5 ms·

Cloudflare backs white nationalist website for terrorizing interracial couples

28 points by noasaservice 4y ago

mlindner 4y ago
Oh come on, can we stop calling hosting a service as "backing" things. Whatever happened to the idea of providing a service disclaiming of who you're providing a service to?
- fxtentacle 4y ago
  I agree. There was a lot of outrage when a religious bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The argument was that they should serve every customer, even if they disagree. But now we're requesting precisely the opposite from Cloudflare.
  - jpoesen 4y ago
    These two things are very much not alike. The key difference: when the baker refused to provide service to a protected class based, they were discriminating. White supremacists (not a protected class) being refused service is quite different and not at all comparable.
    - h2odragon 4y ago
      When its OK for a public business to discriminate against "some people" because they're "not a protected class," we've lost the point. How much longer are you a "protected class?"
      - jpoesen 4y ago
        Not sure what this has to do with _me_, and I never stated whether or not I'm OK with Cloudflare's policy. I merely pointed out that the given comparison was invalid.
esperent 4y ago
This headline is designed to generate outrage. I feel like that's probably against HN rules and it should be changed to something less inflammatory to allow for actual discussion to take place because this is a nuanced issue. To be clear, the content on this website is abhorrent and there's no nuance there. It should almost certainly be forcibly removed from the internet as hate speech. The nuance is here: all this outrage is being used to demand that Cloudflare becomes a moral arbiter of the content they host, which is a slippery slope because if they accede here, there will immediately be another demand, and another, all using this case as their example. There's nothing to suggest that Cloudflare, as a company, has any skill as a moral arbiter so it seems like a bad idea to demand that they become such. Other tech companies, notably Facebook, are terrible and inconsistent moral arbiters but at least only censor their own platforms. Cloudflare is in the position of hosting other people's platforms. In any case, I believe the outrage should be directed at whatever legal jurisdiction has power here. IIRC this is a New Zealand website, in which case, wouldn't it make more sense to direct this energy towards getting NZ to issue a takedown request to Cloudflare?
- northrup 4y ago
  The problem is in that Cloudflare has already shown through previous actions in dropping 8chan and The Daily Stormer that they are willing to be arbitrators of what is acceptable. So once you're down that slippery slope not removing someone who looks a lot like those two sites translates to tacit approval.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Are they still doing it? Or is this something they did once or twice?
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      Doing it once or twice is enough to forever taint them IMO.
      - 4y ago
the_omegist 4y ago
I love measured headlines that show how professional and serious a news outlet is...
- rdtsc 4y ago
  I debated flagging it but since it’s so egregiously bad it makes for a good meta-discussion. But reading it at first may seem like they did a complete 180 degree turn and went from banning those kinds of things to outright embracing them. I thought, what are they providing them free service now? That’s some crazy leadership changes at Cloudflare!
honksillet 4y ago
Ridiculous headline
sexy_panda 4y ago
Cloudflare doesn't back these people. They provide the service they offer. Not more and not less. Cloudflare doesn't have any saying in what their customers can do and what not, except the customer violates their ToS. Law enforcement will request taking down content and Cloudflare will act accordingly. It's not cloudflares job to enforce law.
- viraptor 4y ago
  They're not providing a regulated utility though and it's not like the harassment was occasional and dealt with on the customer end. At this point cloudflare is aware their customer basically exists to provide space for organising that kind of behaviour. And they know they're the provider of choice because they enable that service to exist. That's effectively the same as backing. They helped prevent law enforcement being involved too https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/1485731108822077443 https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/1485731108822077443 - they actually spent money on lawyers to protect that customer. They're not legally forced to act here. They're just bad people for not doing it.
  - sexy_panda 4y ago
    Wow okay, that's different then. Really disappointed if all of this is actually true.
d1sxeyes 4y ago
Not sure if the headline has been changed since posted on here or if OP editorialised it, but it now reads: White Supremacists Built a Website to Doxx Interracial Couples — and It's Going to Be Hard to Take Down I searched with quotes and couldn't find any reference to the title as it appears above apart from this thread and some other Google spam, but suspiciously the Vice article is the first match if I take away the quotation marks. Either way, Vice is hardly a picture of balance.
nathanaldensr 4y ago
There has been a non-stop posting of anti-Cloudflare stories--essentially, cancellation attempts--due to Kiwi Farms. I just flag every one and move on. Take your political battles elsewhere.

