7 ms·

> ...yes, they have and they will again. I don't doubt this, but do you have more info on what you're referring to on "they have"? I'm a bit out of the loop on

> ...yes, they have and they will again. I don't doubt this, but do you have more info on what you're referring to on "they have"? I'm a bit out of the loop on that.

mrtksn 7y ago
They blocked Nazis after some attack or something like that. The founder wrote an emotional letter back then, acknowledging how bad is this and how he hates becoming the internet police.
- ppseafield 7y ago
  It wasn't some attack. The guy behind the Daily Stormer stated publicly that Cloudflare not shutting off his service means they agree with and support the Daily Stormer's content. > The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology. [0] That's in a blog post which is a follow up to a leaked memo. [1] [0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ [1] https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to...
  - asdf21 7y ago
    >The guy behind the Daily Stormer stated publicly that Cloudflare not shutting off his service means they agree with and support the Daily Stormer's content. Yes, because he is a troll... he got exactly the response he wanted, infamy and people still talking about it years later.
  - mrtksn 7y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. Do you remember why the blog in question was a hot topic?
  - lkbm 7y ago
    The Daily Stormer in 2017 was as you state. However, last year they kicked off 8chan, which was in part due to the El Paso and Dayton shootings according to their blog post about it[0]. I suspect that's what mrtksn is referencing. [0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/
  - erichocean 7y ago
    > The guy behind the Daily Stormer stated publicly that Cloudflare not shutting off his service means they agree with and support the Daily Stormer's content. And the proper response from CloudFlare should have been: No we don't, but since we're ethical (unlike these assholes), we'll still provide them service. Literally no one believed then, or believes now, that CF are crypto-Nazis. But we all know they don't actually have any kind of moral or ethical virtue, and will fold for a common troll. Oops.
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    Do you have any link to what The Daily Stormer actually said? All I can find is various rewordings of it. They will of course be reworded in the least charitable way in most cases.
Tomte 7y ago
They threw out Neonazi Twitter, a.k.a. Gab.
- Valmar 7y ago
  Gab is not "Neo-Nazi Twitter", lmao. Gab was offering a solution to get around censorship of comments on various websites, so that people could comment freely. Some people got mad that they couldn't effectively silence other people anymore for daring to have non-mainstream opinions, so they smeared Gab as a site that supposedly hosted "Neo-Nazis". Gab does not host "Neo-Nazis", but Gab nevertheless has other issues... in that it's starting to desire to become more and more like Twitter, unlike its original goals.
ecnahc515 7y ago
There's been a few occurrences of them terminating service for the sites promoting extremist views, eg: https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ I don't entirely disagree with it but it's censorship nonetheless.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  It's not censorship. The Internet is a vast space, someone will host your stuff.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    Universality is not a defining characteristic of censorship. Most censors have very limited scope.
- Valmar 7y ago
  Did 8chan promote "extremist" views...? No more or less than posters on Twitter do on a regular basis, yet Twitter hasn't been silenced. The same people that got 8chan shut down also hate 4chan, and want to see it silenced. It has to do with the memes that come out of 4chan, mocking a certain crowd of people for being emotionally fragile and over-reactionary to everything...
cortesoft 7y ago
I am guessing it is the cutting of service to neo-nazi websites: https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-cloudflare/ https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-cloudflare/ Personally, I don't think free speech requires providing services to neo-nazis, but I get the nuances of the case.
- Valmar 7y ago
  I do not trust the SPLC to determine what is a "Neo-Nazi" website, as they regularly smear anyone and everyone who dare have beliefs that they don't like. They then throw everyone into the same corner, and collectively smear them as "white supremacists" and "Neo-Nazis". The terms, when used so broadly to silence harmless views that they disagree with, lose their meaning... Harmless, as in, said views are not really "white supremacist" ~ the SPLC has merely given them that label because they know its a powerful weapon.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    First, no one said the SPLC is the final say for this. Second, do you have any examples of an organization that the SPLC deemed a white supremacist that wasn't?
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      I know the SPLC has paid out in defamation suits rather than allow the cases to go to trial. Pretty good sign they knew they'd lose as it has severely hurt their reputation. Here's a particularly egregious case where a UN affiliated group was labeled an extremist hate group and the SPLC wouldn't relent even after evidence was presented: https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-981879 https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-98187...
      - cortesoft 7y ago
        It sounds like they did relent? It doesn't say anything about them refusing to relent after evidence was presented. It seems like they made a mistake in this case, clearly, but I don't know if you can extrapolate from that that they acted in bad faith.

