7 ms·

> Private companies should not be the de facto moderators of free speech in our society. They are forced into that position by woefully inadequate governance by

by IncRnd 4y ago

> Private companies should not be the de facto moderators of free speech in our society. They are forced into that position by woefully inadequate governance by legal authorities operating multiple decades behind the current landscape. That's not what happened here. They made an appropriate decision. It's not a difficult to say, "while we have no policies that restrict lawful content, we reserve the right to not service those who host and promulgate content that explicitly creates emergency threats to human life." People and their companies aren't computers who have to allow everything to meet some absurd MVP product definition of false fairness.

pixl97 4y ago
>Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
cowtools 4y ago
rtpg 4y ago
To be even clearer, in this case it’s not even really quite clear that this was legal content at all! Coordinated stalking of people! Of course you could say “the legal system should handle it”. But what serious company says “let’s wait for a court to maximize our legal exposure”. The guy cited hard cases. This seems pretty easy! And of course, why does Cloudflare proactively take down other sites that have anything to do with sex work but require a billion justifications for sites like this?
- Kalium 4y ago
  Is that a rhetorical question or a sincere one? Legal liability. American law has lots of direct liability for Cloudflare under SESTA/FOSTA for being involved in sex work websites. There's not equivalent liability for hate websites.
  - rtpg 4y ago
    It is rhetorical. CF admits that they have contacted law enforcement several times about contact in kiwi farm. They clearly get the hosting of the “problematic” content. They understand how that site is used. That seems like an admission of guilt to me! Anyone who wants to be a bit of an activist investor: who at the company is putting the company at needless legal risk?
    - Kalium 4y ago
      As far as I'm aware, KF didn't come with the kind of direct liability under US law that sex work content does. I welcome the chance to learn that I'm wrong here!
    - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
      This seems like the correct thing. They realise the content is dodgy. Report to law enforcement repeatedly hoping that they look at it and give them a legal reason to shut them down. If they shut things down as a private company, so long as the customer is not in breach of the service contract and the content is not illegal, couldn’t they mount a defence? This sounds like a reasonable strategy. I don’t understand this need for private justice.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > And of course, why does Cloudflare proactively take down other sites that have anything to do with sex work but require a billion justifications for sites like this? It’s almost certainly cultural more than anything else. Sex workers are regarded negatively by vastly larger proportions of most communities, while hate groups are incredibly partisan. Not that it justifies the distinction, if anything it should be a clarion call to humanize and decriminalize sex work.
- eastdakota 4y ago
  Because we’re a U.S.-based company subject to SESTA and the one site in question we took down affirmatively told us they were violating SESTA. SESTA is a very bad law. But, if you’re violating it, don’t wave that fact in the face of your infrastructure providers who are liable under the law for providing service to you. We continue to work to overturn or repeal SESTA.
  - rtpg 4y ago
    - scrollaway 4y ago
      > I would recommend you stop posting Can we not turn HN a place where we shit on CEOs for actually being openly communicative and cutting through the bullshit? The fact Matt is here talking about stuff you yourself think "his lawyers would disapprove of" is a great quality of this site.
      - rtpg 4y ago
        I was thinking “if I was your lawyer” and didn’t type it. Then hit enter and saw my message, and edited it. The problems of getting in flamewars while making breakfast! I would recommend to anyone to follow the advice of their lawyers regarding posting to hacker news! But it’s mainly a joke EDIT: and to the original post, I was being way too glib. I do kinda believe what I say but there are less agressive ways of saying it. Again, breakfast posting, but legitimately touchy subject for obvious reasons and I should keep my cool.
    - JYellensFuckboy 4y ago
      Please don't tell him to stop posting. Some of us appreciate the insight direct from Cloudfare's founder and CEO.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > to be under oath and claim nobody at your company was like “maybe this site is coordinating illegal activity” and you said “nah” and continued to provide services for them? I think Cloudflare did the right thing. But I'd fight for a CEO's right to make calls about user-generated content without worrying about liability because someone suspected something.
bawolff 4y ago
> It's not a difficult to say, "while we have no policies that restrict lawful content, we reserve the right to not service those who host and promulgate content that explicitly creates emergency threats to human life." And if everyone did that, its the exact same as government censorship minus any sort of due process or redress ability. There's this weird idea that government censorship is abhorent but private censorship is somehow without sin, even when the results are basically identical.
- manicdee 4y ago
  Corporations aren’t throwing you in jail for questioning the decisions of the King.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Neither are governments most of the time. Martyrs cause problems, much safer for evil governments to just deny publication.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    They can't directly remove your physical freedom but corporations especially when acting in unison can remove most of your economic freedom. If enough precedents are set where large service providers deny service to groups and individuals at the behest of the mob, eventually it will become politically and financially expedient for these providers to pre-emptively deny service to a whole basket of people. It's somewhat amusing that corporate run dystopias were always imagined as a product of unfettered libertarian policy in science fiction and film but we may very well slide into one being pushed the whole way by the very people who decried such policies in their youth during the 80s and 90s.
Kalium 4y ago
It's not difficult to say, but it can be difficult to live at any meaningful scale. That invites endless pressure campaigns and similarly endless accusations of acting arbitrarily, capriciously, or with insert-bias-or-agenda-here. None of those are free to handle in any responsible or timely fashion. Never mind what happens should a genuine mistake be made. It puts the company in the same position as Facebook in regards to moderation. It's endless, expensive, and your work is never good enough. Not a desirable position for most.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by IncRnd 4y ago

