9 ms·

I genuinely believe that it's entirely possible to be seen as very neutral and also just ban nazi sites, troll farms, etc. because you choose not to do business

I genuinely believe that it's entirely possible to be seen as very neutral and also just ban nazi sites, troll farms, etc. because you choose not to do business with them.

seneca 4y ago
> also just ban nazi sites, troll farms, etc. because you choose not to do business with them. This is literally the opposite of neutral. I don't get this constant need for mental gymnastics. Just say you believe in censorship.
- subsuboptimal 4y ago
  There can be limits on speech and free speech. There are many places where we've agreed there should be limits on speech, for instance it's illegal to lie under oath, or to threaten someone with physical harm, or to falsely advertise. It's not black and white.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    No there can't. It absolutely is black and white.
    - lanstin 4y ago
      What do you think the crimes of fraud or conspiracy are?
      - betwixthewires 4y ago
        Fraud isn't fraud unless someone's resources are stolen, conspiracy isnt conspiracy unless some unlawful act is imminent or has occurred. In both cases, its not the words that are illegal, it is tangible, observable real world actions that are.
        voganmother42 4y ago
        “the scope of banned speech: that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action”. Like harassing someone? Or like publishing someones personal information to attempt to have them harassed or hurt? Sounds like speech is a “real world action” that has observable effects… and oh, it looks like the courts may even have considered this…
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        "Directed" has a meaning. "Go do this thing" is directed. Honestly I'm very skeptical of any accusation of harassment online, seeing as you can just block people. Maybe I've never experienced it and don't know. When I ehar the word harassment I think of showing up to someone's workplace, home, things where you can't avoid them. Sending them messages that can be blocked, I'm not so sure. But that's a tangent to the topic of our discussion. Publishing someone's address and telling people to go to their home and harass or harm them is direct incitement. This is absolutely punishable, because it's more than speech, it's conspiring to commit real world action, as you said. I'm curious, if that's the sort of thing they do, has anyone been criminally charged or convicted for such behavior? I mean that genuinely, I'm trying to learn about all this kiwifarms stuff as much as I can.
        voganmother42 4y ago
        Publishing someones address and telling people to go to their home is exactly what KF is credibly accused of facilitating: ex: https://mobile.twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1565412302635114506 https://mobile.twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/15654123026351...
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        So that's not cool, I don't see anyone saying "go to their home" in those screenshots but I get the implication. So my question is, when will there be criminal charges? If this is directed incitement it's criminal, has anyone been charged or convicted for it from kiwi farms?
    - palmetieri2000 4y ago
      Stupid thing to say, your countries Supreme Court constantly have thousands of lawyers arguing over the distinctions, definitions and interpretation of the 1A. Plus, Cloudfare isnt the government and is quite explicitly NOT burdened by a legal requirement to protect any users free speech. The fuck are you on about?
- timmytokyo 4y ago
  Is it censorship? Or freedom of association?
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    Yes to both.
cowtools 4y ago
I genuinely believe that it's entirely possible to be seen as very neutral and also just ban anyone I disagree with or who even just annoys me.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Being neutral with Nazis is supporting them, period. We've seen in 1933-45 where staying neutral or appeasing them leads to. Nazis need to be fought everywhere, otherwise their cancerous ideology just grows.
  - inawarminister 4y ago
    I agree with you, we also see the same WRT communists. Murderous antiquated ideologies should be eradicated from the modern world.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      Communists are no longer a threat anywhere outside the PRC and North Korea.
      - inawarminister 4y ago
        And the Nazis...? In both cases, the problem is latent inside our societies. The dam bursts and revolutionary fervor appear until checked away. Not until a large amount of innocent victims. PRC is state capitalist as well, rhetoric notwithstanding. They even needed to purge their Marxists a few years back.
      - google234123 4y ago
        Wait what, there aren't any nazi states as far as I'm aware but the PRC and North Korea are both real and have nukes? There are still communist political parties in every western democracy.
      - coffeeblack 4y ago
        And Venezuela. And Cuba. And Vietnam. And Laos. And and and.
