4 ms·

What happens if another site that you consider completely legitimate can't be hosted just because others think it is not acceptable? Maybe your views are curren

What happens if another site that you consider completely legitimate can't be hosted just because others think it is not acceptable? Maybe your views are currently acceptable, but will they be in 5, 10, 20 years?

amatecha 4y ago
When was the last time a site got taken down because "others think it is not acceptable"? Please, name a single one. There's a difference between people simply "not liking" a site, and people using extremely well-established principles of ethical concepts and human rights (which have been refined over centuries) to decide what content is violating the "laws", as we call them, which have been generally agreed upon in modern society. Further to that, hosts have what we call "terms of service" or "acceptable use policy" which clearly define what content is acceptable for that host to continue to serve the customer operating the site and administrating its content. Again, not someone "thinking it is not acceptable".
- paulmd 4y ago
  oh, that's easy: Stormfront, the Daily Stormer... ... hey, Kiwifarm's holding company was named 'Final Solutions, LLC', what a coincidence! ;) https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1563748563926089730 https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1563748563926089730 take a seat, gamers... we've found the REAL most-oppressed minority here (/s)
- dmatech 4y ago
  The most recent one was probably Parler. Usually deplatforming is due to a moral panic involving a massively exaggerated risk. All sites probably violate the AUP or TOS if you look closely enough. But during the panic, you can't see that the risk is tiny in the grand scheme of things.
the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
Let’s cross that bridge if it happens.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  At that point it will be too late. Censorship like this creeps on forward until everyone is scared to speak up against it and then it clamps down hard enough that no one is able to speak up against it.
  - jbuhbjlnjbn 4y ago
    History has told that lesson a thousand times. Still, there are ever new people that seemingly lack the capacity to recognize the lesson (my guess is, the minority), or, for arguments sake, chose to ignore it (my guess, the majority).
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      That’s because it’s a garbage argument disproved by exemple. Most of Europe has strong law regarding hate speech and didn’t devolve into an awful fascist tyranny. A free country doesn’t have to tolerate everything. Meanwhile their allegedly incredible laws didn’t stop the USA to conduct kidnapping, jailing without trial and for indefinite duration and torture of dozens.
      - curtainsforus 4y ago
        The guy who made the nazi pug video might disagree.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        Is it a free country if they don't tolerate "hate" speech?
        ryan_lane 4y ago
        Yes.
MisterBastahrd 4y ago
Why should private entities bear the burden of supporting content they don't endorse?
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  Do you believe your ISP should be allowed to drop you if you say something they don't like? What about your phone company? We, as a society, already forcing companies to support content they don't endorse.
  - BeefWellington 4y ago
    Those are bad examples; Telcos are almost universally heavily regulated and as such in many (most?) countries out there can't just refuse people service. Cloudflare is doing neither here. This is closer to Subway banning you than your phone company; it's highly optional to do business with CF.
  - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
    Do you believe that Kiwi Farms should be able to set up shop in a restaurant and peddle their hateful shit? What about an airline terminal? We, as a society, are already denying individuals and organizations the right to disseminate information while using our private property when it doesn't align with our goals and beliefs.
    - curtainsforus 4y ago
      What about the site owner's water supply? The disagreement here seems to over whether Cloudflare is more like a restaurant, or more like a utility company. Given the ubiquity of DDOS attacks online, (and the fact that KF seemingly can't stay online without DDOS mitigation), I think there's a good argument to be made that DDOS mitigation might be more like a utility.
      - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
        It's far closer to an insurance company than a utility. And either way, utilities aren't common carriers.
lazyasciiart 4y ago
Yea! Today death threats are banned, tomorrow it will be collecting Pokémon!
howinteresting 4y ago
Depends on the specifics, as always. I'm comfortable saying that whatever the line is, KF is firmly on the other side of it.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  If you do not have a consistent standard other than something arbitrary and subjective then it is only a matter of time until the line changes again.
  - howinteresting 4y ago
    Yeah well, such is life.
charcircuit 4y ago
>Maybe your views are currently acceptable, but will they be in 5, 10, 20 years? Not just that. It's views that anyone else on the site shares. Your community on a site can be destroyed by the actions of a completely separate community on the same site.
roi 4y ago
This argument can't persuade those who never have any views of their own and always adopt the currently acceptable ones.

