4 ms·

Sorry but continuing to host Daily Stormer is not neutral either. There is no neutral and apolitical option on this issue.

by eli 2y ago

function_seven 2y ago
Yes there is. Don’t look at the content unless the law requires it. That’s neutral. You host sites, regardless of their content.
- eli 2y ago
  You're describing a philosophy called Free Speech Absolutism. It's a perfectly reasonable stance and I get where you're coming from, but it is not objectively more correct than any other approach. And it's definitely a choice with political implications.
0x457 2y ago
Hosting something that doesn't break your local laws or your ToS is as neutral as it gets. Not hosting something because you don't agree with them - is not. In this case, they broke ToS and got removed from CF.
- eli 2y ago
  Isn’t the operative question here, what should the ToS include in the first place? Also: I don’t really agree. Enforcement of ToS is inherently political too.
  - 0x457 2y ago
    I'm sorry, if a place has a "do not shit of a floor" in its ToS, you go there and get kicked out because you shat on the floor. What is political about it? If you really want to argue on this, then go with "ToS are complicated for mortals to understand". > Isn’t the operative question here, what should the ToS include in the first place? No? It's a private company. You can choose to agree or not to agree with ToS and therefore make a choice of using or not using service because of its ToS. Another thing that you can complain about: CF clearly wanted to boot them off the service (see CEO's interview) and found a clause in their ToS to do so.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kbelder 2y ago
A neutral stance might be one that doesn't unhost somebody for legal speech, regardless of the content. Granted, that is a political stance.
freedomben 2y ago
This is an interesting position. What if Kamala Harris used cloudflare in front of her website? Is cloudflare now supporting the Democratic party? What if Trump did? Same thing? By your logic, it seems like cloudflare would have to review the content of every page on every site and only host it if they agree with it. That's going to mean a pretty big chunk of websites don't get hosted. You really don't think a neutral position would be to just not care what the content is, and just host everybody regardless who they are, what they believe, etc?
- defrost 2y ago
  A peer comment from three hours prior to yours said: > It was pretty simple really - all they had to do was not lie about Cloudflare endorsing them If Kamala Harris used Cloudflare, not an issue. If Kamala Harris went on to very publicly falsely state on her website that Cloudflare supported her and the Democratic Party to the hilt .. then that's another thing and something that breaks the Terms of Service .. apparently that was what tripped The Daily Stormer .. claiming they had Cloudflare "in their corner".
- eli 2y ago
  > What if Kamala Harris used cloudflare in front of her website? Is cloudflare now supporting the Democratic party? What if Trump did? Same thing? Hosting content isn't the same as endorsing every word of it. Newspapers print op-eds that run counter to what the editorial board believes. But providing a platform to someone is still a choice, yes. > By your logic, it seems like cloudflare would have to review the content of every page on every site and only host it if they agree with it. Nah, what is allowed vs how you enforce it are two different things. Believe it or not, the decision of how to enforce the rules is political too. Nothing about having a ToS that bans certain content necessarily requires pre-review of content any more than the rule that bans phishing sites or pirated movies does. > You really don't think a neutral position would be to just not care what the content is, and just host everybody regardless who they are, what they believe, etc? Absolutely it isn't. Declaring that you don't care about offensive hate speech and will not remove it when made aware of it is a choice. It's a deeply political choice. (Also, this is a bit of a straw man: surely you can't "not care what the content is" when something potentially illegal)

Sorry but continuing to host Daily Stormer is not neutral either. There is no neutral and apolitical option on this issue.

by eli 2y ago

Sorry but continuing to host Daily Stormer is not neutral either. There is no neutral and apolitical option on this issue.

function_seven 2y ago

Yes there is. Don’t look at the content unless the law requires it. That’s neutral. You host sites, regardless of their content.

eli 2y ago
You're describing a philosophy called Free Speech Absolutism. It's a perfectly reasonable stance and I get where you're coming from, but it is not objectively more correct than any other approach. And it's definitely a choice with political implications.

0x457 2y ago

Hosting something that doesn't break your local laws or your ToS is as neutral as it gets. Not hosting something because you don't agree with them - is not. In this case, they broke ToS and got removed from CF.

eli 2y ago
Isn’t the operative question here, what should the ToS include in the first place? Also: I don’t really agree. Enforcement of ToS is inherently political too.
- 0x457 2y ago
  I'm sorry, if a place has a "do not shit of a floor" in its ToS, you go there and get kicked out because you shat on the floor. What is political about it? If you really want to argue on this, then go with "ToS are complicated for mortals to understand". > Isn’t the operative question here, what should the ToS include in the first place? No? It's a private company. You can choose to agree or not to agree with ToS and therefore make a choice of using or not using service because of its ToS. Another thing that you can complain about: CF clearly wanted to boot them off the service (see CEO's interview) and found a clause in their ToS to do so.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kbelder 2y ago

A neutral stance might be one that doesn't unhost somebody for legal speech, regardless of the content. Granted, that is a political stance.

freedomben 2y ago

This is an interesting position. What if Kamala Harris used cloudflare in front of her website? Is cloudflare now supporting the Democratic party? What if Trump did? Same thing? By your logic, it seems like cloudflare would have to review the content of every page on every site and only host it if they agree with it. That's going to mean a pretty big chunk of websites don't get hosted. You really don't think a neutral position would be to just not care what the content is, and just host everybody regardless who they are, what they believe, etc?

defrost 2y ago
A peer comment from three hours prior to yours said: > It was pretty simple really - all they had to do was not lie about Cloudflare endorsing them If Kamala Harris used Cloudflare, not an issue. If Kamala Harris went on to very publicly falsely state on her website that Cloudflare supported her and the Democratic Party to the hilt .. then that's another thing and something that breaks the Terms of Service .. apparently that was what tripped The Daily Stormer .. claiming they had Cloudflare "in their corner".
eli 2y ago
> What if Kamala Harris used cloudflare in front of her website? Is cloudflare now supporting the Democratic party? What if Trump did? Same thing? Hosting content isn't the same as endorsing every word of it. Newspapers print op-eds that run counter to what the editorial board believes. But providing a platform to someone is still a choice, yes. > By your logic, it seems like cloudflare would have to review the content of every page on every site and only host it if they agree with it. Nah, what is allowed vs how you enforce it are two different things. Believe it or not, the decision of how to enforce the rules is political too. Nothing about having a ToS that bans certain content necessarily requires pre-review of content any more than the rule that bans phishing sites or pirated movies does. > You really don't think a neutral position would be to just not care what the content is, and just host everybody regardless who they are, what they believe, etc? Absolutely it isn't. Declaring that you don't care about offensive hate speech and will not remove it when made aware of it is a choice. It's a deeply political choice. (Also, this is a bit of a straw man: surely you can't "not care what the content is" when something potentially illegal)