4 ms·
If you actually read their article, it seems they are saying that 8chan WASNT defensible to them and was a mistake for them to do so.
by namelessoracle 4y ago
If you actually read their article, it seems they are saying that 8chan WASNT defensible to them and was a mistake for them to do so.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoI did read the article. I read it twice. Once prior to commenting, once with someone I showed it to. I think you're misinterpreting my comment. I stated this: "but I don't see how KF is defensible whilst 8chan et al aren't" This meant: I don't understand how they can invoke the removal of 8chan and a neo-Nazi site, yet retain KF.
- pessimizer 4y agoBut if they "invoked" the removal of 8chan to say that they shouldn't have done it, I don't understand the relevance. Since you simply changed defended to "invoked," it seems that you're also aware that they aren't defending removing "8chan et al."
- hammyhavoc 4y agoI think I misunderstood the statement.
- dastbe 4y agothen why don’t they publicly invite back 8chan and the daily stormer, possibly for a discount/free? similarly, are they lobbying to get FOSTA revised so they can bring back Switter? their opinion is that it is (almost always?) ethically wrong for them to withhold security products. for the two websites i mentioned, nobody is stopping them from providing services. for a third, they could lobby to fix fosta and/or not transit switter traffic in the us.
- _chendo_ 4y agoCloudflare claimed they were going to fight FOSTA but I've seen absolutely nothing done about it.