6 ms·
Doesn't need to be decentralized, just a phpBB forum behind Cloudflare would still work. Cloudflare is one of the few companies that hasn't become censor-happy
by Meekro 6y ago
Doesn't need to be decentralized, just a phpBB forum behind Cloudflare would still work. Cloudflare is one of the few companies that hasn't become censor-happy (except that one time..)
- nexthash 6y agoThe one time I believe you are referring to is when Cloudflare banned the Daily Stormer, which is a far-right, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, misogynist, and Holocaust denial message board website that promoted the genocide of Jews. It went far beyond the domain of free speech into advocating violence against people, not to speak of its horrific hatred and racism. Reason enough for anyone to ban it.
- gjs278 6y agoyawn. they still banned someone they didn't legally have to.
- jlawson 6y ago"But they're really really actually super-duper truly totally bad!" isn't a valid argument, since many, many people can use it and they will. There is nothing about your personal beliefs and morality which obviously places them above that of anyone else in any absolute sense. They're just your beliefs. We do not have the option of 'ban views that are actually bad'. We only have the option of banning views that lack power, or banning nobody. Fun questions: Many, many people think your views should be banned. What gives you the right to silence them while don't have the right to silence you? Would you equally ban far-left, neo-Stalinist, black supremacist, misandrist, or Holodomor denial message board website that promotes the genocides of whites? Why or why not?
- perl4ever 6y agoI think saying "We do not have the option of 'ban views that are actually bad'" is like saying "We do not have the option of saving lives" because everybody dies. I also think it's inconsistent to declare morals are all relative while arguing for your free speech ideals. In a forum with moderation, voting, and frequent banning of people.
- jlawson 6y agoNo, it's not like saving lives, because whether someone is alive or dead is agreed upon by all. This is a positive statement. Whether a view is bad or not is a normative judgment, not an objective fact.
- vyhd 6y ago> "But they're really really actually super-duper truly totally bad!" isn't a valid argument, since many, many people can use it and they will. It is absurdity to make the claim that, since anyone can say anything, no meaningful concept of objectivity can exist. Interesting how often it recurs in "free speech at any cost" argumentation.
- concordDance 6y agoObjectivity applies to positive statements, not normative ones.
- vyhd 6y agoNormative statements are based on one's observations and interpretations of facts, and that basis can be meaningfully scrutinized.
- Timoha 6y agoCloudflare helps dictators stay in power, but sure is nice for marketing to roll on “freedom of speech”
- kortilla 6y agoThat’s the price to pay when you don’t take political stances. The free speech approach is to just leave the dictator’s page up and let opposition pages stay up as well.
- Timoha 6y agoIt’s not a political stance. Cloudflare is breaking the law by providing services to companies/individuals that fall under US sanctions. It’s not politics here, it’s people’s lives.
- kortilla 6y ago> It’s not politics here, it’s people’s lives. This trope has been repeated about nearly everything Donald Trump has said as well regarding policy. Was supporting CHAZ just politics or people’s lives? Several people were murdered there.