5 ms·

> That Cloudflare does or does not do has no bearing on the website continuing to have an origin so it isn't even really censorship in the lightest. This has t

by vageli 4y ago

> That Cloudflare does or does not do has no bearing on the website continuing to have an origin so it isn't even really censorship in the lightest. This has to be one of the most narrow definitions of censorship I've seen. Suppression of information is censorship, full stop. Suppression does not need to be committed by government for it to be censorship.

devman0 4y ago
It isn't suppression of information, its not taking part in re-broadcasting (emphasis on re) it. If this was AWS banning Parler where AWS was the origin, then you might have a point.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > It isn't suppression of information, its not taking part in re-broadcasting (emphasis on re) it. So, it sounds like you're in agreement that Cloudflare's role here is fairly impartial; they're not editorializing or supplementing the KiwiFarms data with any of their own opinions or biases. They take no part in the creation of this material, just the preservation of it. So, where do we draw this line? Should we remove Terry A. Davis' videos off the Internet Archive for intolerable racism and encouraging hateful behavior? Or maybe we should delete all the GNU projects because the public opinion on Stallman has changed of late? I simply don't follow this line of logic; there is nothing to gain from de-platforming this content. They'd only be giving them a reason to reincarnate as a Matrix server or Onion domain, and good luck getting your self-conscious service providers to take out the trash when that happens. I despise Cloudflare from the bottom of my blackened heart, but seeing people think a Twitter campaign is going to stop a forum from existing is silly. We're begging for an "Epik" situation, where a replacement pops up with the sole purpose of catering to extremist politics. Congratulations, now nobody wins.
woodruffw 4y ago
These kinds of arguments are torturous. It's not "censorship" when your local coffee store tells you to leave the premises after the third time you've threatened to kill the waitstaff.
- rstupek 4y ago
  Wouldn't threatening to kill the waitstaff qualify as "illegal" since it's technically assault
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    No, just being verbally threatening is not assault on its own; there needs to be an imminent threat of physical harm for it to be a crime. But this isn't the standard your coffee shop is interested in, because they don't want waitstaff to have to wait for a crime to happen to them before removing someone who's harming their business and upsetting the other customers.
- oittaa 4y ago
  Which is illegal and you should call the police. You are actually defending his point that the law enforcement should handle this.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Verbally threatening someone is not a crime in most US jurisdictions in its own right -- there needs to be an additional reason to believe that you'll immediately suffer physical harm. You can call the police, and they will arrive and probably remove the person. But they won't be removing them because of the threat; they'll be removed because they don't have a right to be a nuisance in someone's store. This is precisely the position Cloudflare is in: they are entirely within both their rights and the realm of acceptable social behavior to remove nuisances from their premises.
    - simiones 4y ago
      > This is precisely the position Cloudflare is in: they are entirely within both their rights and the realm of acceptable social behavior to remove nuisances from their premises. No, Cloudlfare is more in the position of a random person coming to the counter to ask that one of their customers be thrown off the premises because they have posted on a forum that someone should be murdered. While Cloudflare does have the right to ask anyone to leave their premises, they also have the right, and are well in the realm of acceptable social behavior, to not investigate what their customers are saying, and to ignore people coming off the street to demand they throw customers out.
tmottabr 4y ago
And what exactly is being suppressed by cloudflare?? Cloudflare would just be refusing to help spread it and are totally within their right to do so.. If cloudflare stop provinding service they can move their hosting anywhere else or even self host in their own servers if no one want to host then.. They have literally dozens of hosting options other then cloudflare.. It is not like cloudflare is the only place around and they are required to use it..
madeofpalk 4y ago
In fact, requiring Cloudflare to perform an act like forcing them to host a website is suppression of Cloudflare's own speech. If it's not illegal, Cloudflare should be able to make their own determination on what they choose to host and facilitate. Others can have an opinion on whether they wish cloudflare did that or not, and they might choose to do business (or not) depending on that. I think this is all completely normal and none of this is censorship.
- simiones 4y ago
  Note that we are not discussing a demand for Cloudlfare to reinstate KF's service, we are discussing a demand for Cloudflare to stop doing business with KF. This thread is not about defending KF, it is about defending Cloudflare from demands that they stop doing business with some organization that some have decided is undesirable.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    I don't see what the problem is. Cloudflare should be able to make it's own judgement on who it does business with. If I'm running a business, I may wish to make a moral judgement and not do business with an energy company because I don't think they're climate-friendly, or avoid doing business with Facebook because of their stance/impact to privacy, or not/stop buying peaches from 9/11 truthers www.palisadeproduce.com. I think these are all completely reasonable and normal ways for me to run a business. In the same vein, other people are welcome to a view on the above, who i do business with, and try and change my mind, and might withhold their business from me because of it. I think that is also completely fair and normal. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Everyone's just having an opinion and operating by it. Personally, I don't think Cloudflare should stop providing service for these website. I think they have a leg to stand on with saying they're a neutral dumb pipe who will just follow the law. But I also don't think it's abhorrent for people to think different, and try and persuade Cloudflare to cut their relationship with kiwifarms
    - reset-password 4y ago
      > But I also don't think it's abhorrent for people to think different, and try and persuade Cloudflare to cut their relationship with kiwifarms Abhorrent no, but it goes against our codified laws to try to persuade one business to stop doing business with another.

