4 ms·

Bit hyperbolic, no? Maybe rephrase to "if you engage in Neo-nazi hate crime and promote real world harm, they'll deactivate your account after much internal del

Bit hyperbolic, no? Maybe rephrase to "if you engage in Neo-nazi hate crime and promote real world harm, they'll deactivate your account after much internal deliberation on their role as gatekeepers and will publish a post with clearly stated rationale"? I'm not advocating Cloudflare, but I do think we need to be fair when judging stuff like this.

jaywalk 4y ago
Your description of what happened is a bit hyperbolic as well. I remember this event, but the details are pretty fuzzy. IIRC, it stirred up so much controversy precisely because no US laws were broken. So saying "engage in Neo-nazi hate crime and promote real world harm" is inaccurate. The content was garbage, no doubt about it. But let's not get hyperbolic in the other direction either.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  "no US laws were broken" != lacking in harmful activities.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  > no US laws were broken People keep confusing private organizations and governments. They don't need to break any laws to become undesirable customers, and any private company that tolerates these kind of customers does so at their own discretion. The world doesn't owe them a right to be awful people, but they can still be awful if they accept the consequences.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    I'm not confusing anything. Cloudflare's stance was that they'd serve anything that wasn't illegal, and one day they decided to change that. Of course that's their prerogative, but I'm just explaining why it stirred up so much controversy.
  - quanticle 4y ago
    The problem I have with CloudFlare is that their definition of "undesirable customer" includes forums engaging in hateful, virulent, but ultimately legal speech, but does not include forums that are selling methamphetamine and stolen credit card numbers.
aestetix 4y ago
"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." https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to... Can you clarify where the "much internal deliberation on their role as gatekeepers" was?
- 015a 4y ago
  The above comment is referencing the actions taken in 2022 against Kiwifarms; your article is from five and a half years ago; Cloudflare's internal processes have matured a lot in that time. Moreover, its really worth driving the point home that Prince's point in that cherry-picked statement was to (dramatically) shine a light on the fact that he could do that. Cloudflare does not do that often; that's why it makes headlines when they do. Other tech companies do similar things far more often, daily in some cases. He, then and now, has been an advocate for abdicating responsibility for these decisions to governments. The issue, then and now, is that our government is woefully inadequate in keeping the internet safe. Threats coordinate at the speed of light and cross country borders; in the Kiwifarms case, the US government wasn't able to put together a case fast enough to keep Kiwifarms' targets safe. Also, I'm sure the public outrage in that case helped push a decision in one direction.
  - aestetix 4y ago
    First, the phrase "cherry-picked" implies that something has been removed from a context which changes its meaning. The quote I shared was from an email that Prince sent, and if anything, the full context enhances the point I was making. Second, the fact that tech companies "do similar things far more often" is not a good thing. Creating an internal committee and slapping the words "trust and safety" on it does not replace due process. These big tech companies are role-playing as governments, but they are terrible at it, and when they fail, they face no consequences. As far as "government is woefully inadequate in keeping the internet safe," is that really what you want the government to do? How far should the government be able to do to enforce "safety"?

jaywalk 4y ago

Your description of what happened is a bit hyperbolic as well. I remember this event, but the details are pretty fuzzy. IIRC, it stirred up so much controversy precisely because no US laws were broken. So saying "engage in Neo-nazi hate crime and promote real world harm" is inaccurate. The content was garbage, no doubt about it. But let's not get hyperbolic in the other direction either.

JohnFen 4y ago
"no US laws were broken" != lacking in harmful activities.
ASalazarMX 4y ago
> no US laws were broken People keep confusing private organizations and governments. They don't need to break any laws to become undesirable customers, and any private company that tolerates these kind of customers does so at their own discretion. The world doesn't owe them a right to be awful people, but they can still be awful if they accept the consequences.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  I'm not confusing anything. Cloudflare's stance was that they'd serve anything that wasn't illegal, and one day they decided to change that. Of course that's their prerogative, but I'm just explaining why it stirred up so much controversy.
- quanticle 4y ago
  The problem I have with CloudFlare is that their definition of "undesirable customer" includes forums engaging in hateful, virulent, but ultimately legal speech, but does not include forums that are selling methamphetamine and stolen credit card numbers.

aestetix 4y ago

"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." https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to... Can you clarify where the "much internal deliberation on their role as gatekeepers" was?

015a 4y ago
The above comment is referencing the actions taken in 2022 against Kiwifarms; your article is from five and a half years ago; Cloudflare's internal processes have matured a lot in that time. Moreover, its really worth driving the point home that Prince's point in that cherry-picked statement was to (dramatically) shine a light on the fact that he could do that. Cloudflare does not do that often; that's why it makes headlines when they do. Other tech companies do similar things far more often, daily in some cases. He, then and now, has been an advocate for abdicating responsibility for these decisions to governments. The issue, then and now, is that our government is woefully inadequate in keeping the internet safe. Threats coordinate at the speed of light and cross country borders; in the Kiwifarms case, the US government wasn't able to put together a case fast enough to keep Kiwifarms' targets safe. Also, I'm sure the public outrage in that case helped push a decision in one direction.
- aestetix 4y ago
  First, the phrase "cherry-picked" implies that something has been removed from a context which changes its meaning. The quote I shared was from an email that Prince sent, and if anything, the full context enhances the point I was making. Second, the fact that tech companies "do similar things far more often" is not a good thing. Creating an internal committee and slapping the words "trust and safety" on it does not replace due process. These big tech companies are role-playing as governments, but they are terrible at it, and when they fail, they face no consequences. As far as "government is woefully inadequate in keeping the internet safe," is that really what you want the government to do? How far should the government be able to do to enforce "safety"?