pixl97 4y ago

>Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

cowtools 4y ago

rtpg 4y ago

To be even clearer, in this case it’s not even really quite clear that this was legal content at all! Coordinated stalking of people! Of course you could say “the legal system should handle it”. But what serious company says “let’s wait for a court to maximize our legal exposure”. The guy cited hard cases. This seems pretty easy! And of course, why does Cloudflare proactively take down other sites that have anything to do with sex work but require a billion justifications for sites like this?

Kalium 4y ago
Is that a rhetorical question or a sincere one? Legal liability. American law has lots of direct liability for Cloudflare under SESTA/FOSTA for being involved in sex work websites. There's not equivalent liability for hate websites.
- rtpg 4y ago
  It is rhetorical. CF admits that they have contacted law enforcement several times about contact in kiwi farm. They clearly get the hosting of the “problematic” content. They understand how that site is used. That seems like an admission of guilt to me! Anyone who wants to be a bit of an activist investor: who at the company is putting the company at needless legal risk?
  - Kalium 4y ago
    As far as I'm aware, KF didn't come with the kind of direct liability under US law that sex work content does. I welcome the chance to learn that I'm wrong here!
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    This seems like the correct thing. They realise the content is dodgy. Report to law enforcement repeatedly hoping that they look at it and give them a legal reason to shut them down. If they shut things down as a private company, so long as the customer is not in breach of the service contract and the content is not illegal, couldn’t they mount a defence? This sounds like a reasonable strategy. I don’t understand this need for private justice.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> And of course, why does Cloudflare proactively take down other sites that have anything to do with sex work but require a billion justifications for sites like this? It’s almost certainly cultural more than anything else. Sex workers are regarded negatively by vastly larger proportions of most communities, while hate groups are incredibly partisan. Not that it justifies the distinction, if anything it should be a clarion call to humanize and decriminalize sex work.
eastdakota 4y ago
Because we’re a U.S.-based company subject to SESTA and the one site in question we took down affirmatively told us they were violating SESTA. SESTA is a very bad law. But, if you’re violating it, don’t wave that fact in the face of your infrastructure providers who are liable under the law for providing service to you. We continue to work to overturn or repeal SESTA.
- rtpg 4y ago
  - scrollaway 4y ago
    > I would recommend you stop posting Can we not turn HN a place where we shit on CEOs for actually being openly communicative and cutting through the bullshit? The fact Matt is here talking about stuff you yourself think "his lawyers would disapprove of" is a great quality of this site.
    - rtpg 4y ago
      I was thinking “if I was your lawyer” and didn’t type it. Then hit enter and saw my message, and edited it. The problems of getting in flamewars while making breakfast! I would recommend to anyone to follow the advice of their lawyers regarding posting to hacker news! But it’s mainly a joke EDIT: and to the original post, I was being way too glib. I do kinda believe what I say but there are less agressive ways of saying it. Again, breakfast posting, but legitimately touchy subject for obvious reasons and I should keep my cool.
  - JYellensFuckboy 4y ago
    Please don't tell him to stop posting. Some of us appreciate the insight direct from Cloudfare's founder and CEO.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > to be under oath and claim nobody at your company was like “maybe this site is coordinating illegal activity” and you said “nah” and continued to provide services for them? I think Cloudflare did the right thing. But I'd fight for a CEO's right to make calls about user-generated content without worrying about liability because someone suspected something.

bawolff 4y ago

> It's not a difficult to say, "while we have no policies that restrict lawful content, we reserve the right to not service those who host and promulgate content that explicitly creates emergency threats to human life." And if everyone did that, its the exact same as government censorship minus any sort of due process or redress ability. There's this weird idea that government censorship is abhorent but private censorship is somehow without sin, even when the results are basically identical.

manicdee 4y ago
Corporations aren’t throwing you in jail for questioning the decisions of the King.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Neither are governments most of the time. Martyrs cause problems, much safer for evil governments to just deny publication.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  They can't directly remove your physical freedom but corporations especially when acting in unison can remove most of your economic freedom. If enough precedents are set where large service providers deny service to groups and individuals at the behest of the mob, eventually it will become politically and financially expedient for these providers to pre-emptively deny service to a whole basket of people. It's somewhat amusing that corporate run dystopias were always imagined as a product of unfettered libertarian policy in science fiction and film but we may very well slide into one being pushed the whole way by the very people who decried such policies in their youth during the 80s and 90s.

Kalium 4y ago

It's not difficult to say, but it can be difficult to live at any meaningful scale. That invites endless pressure campaigns and similarly endless accusations of acting arbitrarily, capriciously, or with insert-bias-or-agenda-here. None of those are free to handle in any responsible or timely fashion. Never mind what happens should a genuine mistake be made. It puts the company in the same position as Facebook in regards to moderation. It's endless, expensive, and your work is never good enough. Not a desirable position for most.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]