Test0129 4y ago
- jackson1442 4y ago
  Are they taking KF money? CF DDoS protection is free.
  - Vecr 4y ago
    They are, the actual cloudflare free tier (not the one they give to various "social good" sites, that's way better) is not actually that great when it comes to a "well executed" DDOS attack. I don't know the exact details, and I guess it's possible it changed in the last couple years, but it's what I've heard.
    - jackson1442 4y ago
      Interesting. Their messaging on that isn't great in that case. I've used them for years and was under the impression that their full DDoS suite (aside from case managers and such) was part of free tier. I guess the one signal I had is that WAF is a paid product.
- jacooper 4y ago
  Are they a paying customer in the first place?
scrollaway 4y ago
"Neutral", maybe, but their stance goes beyond neutral. They clearly position themselves as "infrastructure". HNers should appreciate this more, as it's often a recurring theme here to talk about ISPs as infrastructure. Infrastructure doesn't privately discriminate, period. Water/Electricity utilities don't cut the supply to rapists and terrorists just because they're rapists and terrorists. They cut it when law enforcement ask them to. This conflicting discussion is better had on this level: "Should Cloudflare be considered infrastructure, or not?". It's not straightforward.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  I don't care for artificial binary categories. Thinking by analogy or by category always confuses the situation. Evaluate each unique situation on its on own idiosyncrasies from first principles and by studying the unique details.
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  > They clearly position themselves as "infrastructure". HNers should appreciate this more, as it's often a recurring theme here to talk about ISPs as infrastructure. That's trying to have cake and eat it too. I am highly sympathetic to operating like infrastructure, and I would love to see regulatory bodies take this up as an issue to try and figure out. What I am not sympathetic to is having a documented history of not acting like a utility, but then puffing up chests and saying that they are a utility only when it happens to serve them.
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    Exactly. The distinction needs to be a very, very bright and clear line legally. If it's fuzzy, then the fuzziness will be pushed and pushed using plausible deniability.
  - scrollaway 4y ago
    > having a documented history of not acting like a utility Elaborate, please?
skissane 4y ago
> and also just ban nazi sites, troll farms, etc. Question: How many nazi sites, troll farms, etc, is Cloudflare still providing services to? I bet you the answer is not zero. We can debate the merits of a consistently applied policy of "we won't provide our services to nazis/racists/trolls/etc" – but it doesn't appear that is Cloudflare's actual policy. It appears their actual policy is "we will happily provide services to anybody, nazis/racists/trolls/etc included – until the social media heat gets too hot for us to handle, at which point we will drop the individual site which is the target of that controversy, but continue offering our services to all the other sites like it"
- pixl97 4y ago
  As much as I don't like nazi's and troll farms, I believe they have the right to internet service until they start using it to threaten others with violence. This said, this will always lead to the nazi's getting banned. At the end of the day they are incapable of not calling for violence. It is their modus operandi.
OrangeMonkey 4y ago
Its so weird how everyone we don't like is a nazi. Your opinion appears to be popular though. Through enough pressure we have successfully removed ddos protection from a site that people on here hope gets ddos'ed. One day, this conversation and this thread will be remembered. How there was a period where everyone celebrated corporations silencing individuals or allowing mobs to ddos them. What happened to our internet.
- subsuboptimal 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
- voganmother42 4y ago
  or will they remember how people appealed to corporations trying to force them to provide services…I suppose we shall see
barry-cotter 4y ago
[flagged]
prvc 4y ago
A nice hack for advancing a hypocritical political position on HN: just say >I genuinely believe [contradictory proposition]. That way, anyone who was to question the value of said belief or the wisdom of sharing it with others could be construed as having engaged in some form of "personal attack".
WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago
I read comments like this and it reminds me just how much critical thinking has been stripped away from people via their social media over consumption. Did you forget when a duly-elected president of a Democratic nation was deplatformed under your same “easy no brainer” principles? Yeah, yeah, that’s different, that guy sucked (is a Nazi even?). What happens though when you don’t think he sucks or it’s a to a marginalized group? You can’t understand why these ideas are controversial?

