4 ms·
The point isn't to prescribe behavior for cloudflare. The point is to show that "no censorship" doesn't provide a simple rule to follow in all cases. Speech its
by DFHippie 4y ago
The point isn't to prescribe behavior for cloudflare. The point is to show that "no censorship" doesn't provide a simple rule to follow in all cases. Speech itself can be censorship. In this case an entity like cloudflare needs to evaluate the particulars of the case, not apply a general rule.
This is setting aside the mechanism of the censorship -- removing DDOS protection versus a harassment campaign -- the social or other merit or the speech censored, etc.
Kiwi Farms is a particular clear case to illustrate this point.
- amadeuspagel 4y ago> The point isn't to prescribe behavior for cloudflare. No, that we're dealing with cloudflare, with DDoS protection, is the point here. If you want to run a forum where you ban speech that you feel silences people, that's great, but if you want to deny DDoS protection to other forums that don't have this rule, or don't enforce it to your satisfaction, that's very different. > This is setting aside the mechanism of the censorship -- removing DDOS protection versus a harassment campaign No we really can't set this aside. Removing DDoS protection directly makes it impossible to run any unpopular website. "Harassment campaign" is a vague term, that can be used (and arguably in this case is used) for any kind of persistent criticism, ridicule, outrage, doxxing - I see harassment campaigns on twitter every day.