11 ms·

It's a slippery slope to so many other issues. An issue that is black and white today can become grey tomorrow. Sanctioning a corporation to take moral decision

It's a slippery slope to so many other issues. An issue that is black and white today can become grey tomorrow. Sanctioning a corporation to take moral decisions is giving them too much power. I would rather corporations not have such power and we use the legal route to control societal conduct.

phillipcarter 4y ago
What issues, exactly? Companies are free to operate their own TOS and decide what activities they allow on their platform. There's literally nothing about dropping kiwifarms as a customer that puts Cloudflare in a weird position. And there's nothing stopping kiwifarms from operating on their own (and thus being directly responsible for the speech on the site).
snarf21 4y ago
Corporations already do this and always have. Movies/TV/Music place limits on whether nudity/violence/profanity/etc is allowed or not. Newspapers decide what articles they print and distribute. Shows/Networks/Platforms limit what ads they will show to users (e.g. Fox News isn't going to show ads that are anti-gun and NPR isn't going to run ads that are pro-gun) In general, this is how it works. Public pressure causes public change and eventually that leads to codification in law, not the other way around.
- FiniteField 4y ago
  In this case though, the current "cyber mob", as you might call it, is agitating for a famously editorially neutral company (that simply provides a service to other websites) to become strictly partial based on what is essentially politics under the guise of an anti-harassment campaign. This is a hair's breadth away from demanding that the electric, water, and gas utilities suspend service from problematic but law-abiding individuals and companies. The claim is that private companies should be able to freely choose whether to "publish" another person's views, but the underlying intent is blatantly to bully all the right "dependency" companies such that it is absolutely impossible to operate a law abiding website unless it enforces the correct politics. In other words: - "Just make your own subreddit/group chat/etc" - "Just find another website to speak your views on" - "Just make your own website if you want free speech" - "Just run your own hosting company" - "Just run your own DNS registrar" - "Just build your own datacentre" - "Just run your own worldwide DDoS protection" (<-- You are here) - "Just run your own Internet backbone if you want infrastructure companies to peer with you" - "Just create your own Internet"

phillipcarter 4y ago

What issues, exactly? Companies are free to operate their own TOS and decide what activities they allow on their platform. There's literally nothing about dropping kiwifarms as a customer that puts Cloudflare in a weird position. And there's nothing stopping kiwifarms from operating on their own (and thus being directly responsible for the speech on the site).

snarf21 4y ago

Corporations already do this and always have. Movies/TV/Music place limits on whether nudity/violence/profanity/etc is allowed or not. Newspapers decide what articles they print and distribute. Shows/Networks/Platforms limit what ads they will show to users (e.g. Fox News isn't going to show ads that are anti-gun and NPR isn't going to run ads that are pro-gun) In general, this is how it works. Public pressure causes public change and eventually that leads to codification in law, not the other way around.

FiniteField 4y ago
In this case though, the current "cyber mob", as you might call it, is agitating for a famously editorially neutral company (that simply provides a service to other websites) to become strictly partial based on what is essentially politics under the guise of an anti-harassment campaign. This is a hair's breadth away from demanding that the electric, water, and gas utilities suspend service from problematic but law-abiding individuals and companies. The claim is that private companies should be able to freely choose whether to "publish" another person's views, but the underlying intent is blatantly to bully all the right "dependency" companies such that it is absolutely impossible to operate a law abiding website unless it enforces the correct politics. In other words: - "Just make your own subreddit/group chat/etc" - "Just find another website to speak your views on" - "Just make your own website if you want free speech" - "Just run your own hosting company" - "Just run your own DNS registrar" - "Just build your own datacentre" - "Just run your own worldwide DDoS protection" (<-- You are here) - "Just run your own Internet backbone if you want infrastructure companies to peer with you" - "Just create your own Internet"