28 points by noasaservice 4y ago

Oh come on, can we stop calling hosting a service as "backing" things. Whatever happened to the idea of providing a service disclaiming of who you're providing a service to?

fxtentacle 4y ago
I agree. There was a lot of outrage when a religious bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The argument was that they should serve every customer, even if they disagree. But now we're requesting precisely the opposite from Cloudflare.
- jpoesen 4y ago
  These two things are very much not alike. The key difference: when the baker refused to provide service to a protected class based, they were discriminating. White supremacists (not a protected class) being refused service is quite different and not at all comparable.
  - h2odragon 4y ago
    When its OK for a public business to discriminate against "some people" because they're "not a protected class," we've lost the point. How much longer are you a "protected class?"
    - jpoesen 4y ago
      Not sure what this has to do with _me_, and I never stated whether or not I'm OK with Cloudflare's policy. I merely pointed out that the given comparison was invalid.

esperent 4y ago

This headline is designed to generate outrage. I feel like that's probably against HN rules and it should be changed to something less inflammatory to allow for actual discussion to take place because this is a nuanced issue. To be clear, the content on this website is abhorrent and there's no nuance there. It should almost certainly be forcibly removed from the internet as hate speech. The nuance is here: all this outrage is being used to demand that Cloudflare becomes a moral arbiter of the content they host, which is a slippery slope because if they accede here, there will immediately be another demand, and another, all using this case as their example. There's nothing to suggest that Cloudflare, as a company, has any skill as a moral arbiter so it seems like a bad idea to demand that they become such. Other tech companies, notably Facebook, are terrible and inconsistent moral arbiters but at least only censor their own platforms. Cloudflare is in the position of hosting other people's platforms. In any case, I believe the outrage should be directed at whatever legal jurisdiction has power here. IIRC this is a New Zealand website, in which case, wouldn't it make more sense to direct this energy towards getting NZ to issue a takedown request to Cloudflare?

northrup 4y ago
The problem is in that Cloudflare has already shown through previous actions in dropping 8chan and The Daily Stormer that they are willing to be arbitrators of what is acceptable. So once you're down that slippery slope not removing someone who looks a lot like those two sites translates to tacit approval.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Are they still doing it? Or is this something they did once or twice?
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    Doing it once or twice is enough to forever taint them IMO.
    - 4y ago

the_omegist 4y ago

I love measured headlines that show how professional and serious a news outlet is...

rdtsc 4y ago
I debated flagging it but since it’s so egregiously bad it makes for a good meta-discussion. But reading it at first may seem like they did a complete 180 degree turn and went from banning those kinds of things to outright embracing them. I thought, what are they providing them free service now? That’s some crazy leadership changes at Cloudflare!

honksillet 4y ago

Ridiculous headline

sexy_panda 4y ago

Cloudflare doesn't back these people. They provide the service they offer. Not more and not less. Cloudflare doesn't have any saying in what their customers can do and what not, except the customer violates their ToS. Law enforcement will request taking down content and Cloudflare will act accordingly. It's not cloudflares job to enforce law.

viraptor 4y ago
They're not providing a regulated utility though and it's not like the harassment was occasional and dealt with on the customer end. At this point cloudflare is aware their customer basically exists to provide space for organising that kind of behaviour. And they know they're the provider of choice because they enable that service to exist. That's effectively the same as backing. They helped prevent law enforcement being involved too https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/1485731108822077443 https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/1485731108822077443 - they actually spent money on lawyers to protect that customer. They're not legally forced to act here. They're just bad people for not doing it.
- sexy_panda 4y ago
  Wow okay, that's different then. Really disappointed if all of this is actually true.

d1sxeyes 4y ago

Not sure if the headline has been changed since posted on here or if OP editorialised it, but it now reads: White Supremacists Built a Website to Doxx Interracial Couples — and It's Going to Be Hard to Take Down I searched with quotes and couldn't find any reference to the title as it appears above apart from this thread and some other Google spam, but suspiciously the Vice article is the first match if I take away the quotation marks. Either way, Vice is hardly a picture of balance.

nathanaldensr 4y ago

There has been a non-stop posting of anti-Cloudflare stories--essentially, cancellation attempts--due to Kiwi Farms. I just flag every one and move on. Take your political battles elsewhere.