3 ms·

The ACLU would fight for the Nazi marches against the government. These are private companies adjusting their priorities as a result of other people using their

The ACLU would fight for the Nazi marches against the government. These are private companies adjusting their priorities as a result of other people using their free speech rights.

smsm42 4y ago
Would they? I don't think they would any more. Any recent examples? > as a result of other people using their free speech rights. Running a DDoS is really stretching the definition of "using their free speech rights", I think. But firing you from a job or closing your bank account for saying wrong things is "private companies adjusting their priorities" too. I wonder how long you could make a living if you can't use banking services, or phone services, or internet services - all of which are run by private companies? How long it would be before CPS shows at you door to take your children - because private utility companies refused to serve you and it's not safe for them to be there anymore? You can take that "private companies adjusting their priorities" pretty far. If you think in this situation you still have free speech because you can still stand on a public square and yell into the sky - you definition of freedom of speech is flawed, and honestly, pretty useless in practice.
- ngetchell 4y ago
  Nobody is saying the DDoS is free speech. That is a criminal act. The free speech is the people sharing their displeasure with CloudFlare that are using it.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    They are not just sharing displeasure. They are also operating the DDoS attacks. Pretending like one exists without the other - nobody can be that naive genuinely.
    - ngetchell 4y ago
      "They" is doing a lot of work in your argument. I won't use CloudFlare if they are internet bodyguards for Nazis. I've registered my displeasure. I did not participate in the DDoS attack.
      - smsm42 4y ago
        Maybe you didn't (though I have absolutely no evidence of that) - but people that pushed CloudFlare to drop KF certainly did. And there is evidence that the same people actually planted at least some of the content they used to trigger that decision, too. It's your choice to shun the providers that support free speech (yes, that means letting people you do not like speak, there was a time once that even ACLU understood that) - but it's not what happened here.
        ngetchell 4y ago
        I suggest you submit your evidence to your local FBI office. Since the pressure was partially on Twitter, they should be able to begin arrests for the DDoS attack. Real people were swatted by real posts on KiwiFarms. No tears will be spilt if these internet tough guys/gals can't afford their hosting bill and thus close down shop. Another group of keyboard heroes face minor consequences for their disgusting actions. Your view of free speech isn't workable. You tell others to preemptively hamper their own liberty and free speech so these habitual line steppers can preach intolerance. What you want is the freedom to speak without consequence. That will never exist, nor should it.
tsol 4y ago
This isn't an uncommon view; others have observed that it's becoming unpopular to espouse free speech for all. There's an active pushback against, say, protecting the rights of racists. As an Indian Muslim I don't like what they say, but I realize it's only because of such free speech that people like me can live our lives freely in this country today. There are still a lot of people that hate me and I see it daily on reddit and Twitter. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/aclu-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial/629808/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/aclu-johnn...
- ngetchell 4y ago
  If you own a billboard, should you respond to letters complaining about the content of the advert? Free speech isn't anywhere in this equation. If these people wanted to go to a park and march, have at it. They can scream their hate as loud as they'd like. I won't do business with a company that supports those ideas.

The ACLU would fight for the Nazi marches against the government. These are private companies adjusting their priorities as a result of other people using their free speech rights.

smsm42 4y ago

Would they? I don't think they would any more. Any recent examples? > as a result of other people using their free speech rights. Running a DDoS is really stretching the definition of "using their free speech rights", I think. But firing you from a job or closing your bank account for saying wrong things is "private companies adjusting their priorities" too. I wonder how long you could make a living if you can't use banking services, or phone services, or internet services - all of which are run by private companies? How long it would be before CPS shows at you door to take your children - because private utility companies refused to serve you and it's not safe for them to be there anymore? You can take that "private companies adjusting their priorities" pretty far. If you think in this situation you still have free speech because you can still stand on a public square and yell into the sky - you definition of freedom of speech is flawed, and honestly, pretty useless in practice.

ngetchell 4y ago
Nobody is saying the DDoS is free speech. That is a criminal act. The free speech is the people sharing their displeasure with CloudFlare that are using it.
- smsm42 4y ago
  They are not just sharing displeasure. They are also operating the DDoS attacks. Pretending like one exists without the other - nobody can be that naive genuinely.
  - ngetchell 4y ago
    "They" is doing a lot of work in your argument. I won't use CloudFlare if they are internet bodyguards for Nazis. I've registered my displeasure. I did not participate in the DDoS attack.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      Maybe you didn't (though I have absolutely no evidence of that) - but people that pushed CloudFlare to drop KF certainly did. And there is evidence that the same people actually planted at least some of the content they used to trigger that decision, too. It's your choice to shun the providers that support free speech (yes, that means letting people you do not like speak, there was a time once that even ACLU understood that) - but it's not what happened here.
      - ngetchell 4y ago
        I suggest you submit your evidence to your local FBI office. Since the pressure was partially on Twitter, they should be able to begin arrests for the DDoS attack. Real people were swatted by real posts on KiwiFarms. No tears will be spilt if these internet tough guys/gals can't afford their hosting bill and thus close down shop. Another group of keyboard heroes face minor consequences for their disgusting actions. Your view of free speech isn't workable. You tell others to preemptively hamper their own liberty and free speech so these habitual line steppers can preach intolerance. What you want is the freedom to speak without consequence. That will never exist, nor should it.

tsol 4y ago

This isn't an uncommon view; others have observed that it's becoming unpopular to espouse free speech for all. There's an active pushback against, say, protecting the rights of racists. As an Indian Muslim I don't like what they say, but I realize it's only because of such free speech that people like me can live our lives freely in this country today. There are still a lot of people that hate me and I see it daily on reddit and Twitter. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/aclu-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial/629808/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/aclu-johnn...

ngetchell 4y ago
If you own a billboard, should you respond to letters complaining about the content of the advert? Free speech isn't anywhere in this equation. If these people wanted to go to a park and march, have at it. They can scream their hate as loud as they'd like. I won't do business with a company that supports those ideas.