3 ms·

Given that they also engage in targeting, harassing, and doxxing specific people, yes, they should have been banned. My line has not moved.

spoonjim 4y ago
What’s your opinion on sites not targeting specific individuals? Like, “people with Property X have no place in civilized society” where readers of this site occasionally went on killing sprees of people in the category?
- mlyle 4y ago
  The big mistake here is trying to come up with a single code by which to codify speech. I mean, a government (even one supporting free speech) has to do this, because they're the enforcer of last resort, and it's really necessary that such a code promulgated by the government err on the side of being "too permissive". But-- we should have big markets of many participants who all make their own decisions about what they condone. Then, the individual decisions are not so toxic. And if you are doing something egregious where almost all of them say no, well, you got what you deserved. My personal thoughts: exposing peoples' personal information for the explicit purpose of severe and illegal harassment is on the "definitely not OK" side of things. Ordinary hate speech that occasionally leads to spree violence is much murkier.
- fullstop 4y ago
  Honestly, it depends on what that property is and if the person went on a killing spree based on their views on property X or for other reasons. If Property X is something like the color of their skin, their sexuality, their gender, etc, then I would support cloudflare banning them. I am certainly not the master of what should and should not be on the internet, and neither should cloudflare. As a society, though, there are some things that most can agree on.
  - aroldan85 4y ago
sintaxi 4y ago
There are mechanisms in law for courts to order removal of illegal content. ISPs don't ever have to define "hate speech". Sounds to me want to censor speech you hate.
- googlryas 4y ago
  Are you any different? If I graffiti'd a slogan you hated on your garage, would you cover it up? Would you censor speech you hate?
- phatfish 4y ago
  Someone defines what gets removed. Ideally in a democracy "society" as a whole decides what that is. The obvious example is child exploitation, are pedophiles rights to swap images of kids currently being "censored as speech YOU hate"?. Harassment forums like the one in discussion here have no place in civilized society and I am happy for them to be censored. The people that frequent these sites can get together in person and chat about hating all they want, but the method of their harassment (the global platform of the internet) should removed -- insofar as that is possible.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    As I was discussing in the previous thread, I disagree with this. > Someone defines what gets removed. Ideally in a democracy "society" as a whole decides what that is. Ideally, many smaller elements make their decisions about what speech to promote or convey, and "society" or the "government" is the actor of last resort-- stepping in for the most not-OK stuff when the market has been shown to fail. Concentrated power is dangerous-- whether it's in the hands of a government or a single overly-powerful commercial actor-- and needs to be restrained one way or another.
- fullstop 4y ago
  Again, we all have a line here. Would you, for example, be supportive of banning websites which knowingly promote and distribute child pornography? We may disagree on where that line should be, but most people absolutely have this line.

spoonjim 4y ago

What’s your opinion on sites not targeting specific individuals? Like, “people with Property X have no place in civilized society” where readers of this site occasionally went on killing sprees of people in the category?

mlyle 4y ago
The big mistake here is trying to come up with a single code by which to codify speech. I mean, a government (even one supporting free speech) has to do this, because they're the enforcer of last resort, and it's really necessary that such a code promulgated by the government err on the side of being "too permissive". But-- we should have big markets of many participants who all make their own decisions about what they condone. Then, the individual decisions are not so toxic. And if you are doing something egregious where almost all of them say no, well, you got what you deserved. My personal thoughts: exposing peoples' personal information for the explicit purpose of severe and illegal harassment is on the "definitely not OK" side of things. Ordinary hate speech that occasionally leads to spree violence is much murkier.
fullstop 4y ago
Honestly, it depends on what that property is and if the person went on a killing spree based on their views on property X or for other reasons. If Property X is something like the color of their skin, their sexuality, their gender, etc, then I would support cloudflare banning them. I am certainly not the master of what should and should not be on the internet, and neither should cloudflare. As a society, though, there are some things that most can agree on.
- aroldan85 4y ago

sintaxi 4y ago

There are mechanisms in law for courts to order removal of illegal content. ISPs don't ever have to define "hate speech". Sounds to me want to censor speech you hate.

googlryas 4y ago
Are you any different? If I graffiti'd a slogan you hated on your garage, would you cover it up? Would you censor speech you hate?
phatfish 4y ago
Someone defines what gets removed. Ideally in a democracy "society" as a whole decides what that is. The obvious example is child exploitation, are pedophiles rights to swap images of kids currently being "censored as speech YOU hate"?. Harassment forums like the one in discussion here have no place in civilized society and I am happy for them to be censored. The people that frequent these sites can get together in person and chat about hating all they want, but the method of their harassment (the global platform of the internet) should removed -- insofar as that is possible.
- mlyle 4y ago
  As I was discussing in the previous thread, I disagree with this. > Someone defines what gets removed. Ideally in a democracy "society" as a whole decides what that is. Ideally, many smaller elements make their decisions about what speech to promote or convey, and "society" or the "government" is the actor of last resort-- stepping in for the most not-OK stuff when the market has been shown to fail. Concentrated power is dangerous-- whether it's in the hands of a government or a single overly-powerful commercial actor-- and needs to be restrained one way or another.
fullstop 4y ago
Again, we all have a line here. Would you, for example, be supportive of banning websites which knowingly promote and distribute child pornography? We may disagree on where that line should be, but most people absolutely have this line.