3 ms·
Are they? Some may be, such as proud boys and dailystormer may be afoul of some (vague) hate speech clauses. Others may not be. paypal and CC companies also sh
by rndgermandude 6y ago
Are they? Some may be, such as proud boys and dailystormer may be afoul of some (vague) hate speech clauses. Others may not be.
paypal and CC companies also shut down donations to wikileaks long ago (long before Trump was a thing). And even shut down donations to other foundations, such as the Wau Holland Stiftung of the Chaos Computer Club[0], that collected donations in part for wikileaks.
My first real memory of paypal was paypal shutting down the account we used to collect donations to cover server costs for a forum we ran back in the day[1], without any appeals process and freezing all assets, effectively stealing the money[2].
I also find it fascinating e.g. that cloudflare still protects botters (aka outright declared criminals) and people selling child porn[3] (aka the worst of common criminals), but dailystormer, as vile as they are, are somehow too much.
[0] German, https://netzpolitik.org/2010/wau-holland-stiftung-geht-gegen-paypal-vor/ https://netzpolitik.org/2010/wau-holland-stiftung-geht-gegen...
[1] the forums was a rather benign thing, just for chitchat, nobody sold anything, and it wasn't about anything illegal either. We never got an explanation from paypal, but the account shutdown coincided with a DMCA request for a single red carpet picture some user posted in a thread about the Emmy's. We removed that picture, by the way.
[2] Paypal wrote that they would refund the money, but some of our members reported they never did get a refund.
[3] I and some other people repeatedly reported a website selling child pornography for crypto (or for users submitting "original content"), mostly of the blackmailed-into-performing-lewd-acts variety targeting young teens and even pre-teens. While we had some success in getting domain registrars to nuke the domains in the past, this only lead to domain hopping, and finally the operator found a registrar that doesn't care (currently a Ukrainian company and .su/.pk domains). Every time the websites were behind cloudflare and every time cloudflare responded to our requests with "we're just a reverse proxy and forwarded it to the hoster" and didn't do anything. The current incarnations of those websites are still online a month later.
- oarsinsync 6y ago> I also find it fascinating e.g. that cloudflare still protects botters (aka outright declared criminals) and people selling child porn[3] (aka the worst of common criminals), but dailystormer, as vile as they are, are somehow too much. The publicly stated motivations behind terminating dailystormer are that dailystormer allegedly suggested that Cloudflare supported them. The content wasn’t the issue, the suggested endorsement was: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ EDIT: this doesn’t gel with my memory of the events at the time, which were that the site got terminated because the CEO or CTO was in a bad mood, mind. It may be some post-hoc rationalisation to make it more palatable and give them cover against the things you’re saying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- rndgermandude 6y agoYeah, the CEO decided to terminate their account because he didn't like them. The bit about "endorsement" was just a rationalization after the fact. >“Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet,” Prince wrote in an internal memo to employees obtained by Gizmodo and published on Wednesday. “No one should have that power.” https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/cloudflare-ceo-says-removing-the-daily-stormer-is-slippery-slope.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/cloudflare-ceo-says-removing...
- ceejayoz 6y ago> “No one should have that power.” I mean, he doesn't. Cloudflare isn't the Internet. HN itself is an example.
- nojito 6y agoI'm sorry but no one should have any right to tell private organizations who they can and can't do business with. What you're advocating for is extremely dangerous and shortsighted.
- rndgermandude 6y agoWait, so it's just dandy that private organizations can and do censor as they please, but it's wrong to demand of them to not do business with cyber criminals and people selling child porn?