4 ms·

At least this time Cloudflare is being ordered to do it, as opposed to just doing it because the CEO feels like it. I'm not sure which is worse.

zirgs 4y ago
The CEO restricting access to a legal site without a court order is way worse.
- mdhb 4y ago
  Just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing here. The “legal site” you are referring to was the Nazi filled one that had the stated aim of trying to dox and harass minorities and kept a running tally of how many they could get to kill themselves? That’s the one you are more upset about getting blocked?
  - zirgs 4y ago
    If whatever they are doing is illegal then sue them and get the site taken down with a court order.
    - mdhb 4y ago
      You do understand that the internet crosses borders while national laws don’t right? It’s perfectly ok in a personal and professional sense to have your own standards rather than just throwing up your hands and saying “well it’s not technically illegal… in this country”
      - zirgs 4y ago
        Power and water providers could also have "their own standards" and refuse to provide service to people whose opinions they don't like. See where this is going? I prefer clear rules for everyone not - we have freedom of speech, but we'll find a way to punish you if you say something some rich person doesn't like.
        mdhb 4y ago
        Literally nobody is talking about that here. Once again you seem to be trying to reframe the argument into something so abstract that it no longer has any meaning. In actuality we are talking about an incredibly specific and concrete thing here which you don't appear to be really interested in trying to defend head on for what I assume are obvious reasons. That is the problem with just relying on these jingoistic approaches of "let the courts deal with it". There are a whole bunch of scenarios where that doesn't work. You and I both know that which means we need other options. We can talk about where the lines should be and under what circumstances but not doing business with Nazi's who have a history of real world harm without relying on a court order to legally prevent you from taking their money is not in the same league as any of the scenarios you are describing. The argument you are making really doesn't stand up to even the lightest of scrutiny the moment you start to get into the details.
        zirgs 4y ago
        In my country a Nazi or a Communist site would simply be shut down with a court order, because that sort of thing is illegal here. See - it actually works. There's no Nazi party here. Nobody is marching with Nazi flags. And nobody is hosting Nazi sites. So pass a law that criminalises Nazism like most European countries have done. I prefer clear rules of what speech is forbidden and not having extra-judicial punishments for speech that is legal.
        mdhb 4y ago
        I think you just failed the Turing test. I’m done here. Have a good one.
        mhoad 4y ago
        “Germany finds hundreds of Nazi-linked staff in security agencies A German interior ministry report says a three-year-long review found 327 employees linked to right-wing extremism.” Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/5/13/germany-finds-hundreds-of-nazi-linked-staff-in-security-agencies https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/5/13/germany-finds-h... Your logically flawed arguments are also wrong on a factual level.
  - johngladtj 4y ago
    Things people generally approve of have no need for protection. It when you have to protect the rights of those who you find horrible that your principles are actually put to the test. You failed that test here.
    - mdhb 4y ago
      Nobody has to protect the rights of trying to drive people to suicide for their own amusement. It’s good to draw lines in the sand otherwise you end up standing for nothing worth defending. The argument was never to only defend things you agree with. That was something you just made up to reframe things so you could defend the Nazis and tell yourself you were actually just enlightened.
      - zirgs 4y ago
        I like that Germany is honest. They straight up say - if you deny the Holocaust - we will put you in prison. The rules are clear. Everyone knows what to expect. Meanwhile Americans say that they have the first amendment, freedom of speech, blah blah blah. But when you actually say what the law allows you to say then they will try to punish you anyway. I hate this dishonesty and extra-judicial punishments. I prefer people who are honest.
    - b1c1jones 4y ago
      I believe he passed. Absolutism in the defense of Nazis is a vice, as I see it. Cloudfare is not a government entity, concepts of governmental speech suppression do not apply to it.
      - zirgs 4y ago
        In my county founding a Nazi or a Communist party is illegal. Pass a law that criminalises being a Nazi and put them in prison.

zirgs 4y ago

The CEO restricting access to a legal site without a court order is way worse.

mdhb 4y ago
Just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing here. The “legal site” you are referring to was the Nazi filled one that had the stated aim of trying to dox and harass minorities and kept a running tally of how many they could get to kill themselves? That’s the one you are more upset about getting blocked?
- zirgs 4y ago
  If whatever they are doing is illegal then sue them and get the site taken down with a court order.
  - mdhb 4y ago
    You do understand that the internet crosses borders while national laws don’t right? It’s perfectly ok in a personal and professional sense to have your own standards rather than just throwing up your hands and saying “well it’s not technically illegal… in this country”
    - zirgs 4y ago
      Power and water providers could also have "their own standards" and refuse to provide service to people whose opinions they don't like. See where this is going? I prefer clear rules for everyone not - we have freedom of speech, but we'll find a way to punish you if you say something some rich person doesn't like.
      - mdhb 4y ago
        Literally nobody is talking about that here. Once again you seem to be trying to reframe the argument into something so abstract that it no longer has any meaning. In actuality we are talking about an incredibly specific and concrete thing here which you don't appear to be really interested in trying to defend head on for what I assume are obvious reasons. That is the problem with just relying on these jingoistic approaches of "let the courts deal with it". There are a whole bunch of scenarios where that doesn't work. You and I both know that which means we need other options. We can talk about where the lines should be and under what circumstances but not doing business with Nazi's who have a history of real world harm without relying on a court order to legally prevent you from taking their money is not in the same league as any of the scenarios you are describing. The argument you are making really doesn't stand up to even the lightest of scrutiny the moment you start to get into the details.
        zirgs 4y ago
        In my country a Nazi or a Communist site would simply be shut down with a court order, because that sort of thing is illegal here. See - it actually works. There's no Nazi party here. Nobody is marching with Nazi flags. And nobody is hosting Nazi sites. So pass a law that criminalises Nazism like most European countries have done. I prefer clear rules of what speech is forbidden and not having extra-judicial punishments for speech that is legal.
        mdhb 4y ago
        I think you just failed the Turing test. I’m done here. Have a good one.
        mhoad 4y ago
        “Germany finds hundreds of Nazi-linked staff in security agencies A German interior ministry report says a three-year-long review found 327 employees linked to right-wing extremism.” Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/5/13/germany-finds-hundreds-of-nazi-linked-staff-in-security-agencies https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/5/13/germany-finds-h... Your logically flawed arguments are also wrong on a factual level.
- johngladtj 4y ago
  Things people generally approve of have no need for protection. It when you have to protect the rights of those who you find horrible that your principles are actually put to the test. You failed that test here.
  - mdhb 4y ago
    Nobody has to protect the rights of trying to drive people to suicide for their own amusement. It’s good to draw lines in the sand otherwise you end up standing for nothing worth defending. The argument was never to only defend things you agree with. That was something you just made up to reframe things so you could defend the Nazis and tell yourself you were actually just enlightened.
    - zirgs 4y ago
      I like that Germany is honest. They straight up say - if you deny the Holocaust - we will put you in prison. The rules are clear. Everyone knows what to expect. Meanwhile Americans say that they have the first amendment, freedom of speech, blah blah blah. But when you actually say what the law allows you to say then they will try to punish you anyway. I hate this dishonesty and extra-judicial punishments. I prefer people who are honest.
  - b1c1jones 4y ago
    I believe he passed. Absolutism in the defense of Nazis is a vice, as I see it. Cloudfare is not a government entity, concepts of governmental speech suppression do not apply to it.
    - zirgs 4y ago
      In my county founding a Nazi or a Communist party is illegal. Pass a law that criminalises being a Nazi and put them in prison.