I genuinely believe that it's entirely possible to be seen as very neutral and also just ban nazi sites, troll farms, etc. because you choose not to do business with them.

seneca 4y ago

> also just ban nazi sites, troll farms, etc. because you choose not to do business with them. This is literally the opposite of neutral. I don't get this constant need for mental gymnastics. Just say you believe in censorship.

subsuboptimal 4y ago
There can be limits on speech and free speech. There are many places where we've agreed there should be limits on speech, for instance it's illegal to lie under oath, or to threaten someone with physical harm, or to falsely advertise. It's not black and white.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  No there can't. It absolutely is black and white.
  - lanstin 4y ago
    What do you think the crimes of fraud or conspiracy are?
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      Fraud isn't fraud unless someone's resources are stolen, conspiracy isnt conspiracy unless some unlawful act is imminent or has occurred. In both cases, its not the words that are illegal, it is tangible, observable real world actions that are.
      - voganmother42 4y ago
        “the scope of banned speech: that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action”. Like harassing someone? Or like publishing someones personal information to attempt to have them harassed or hurt? Sounds like speech is a “real world action” that has observable effects… and oh, it looks like the courts may even have considered this…
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        "Directed" has a meaning. "Go do this thing" is directed. Honestly I'm very skeptical of any accusation of harassment online, seeing as you can just block people. Maybe I've never experienced it and don't know. When I ehar the word harassment I think of showing up to someone's workplace, home, things where you can't avoid them. Sending them messages that can be blocked, I'm not so sure. But that's a tangent to the topic of our discussion. Publishing someone's address and telling people to go to their home and harass or harm them is direct incitement. This is absolutely punishable, because it's more than speech, it's conspiring to commit real world action, as you said. I'm curious, if that's the sort of thing they do, has anyone been criminally charged or convicted for such behavior? I mean that genuinely, I'm trying to learn about all this kiwifarms stuff as much as I can.
        voganmother42 4y ago
        Publishing someones address and telling people to go to their home is exactly what KF is credibly accused of facilitating: ex: https://mobile.twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1565412302635114506 https://mobile.twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/15654123026351...
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        So that's not cool, I don't see anyone saying "go to their home" in those screenshots but I get the implication. So my question is, when will there be criminal charges? If this is directed incitement it's criminal, has anyone been charged or convicted for it from kiwi farms?
  - palmetieri2000 4y ago
    Stupid thing to say, your countries Supreme Court constantly have thousands of lawyers arguing over the distinctions, definitions and interpretation of the 1A. Plus, Cloudfare isnt the government and is quite explicitly NOT burdened by a legal requirement to protect any users free speech. The fuck are you on about?
timmytokyo 4y ago
Is it censorship? Or freedom of association?
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  Yes to both.

cowtools 4y ago

I genuinely believe that it's entirely possible to be seen as very neutral and also just ban anyone I disagree with or who even just annoys me.

mschuster91 4y ago
Being neutral with Nazis is supporting them, period. We've seen in 1933-45 where staying neutral or appeasing them leads to. Nazis need to be fought everywhere, otherwise their cancerous ideology just grows.
- inawarminister 4y ago
  I agree with you, we also see the same WRT communists. Murderous antiquated ideologies should be eradicated from the modern world.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Communists are no longer a threat anywhere outside the PRC and North Korea.
    - inawarminister 4y ago
      And the Nazis...? In both cases, the problem is latent inside our societies. The dam bursts and revolutionary fervor appear until checked away. Not until a large amount of innocent victims. PRC is state capitalist as well, rhetoric notwithstanding. They even needed to purge their Marxists a few years back.
    - google234123 4y ago
      Wait what, there aren't any nazi states as far as I'm aware but the PRC and North Korea are both real and have nukes? There are still communist political parties in every western democracy.
    - coffeeblack 4y ago
      And Venezuela. And Cuba. And Vietnam. And Laos. And and and.