by vageli 4y ago

devman0 4y ago

It isn't suppression of information, its not taking part in re-broadcasting (emphasis on re) it. If this was AWS banning Parler where AWS was the origin, then you might have a point.

smoldesu 4y ago
> It isn't suppression of information, its not taking part in re-broadcasting (emphasis on re) it. So, it sounds like you're in agreement that Cloudflare's role here is fairly impartial; they're not editorializing or supplementing the KiwiFarms data with any of their own opinions or biases. They take no part in the creation of this material, just the preservation of it. So, where do we draw this line? Should we remove Terry A. Davis' videos off the Internet Archive for intolerable racism and encouraging hateful behavior? Or maybe we should delete all the GNU projects because the public opinion on Stallman has changed of late? I simply don't follow this line of logic; there is nothing to gain from de-platforming this content. They'd only be giving them a reason to reincarnate as a Matrix server or Onion domain, and good luck getting your self-conscious service providers to take out the trash when that happens. I despise Cloudflare from the bottom of my blackened heart, but seeing people think a Twitter campaign is going to stop a forum from existing is silly. We're begging for an "Epik" situation, where a replacement pops up with the sole purpose of catering to extremist politics. Congratulations, now nobody wins.

woodruffw 4y ago

These kinds of arguments are torturous. It's not "censorship" when your local coffee store tells you to leave the premises after the third time you've threatened to kill the waitstaff.

rstupek 4y ago
Wouldn't threatening to kill the waitstaff qualify as "illegal" since it's technically assault
- woodruffw 4y ago
  No, just being verbally threatening is not assault on its own; there needs to be an imminent threat of physical harm for it to be a crime. But this isn't the standard your coffee shop is interested in, because they don't want waitstaff to have to wait for a crime to happen to them before removing someone who's harming their business and upsetting the other customers.
oittaa 4y ago
Which is illegal and you should call the police. You are actually defending his point that the law enforcement should handle this.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Verbally threatening someone is not a crime in most US jurisdictions in its own right -- there needs to be an additional reason to believe that you'll immediately suffer physical harm. You can call the police, and they will arrive and probably remove the person. But they won't be removing them because of the threat; they'll be removed because they don't have a right to be a nuisance in someone's store. This is precisely the position Cloudflare is in: they are entirely within both their rights and the realm of acceptable social behavior to remove nuisances from their premises.
  - simiones 4y ago
    > This is precisely the position Cloudflare is in: they are entirely within both their rights and the realm of acceptable social behavior to remove nuisances from their premises. No, Cloudlfare is more in the position of a random person coming to the counter to ask that one of their customers be thrown off the premises because they have posted on a forum that someone should be murdered. While Cloudflare does have the right to ask anyone to leave their premises, they also have the right, and are well in the realm of acceptable social behavior, to not investigate what their customers are saying, and to ignore people coming off the street to demand they throw customers out.

tmottabr 4y ago

And what exactly is being suppressed by cloudflare?? Cloudflare would just be refusing to help spread it and are totally within their right to do so.. If cloudflare stop provinding service they can move their hosting anywhere else or even self host in their own servers if no one want to host then.. They have literally dozens of hosting options other then cloudflare.. It is not like cloudflare is the only place around and they are required to use it..

madeofpalk 4y ago

In fact, requiring Cloudflare to perform an act like forcing them to host a website is suppression of Cloudflare's own speech. If it's not illegal, Cloudflare should be able to make their own determination on what they choose to host and facilitate. Others can have an opinion on whether they wish cloudflare did that or not, and they might choose to do business (or not) depending on that. I think this is all completely normal and none of this is censorship.

simiones 4y ago
Note that we are not discussing a demand for Cloudlfare to reinstate KF's service, we are discussing a demand for Cloudflare to stop doing business with KF. This thread is not about defending KF, it is about defending Cloudflare from demands that they stop doing business with some organization that some have decided is undesirable.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  I don't see what the problem is. Cloudflare should be able to make it's own judgement on who it does business with. If I'm running a business, I may wish to make a moral judgement and not do business with an energy company because I don't think they're climate-friendly, or avoid doing business with Facebook because of their stance/impact to privacy, or not/stop buying peaches from 9/11 truthers www.palisadeproduce.com. I think these are all completely reasonable and normal ways for me to run a business. In the same vein, other people are welcome to a view on the above, who i do business with, and try and change my mind, and might withhold their business from me because of it. I think that is also completely fair and normal. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Everyone's just having an opinion and operating by it. Personally, I don't think Cloudflare should stop providing service for these website. I think they have a leg to stand on with saying they're a neutral dumb pipe who will just follow the law. But I also don't think it's abhorrent for people to think different, and try and persuade Cloudflare to cut their relationship with kiwifarms
  - reset-password 4y ago
    > But I also don't think it's abhorrent for people to think different, and try and persuade Cloudflare to cut their relationship with kiwifarms Abhorrent no, but it goes against our codified laws to try to persuade one business to stop doing business with another.