amatecha 4y ago

When was the last time a site got taken down because "others think it is not acceptable"? Please, name a single one. There's a difference between people simply "not liking" a site, and people using extremely well-established principles of ethical concepts and human rights (which have been refined over centuries) to decide what content is violating the "laws", as we call them, which have been generally agreed upon in modern society. Further to that, hosts have what we call "terms of service" or "acceptable use policy" which clearly define what content is acceptable for that host to continue to serve the customer operating the site and administrating its content. Again, not someone "thinking it is not acceptable".

paulmd 4y ago
oh, that's easy: Stormfront, the Daily Stormer... ... hey, Kiwifarm's holding company was named 'Final Solutions, LLC', what a coincidence! ;) https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1563748563926089730 https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1563748563926089730 take a seat, gamers... we've found the REAL most-oppressed minority here (/s)
dmatech 4y ago
The most recent one was probably Parler. Usually deplatforming is due to a moral panic involving a massively exaggerated risk. All sites probably violate the AUP or TOS if you look closely enough. But during the panic, you can't see that the risk is tiny in the grand scheme of things.

the_mitsuhiko 4y ago

Let’s cross that bridge if it happens.

bioemerl 4y ago
At that point it will be too late. Censorship like this creeps on forward until everyone is scared to speak up against it and then it clamps down hard enough that no one is able to speak up against it.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 4y ago
  History has told that lesson a thousand times. Still, there are ever new people that seemingly lack the capacity to recognize the lesson (my guess is, the minority), or, for arguments sake, chose to ignore it (my guess, the majority).
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    That’s because it’s a garbage argument disproved by exemple. Most of Europe has strong law regarding hate speech and didn’t devolve into an awful fascist tyranny. A free country doesn’t have to tolerate everything. Meanwhile their allegedly incredible laws didn’t stop the USA to conduct kidnapping, jailing without trial and for indefinite duration and torture of dozens.
    - curtainsforus 4y ago
      The guy who made the nazi pug video might disagree.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Is it a free country if they don't tolerate "hate" speech?
      - ryan_lane 4y ago
        Yes.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago

Why should private entities bear the burden of supporting content they don't endorse?

_-david-_ 4y ago
Do you believe your ISP should be allowed to drop you if you say something they don't like? What about your phone company? We, as a society, already forcing companies to support content they don't endorse.
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  Those are bad examples; Telcos are almost universally heavily regulated and as such in many (most?) countries out there can't just refuse people service. Cloudflare is doing neither here. This is closer to Subway banning you than your phone company; it's highly optional to do business with CF.
- MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  Do you believe that Kiwi Farms should be able to set up shop in a restaurant and peddle their hateful shit? What about an airline terminal? We, as a society, are already denying individuals and organizations the right to disseminate information while using our private property when it doesn't align with our goals and beliefs.
  - curtainsforus 4y ago
    What about the site owner's water supply? The disagreement here seems to over whether Cloudflare is more like a restaurant, or more like a utility company. Given the ubiquity of DDOS attacks online, (and the fact that KF seemingly can't stay online without DDOS mitigation), I think there's a good argument to be made that DDOS mitigation might be more like a utility.
    - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
      It's far closer to an insurance company than a utility. And either way, utilities aren't common carriers.

lazyasciiart 4y ago

Yea! Today death threats are banned, tomorrow it will be collecting Pokémon!

howinteresting 4y ago

Depends on the specifics, as always. I'm comfortable saying that whatever the line is, KF is firmly on the other side of it.

_-david-_ 4y ago
If you do not have a consistent standard other than something arbitrary and subjective then it is only a matter of time until the line changes again.
- howinteresting 4y ago
  Yeah well, such is life.

charcircuit 4y ago

>Maybe your views are currently acceptable, but will they be in 5, 10, 20 years? Not just that. It's views that anyone else on the site shares. Your community on a site can be destroyed by the actions of a completely separate community on the same site.

roi 4y ago

This argument can't persuade those who never have any views of their own and always adopt the currently acceptable ones.