5 ms·

Let's not obscure things by calling it an issue of "hate speech." That is an impermissible broadening. As they said, "hard cases make bad law." The only way to

Let's not obscure things by calling it an issue of "hate speech." That is an impermissible broadening. As they said, "hard cases make bad law." The only way to mitigate the badness is to make the decision as narrow as possible. It's about illegal threats of violence. Those were against the law long before anyone ever used the term "hate speech."

sneak 4y ago
Then it seems to me the problem here is insufficient law enforcement response. If the illegal threats of violence aren’t being handled properly by law enforcement, that is not CF’s failure. They feel forced to act because the FBI is incompetent.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  Yeah, I'll go with that. The fact that it's "in cyberspace" doesn't mean that normal laws don't apply.
_dain_ 4y ago
>It's about illegal threats of violence. Those were against the law long before anyone ever used the term "hate speech." the illegal threats of violence are always removed as soon as possible from KF, just as they are on every other site. what exactly is the difference here? edit: I'm rate limited; there is (or now, was) a point-by-point rebuttal to the "KF bullied people to suicide" claims on the front-page. tldr it's a false narrative, there's no evidence anyone killselfed because of their KF thread. would you like to know more? too bad, you can't, because the site is down so you can't read it. the "counter" / "KF kill count" / etc is a running site joke; it's not a joke about actually bullying people to suicide, it's a joke about the unfounded reputation of the site itself; part of the punchline is that everyone in the in-group knows that the number is zero but the out-group thinks it's in the dozens. get it? well I guess it's not that funny when I explain the joke, but then no joke is, right? KF does not promote terrorism or violence.
- yomkippur 4y ago
  You mean after they ruin people's lives? Obviously they posed enough of a threat to human lives that a publicly traded company would distance them immediately. Doesn't take much to figure this out. This is not some censorship or content moderation. It appears people have trouble distinguishing between platforms that promote terrorism/violence vs free speech. This weird extreme idealistic version of freedom of speech doesn't include harming humans or threatening peace.
- knolax 4y ago
  The big counter celebrating the number of people they've harassed into committing suicide? People have gone to jail for it. CF should be the least of their concerns right now.
josephcsible 4y ago
If someone makes a Facebook post containing an illegal threat of violence, we don't ban all of Facebook for it.
- ironick09 4y ago
  This is such a bad faith comparison and in no way related. Facebook hosts its own content/infrastructure. Cloudflare's DDoS protection service and Facebook as a whole are not related. A more accurate claim would be, if someone makes a Facebook post containing an illegal threat of violence, they (Facebook) _do_ ban the account of who made a post containing illegal threats of violence.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > Facebook hosts its own content/infrastructure. Cloudflare's DDoS protection service and Facebook as a whole are not related. Pretend for the sake of argument that Facebook did use Cloudflare, or that my example were about some other platform that does. > A more accurate claim would be, if someone makes a Facebook post containing an illegal threat of violence, they (Facebook) _do_ ban the account of who made a post containing illegal threats of violence. Exactly my point. When someone does something banworthy on Facebook, we let Facebook ban just that one person, rather than banning all of Facebook.

sneak 4y ago

Then it seems to me the problem here is insufficient law enforcement response. If the illegal threats of violence aren’t being handled properly by law enforcement, that is not CF’s failure. They feel forced to act because the FBI is incompetent.

Cupertino95014 4y ago
Yeah, I'll go with that. The fact that it's "in cyberspace" doesn't mean that normal laws don't apply.

_dain_ 4y ago

>It's about illegal threats of violence. Those were against the law long before anyone ever used the term "hate speech." the illegal threats of violence are always removed as soon as possible from KF, just as they are on every other site. what exactly is the difference here? edit: I'm rate limited; there is (or now, was) a point-by-point rebuttal to the "KF bullied people to suicide" claims on the front-page. tldr it's a false narrative, there's no evidence anyone killselfed because of their KF thread. would you like to know more? too bad, you can't, because the site is down so you can't read it. the "counter" / "KF kill count" / etc is a running site joke; it's not a joke about actually bullying people to suicide, it's a joke about the unfounded reputation of the site itself; part of the punchline is that everyone in the in-group knows that the number is zero but the out-group thinks it's in the dozens. get it? well I guess it's not that funny when I explain the joke, but then no joke is, right? KF does not promote terrorism or violence.

yomkippur 4y ago
You mean after they ruin people's lives? Obviously they posed enough of a threat to human lives that a publicly traded company would distance them immediately. Doesn't take much to figure this out. This is not some censorship or content moderation. It appears people have trouble distinguishing between platforms that promote terrorism/violence vs free speech. This weird extreme idealistic version of freedom of speech doesn't include harming humans or threatening peace.
knolax 4y ago
The big counter celebrating the number of people they've harassed into committing suicide? People have gone to jail for it. CF should be the least of their concerns right now.

josephcsible 4y ago

If someone makes a Facebook post containing an illegal threat of violence, we don't ban all of Facebook for it.

ironick09 4y ago
This is such a bad faith comparison and in no way related. Facebook hosts its own content/infrastructure. Cloudflare's DDoS protection service and Facebook as a whole are not related. A more accurate claim would be, if someone makes a Facebook post containing an illegal threat of violence, they (Facebook) _do_ ban the account of who made a post containing illegal threats of violence.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > Facebook hosts its own content/infrastructure. Cloudflare's DDoS protection service and Facebook as a whole are not related. Pretend for the sake of argument that Facebook did use Cloudflare, or that my example were about some other platform that does. > A more accurate claim would be, if someone makes a Facebook post containing an illegal threat of violence, they (Facebook) _do_ ban the account of who made a post containing illegal threats of violence. Exactly my point. When someone does something banworthy on Facebook, we let Facebook ban just that one person, rather than banning all of Facebook.