Test0129 4y ago

jackson1442 4y ago
Are they taking KF money? CF DDoS protection is free.
- Vecr 4y ago
  They are, the actual cloudflare free tier (not the one they give to various "social good" sites, that's way better) is not actually that great when it comes to a "well executed" DDOS attack. I don't know the exact details, and I guess it's possible it changed in the last couple years, but it's what I've heard.
  - jackson1442 4y ago
    Interesting. Their messaging on that isn't great in that case. I've used them for years and was under the impression that their full DDoS suite (aside from case managers and such) was part of free tier. I guess the one signal I had is that WAF is a paid product.
jacooper 4y ago
Are they a paying customer in the first place?

scrollaway 4y ago

"Neutral", maybe, but their stance goes beyond neutral. They clearly position themselves as "infrastructure". HNers should appreciate this more, as it's often a recurring theme here to talk about ISPs as infrastructure. Infrastructure doesn't privately discriminate, period. Water/Electricity utilities don't cut the supply to rapists and terrorists just because they're rapists and terrorists. They cut it when law enforcement ask them to. This conflicting discussion is better had on this level: "Should Cloudflare be considered infrastructure, or not?". It's not straightforward.

hackerlight 4y ago
I don't care for artificial binary categories. Thinking by analogy or by category always confuses the situation. Evaluate each unique situation on its on own idiosyncrasies from first principles and by studying the unique details.
phillipcarter 4y ago
> They clearly position themselves as "infrastructure". HNers should appreciate this more, as it's often a recurring theme here to talk about ISPs as infrastructure. That's trying to have cake and eat it too. I am highly sympathetic to operating like infrastructure, and I would love to see regulatory bodies take this up as an issue to try and figure out. What I am not sympathetic to is having a documented history of not acting like a utility, but then puffing up chests and saying that they are a utility only when it happens to serve them.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Exactly. The distinction needs to be a very, very bright and clear line legally. If it's fuzzy, then the fuzziness will be pushed and pushed using plausible deniability.
- scrollaway 4y ago
  > having a documented history of not acting like a utility Elaborate, please?

skissane 4y ago

> and also just ban nazi sites, troll farms, etc. Question: How many nazi sites, troll farms, etc, is Cloudflare still providing services to? I bet you the answer is not zero. We can debate the merits of a consistently applied policy of "we won't provide our services to nazis/racists/trolls/etc" – but it doesn't appear that is Cloudflare's actual policy. It appears their actual policy is "we will happily provide services to anybody, nazis/racists/trolls/etc included – until the social media heat gets too hot for us to handle, at which point we will drop the individual site which is the target of that controversy, but continue offering our services to all the other sites like it"

pixl97 4y ago
As much as I don't like nazi's and troll farms, I believe they have the right to internet service until they start using it to threaten others with violence. This said, this will always lead to the nazi's getting banned. At the end of the day they are incapable of not calling for violence. It is their modus operandi.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago

Its so weird how everyone we don't like is a nazi. Your opinion appears to be popular though. Through enough pressure we have successfully removed ddos protection from a site that people on here hope gets ddos'ed. One day, this conversation and this thread will be remembered. How there was a period where everyone celebrated corporations silencing individuals or allowing mobs to ddos them. What happened to our internet.

subsuboptimal 4y ago
[flagged]
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
voganmother42 4y ago
or will they remember how people appealed to corporations trying to force them to provide services…I suppose we shall see

barry-cotter 4y ago

[flagged]

prvc 4y ago

A nice hack for advancing a hypocritical political position on HN: just say >I genuinely believe [contradictory proposition]. That way, anyone who was to question the value of said belief or the wisdom of sharing it with others could be construed as having engaged in some form of "personal attack".

WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago

I read comments like this and it reminds me just how much critical thinking has been stripped away from people via their social media over consumption. Did you forget when a duly-elected president of a Democratic nation was deplatformed under your same “easy no brainer” principles? Yeah, yeah, that’s different, that guy sucked (is a Nazi even?). What happens though when you don’t think he sucks or it’s a to a marginalized group? You can’t understand why these ideas are controversial?