply disagree with how someone else thinks, since thoughts can never be allowed to become illegal or immoral; it is only actions where such judgements are applicable. The proper approach to combating misinformation and dangerous ideas is education. By understanding why an idea is dangerous, you will also understand why it cannot inform your actions.
    - laughinghan 7y ago
      You and I have completely inverted ideas of what censorship is and why it is bad. Using legal tools would be horrific. Government censors deciding what material is too dangerous for the public is exactly one of the elements of fascism. Private entities on the open market exercising their right to not help promote ideas they object to is a good thing. It means that the more objectionable an idea is, the harder it is to publish and the smaller its reach; and the more in the gray area an idea it is, the easier it is disseminate and the wider its reach. If one of those private entities makes a mistake in judgment, that's an opportunity for a competitor. Governments have a monopoly on violence. Its power is not kept in check by competitors, but by systems like a bill of rights. Weakening those rights to allow legal tools to control ideas would be disastrous. Corporations have no responsibility or ability to educate everyone about misinformation. They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ideas they know are dangerous.
      - afiori 7y ago
        the point is that in every jurisdiction in the world there are already laws to stop "encouraging mass murder to post their killing spree". Governments should not interfere in censoring lawful speech. Moreover an actual court of law ruling that 8chan was an illegal site would set a precedent for such thing happening. > They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ideas they know are dangerous. This is literally corporate fascism if done in an extralegal way. And no, the free market is not going to care about the 1-5% of people discarded. To quote a very nice blog[1]: Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
  - anon12345690 7y ago
    welcome to the internet where people can post whatever they want you know this doesnt actually stop the murders right? does it feel better to get outraged at the site instead of the murderer?
oarsinsync 7y ago
https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-criticism/ https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-criticism/
bjeanes 7y ago
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xk78x/switter-down-cloudflare-banned-sex-workers-sesta-fosta https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xk78x/switter-down-cloud...

mdb333 7y ago

There's quite a big difference in having a website "shut down" compared to deciding not to provide a given site/company/organization with services. It's the digital equivalent to a No Shirt, No Shoes... No service sign.