> ...yes, they have and they will again. I don't doubt this, but do you have more info on what you're referring to on "they have"? I'm a bit out of the loop on that.

mrtksn 7y ago

They blocked Nazis after some attack or something like that. The founder wrote an emotional letter back then, acknowledging how bad is this and how he hates becoming the internet police.

ppseafield 7y ago
It wasn't some attack. The guy behind the Daily Stormer stated publicly that Cloudflare not shutting off his service means they agree with and support the Daily Stormer's content. > The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology. [0] That's in a blog post which is a follow up to a leaked memo. [1] [0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ [1] https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to...
- asdf21 7y ago
  >The guy behind the Daily Stormer stated publicly that Cloudflare not shutting off his service means they agree with and support the Daily Stormer's content. Yes, because he is a troll... he got exactly the response he wanted, infamy and people still talking about it years later.
- mrtksn 7y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. Do you remember why the blog in question was a hot topic?
- lkbm 7y ago
  The Daily Stormer in 2017 was as you state. However, last year they kicked off 8chan, which was in part due to the El Paso and Dayton shootings according to their blog post about it[0]. I suspect that's what mrtksn is referencing. [0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/
- erichocean 7y ago
  > The guy behind the Daily Stormer stated publicly that Cloudflare not shutting off his service means they agree with and support the Daily Stormer's content. And the proper response from CloudFlare should have been: No we don't, but since we're ethical (unlike these assholes), we'll still provide them service. Literally no one believed then, or believes now, that CF are crypto-Nazis. But we all know they don't actually have any kind of moral or ethical virtue, and will fold for a common troll. Oops.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  Do you have any link to what The Daily Stormer actually said? All I can find is various rewordings of it. They will of course be reworded in the least charitable way in most cases.

Tomte 7y ago

They threw out Neonazi Twitter, a.k.a. Gab.

Valmar 7y ago
Gab is not "Neo-Nazi Twitter", lmao. Gab was offering a solution to get around censorship of comments on various websites, so that people could comment freely. Some people got mad that they couldn't effectively silence other people anymore for daring to have non-mainstream opinions, so they smeared Gab as a site that supposedly hosted "Neo-Nazis". Gab does not host "Neo-Nazis", but Gab nevertheless has other issues... in that it's starting to desire to become more and more like Twitter, unlike its original goals.

ecnahc515 7y ago

There's been a few occurrences of them terminating service for the sites promoting extremist views, eg: https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ I don't entirely disagree with it but it's censorship nonetheless.

mschuster91 7y ago
It's not censorship. The Internet is a vast space, someone will host your stuff.
- kube-system 7y ago
  Universality is not a defining characteristic of censorship. Most censors have very limited scope.
Valmar 7y ago
Did 8chan promote "extremist" views...? No more or less than posters on Twitter do on a regular basis, yet Twitter hasn't been silenced. The same people that got 8chan shut down also hate 4chan, and want to see it silenced. It has to do with the memes that come out of 4chan, mocking a certain crowd of people for being emotionally fragile and over-reactionary to everything...

cortesoft 7y ago

I am guessing it is the cutting of service to neo-nazi websites: https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-cloudflare/ https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-cloudflare/ Personally, I don't think free speech requires providing services to neo-nazis, but I get the nuances of the case.

Valmar 7y ago
I do not trust the SPLC to determine what is a "Neo-Nazi" website, as they regularly smear anyone and everyone who dare have beliefs that they don't like. They then throw everyone into the same corner, and collectively smear them as "white supremacists" and "Neo-Nazis". The terms, when used so broadly to silence harmless views that they disagree with, lose their meaning... Harmless, as in, said views are not really "white supremacist" ~ the SPLC has merely given them that label because they know its a powerful weapon.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  First, no one said the SPLC is the final say for this. Second, do you have any examples of an organization that the SPLC deemed a white supremacist that wasn't?
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    I know the SPLC has paid out in defamation suits rather than allow the cases to go to trial. Pretty good sign they knew they'd lose as it has severely hurt their reputation. Here's a particularly egregious case where a UN affiliated group was labeled an extremist hate group and the SPLC wouldn't relent even after evidence was presented: https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-981879 https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-98187...
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      It sounds like they did relent? It doesn't say anything about them refusing to relent after evidence was presented. It seems like they made a mistake in this case, clearly, but I don't know if you can extrapolate from that that they acted in bad faith.