4 ms·

Didn't he previously say he took down the nazi site because they were saying that the reason they weren't taken down was that he agreed with them? That provides

Didn't he previously say he took down the nazi site because they were saying that the reason they weren't taken down was that he agreed with them? That provides the sort of decision making process. Also, I find it hard to believe that a legal team would all of a sudden decide 3 days after they publically announce they wouldn't remove security services from a customer that one customer who has basically been the same for god only knows how long needs to have those services removed. I honestly, would be surprised if the original announcement hadn't already had input from legal. So if legal thought this customer was so bad, why wouldn't they have it done before they publically say they won't do it. I think the twitter mobbing of CloudFlare worked.

prvit 4y ago
He said he took down the Daily Stormer because they claimed to have friends at Cloudflare (which was true https://nitter.net/GossiTheDog/status/1565128386753843201 https://nitter.net/GossiTheDog/status/1565128386753843201)
- googlryas 4y ago
  She left the company shortly thereafter...I assume when her viewpoints became known, probably couldn't keep her mouth shut after the "outrage" of not providing service to daily stormer. It would be silly to say there are definitely no Nazis in a company above a certain size. It's easy to fire them as soon as you know about them, but a lot of shitheads know to fly under the radar, so you can't really proactively hunt them out.
- benmmurphy 4y ago
  Given she has stated in public that she is a 'troll' on twitter I don't think those twitter posts are evidence that she was a nazi. They seem consistent with her shitposting on twitter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNgLq_naOKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNgLq_naOKw
- philippejara 4y ago
  If you think screenshots of someone saying slurs in 2014 is evidence of someone being part of the daily stormer i'm afraid a lot more of the internet is a part of the daily stormer than you think. The usage of weev's the trial is also pretty absurd and manipulative, given that his trial wasn't really related to the daily stormer, but about hacking, so much so that the EFF[0] defended him. [0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/weevs-case-flawed-beginning-end https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/weevs-case-flawed-begi...
  - prvit 4y ago
    Nobody has ever suggested that Asshurt was a part of the daily stormer, she wasn't. >The usage of weev's the trial is also pretty absurd and manipulative, given that his trial wasn't really related to the daily stormer, but about hacking, so much so that the EFF[0] defended him. Pretty sure most smart people have already distanced themselves from the EFF at this point, so that's not very convincing. EFF, despite getting repeatedly called out by several top experts, spent years pushing downright dangerous disinformation via their "secure messaging scorecard". Not exactly a trustworthy organisation. It was also a bizarre choice to defend weev, both from a legal and moral point of view. tptacek explained it well at the time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5978686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5978686
    - philippejara 4y ago
      > Nobody has ever suggested that Asshurt was a part of the daily stormer, she wasn't. Then why link the slurs at all to accompany the argument? > It was also a bizarre choice to defend weev, both from a legal and moral point of view. tptacek explained it well at the time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5978686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5978686 On that same page you linked there are about as many people in favor as against, tptacek's word is not the law regardless of his competency, and it sure wasn't as uncontroversial as you make it out to be.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> Didn't he previously say he took down the nazi site because they were saying that the reason they weren't taken down was that he agreed with them? And about that decision, he said this: > Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. I called our legal team and told them what we were going to do. I called our Trust & Safety team and had them stop the service. It was a decision I could make because I’m the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company. > Having made that decision we now need to talk about why it is so dangerous. I’ll be posting something on our blog later today. Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power. https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to...
- prvit 4y ago
  I wonder if he's actually so delusional to think that he's got the power to decide what goes on the internet, or if this is just something Cloudflare marketing is trying to push to make them seem like the only option anyone could possibly work with.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    I think his consternation is performative.
  - theptip 4y ago
    Isn’t the simplest read on that statement “there should be legislation that means nobody has this power”? Basically, something like “if it’s legal I’ll do it, but I don’t think it should be legal”. This is kind of dubious as a basic ethical position (if you think it’s bad just don’t do it) but note that it’s not entirely ridiculous as if it’s legal, others can and will pressure you to do it. Whereas if you cede the right to do a thing, you can’t be coerced by an angry mob to do it.
    - 4y ago

prvit 4y ago

He said he took down the Daily Stormer because they claimed to have friends at Cloudflare (which was true https://nitter.net/GossiTheDog/status/1565128386753843201 https://nitter.net/GossiTheDog/status/1565128386753843201)

googlryas 4y ago
She left the company shortly thereafter...I assume when her viewpoints became known, probably couldn't keep her mouth shut after the "outrage" of not providing service to daily stormer. It would be silly to say there are definitely no Nazis in a company above a certain size. It's easy to fire them as soon as you know about them, but a lot of shitheads know to fly under the radar, so you can't really proactively hunt them out.
benmmurphy 4y ago
Given she has stated in public that she is a 'troll' on twitter I don't think those twitter posts are evidence that she was a nazi. They seem consistent with her shitposting on twitter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNgLq_naOKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNgLq_naOKw
philippejara 4y ago
If you think screenshots of someone saying slurs in 2014 is evidence of someone being part of the daily stormer i'm afraid a lot more of the internet is a part of the daily stormer than you think. The usage of weev's the trial is also pretty absurd and manipulative, given that his trial wasn't really related to the daily stormer, but about hacking, so much so that the EFF[0] defended him. [0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/weevs-case-flawed-beginning-end https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/weevs-case-flawed-begi...
- prvit 4y ago
  Nobody has ever suggested that Asshurt was a part of the daily stormer, she wasn't. >The usage of weev's the trial is also pretty absurd and manipulative, given that his trial wasn't really related to the daily stormer, but about hacking, so much so that the EFF[0] defended him. Pretty sure most smart people have already distanced themselves from the EFF at this point, so that's not very convincing. EFF, despite getting repeatedly called out by several top experts, spent years pushing downright dangerous disinformation via their "secure messaging scorecard". Not exactly a trustworthy organisation. It was also a bizarre choice to defend weev, both from a legal and moral point of view. tptacek explained it well at the time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5978686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5978686
  - philippejara 4y ago
    > Nobody has ever suggested that Asshurt was a part of the daily stormer, she wasn't. Then why link the slurs at all to accompany the argument? > It was also a bizarre choice to defend weev, both from a legal and moral point of view. tptacek explained it well at the time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5978686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5978686 On that same page you linked there are about as many people in favor as against, tptacek's word is not the law regardless of his competency, and it sure wasn't as uncontroversial as you make it out to be.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

> Didn't he previously say he took down the nazi site because they were saying that the reason they weren't taken down was that he agreed with them? And about that decision, he said this: > Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. I called our legal team and told them what we were going to do. I called our Trust & Safety team and had them stop the service. It was a decision I could make because I’m the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company. > Having made that decision we now need to talk about why it is so dangerous. I’ll be posting something on our blog later today. Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power. https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to...

prvit 4y ago
I wonder if he's actually so delusional to think that he's got the power to decide what goes on the internet, or if this is just something Cloudflare marketing is trying to push to make them seem like the only option anyone could possibly work with.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I think his consternation is performative.
- theptip 4y ago
  Isn’t the simplest read on that statement “there should be legislation that means nobody has this power”? Basically, something like “if it’s legal I’ll do it, but I don’t think it should be legal”. This is kind of dubious as a basic ethical position (if you think it’s bad just don’t do it) but note that it’s not entirely ridiculous as if it’s legal, others can and will pressure you to do it. Whereas if you cede the right to do a thing, you can’t be coerced by an angry mob to do it.
  - 4y ago