Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#121

Post by r3bl »

joelrunyon wrote: post #43
luke3butler wrote: post #6

"Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power." I've been jumping back and forth over the fence on this topic, but this stance is where I've ended up.

I'm struggling to connect these two phrases: "No one should have that power" "I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet" Seems like a very tricky precedent to set that you can just not allow someone on the internet. The natural question from this is: how long until this type of power is used against views you support?

I mean, he just has the authority over the company and can deny service to them, he can't effectively shut them down. Just give them downtime. I would compare this to a DoS more than a shut down.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#122

Post by clintonb »

breadbox wrote: post #80
jquery wrote: post #68

It seems pretty obvious that all this hand-wringing over a little known site called The Daily Stormer has raised its profile worldwide far beyond their wildest dreams. This is likely causing the opposite effect of what activists want.

If you honestly think that the rest of the world is only now hearing about the Daily Stormer, then you must have a very plush rock that you've been living under. I assure you that many, many others have not had that particular luxury.

Unless I have a reason to seek out The Daily Stormer or similar sites, why/how would I know about them? Some of us just want to go about our lives without having to be stressed about all of this.

https://xkcd.com/1053/

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#123

Post by samsonasu »

slg wrote: post #63

For all the people who are warning of a slippery slope or a chilling effect, where do we draw a line? This site along with others like it likely helped spur a person on to murder a few days ago. This site along with other like it celebrated that murder. This site along with other like are organizing protests at that murder victim's funeral. How in good conscience can you be an accomplice in spreading that message?

I agree. There's probably a line somewhere but let's get a little closer to it than literal Nazis celebrating a murder before the hand-wringing starts.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#124

Post by jack9 »

alva wrote: post #8

Cloudflare refuse to withdraw services to ISIS

It's funny what a company will say, then turn around and do... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/18/cloudflare_ceo_rubb...

"It's not in CloudFlare's philosophy to just take down sites because management doesn't agree with the content,"

...unless the press tells them what their philosophy needs to be? The lesson is that no capitalist company can remain neutral, today. Which has good and bad consequences. It's amazing how the small number of media conglomerates have solidified their political power alongside their commercial power. A true locus of control in Western society.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#126

Post by jquery »

tuna-piano wrote: post #77
r721 wrote: post #4

>“This was my decision. This is not Cloudflare’s general policy now, going forward,” Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince told Gizmodo. “I think we have to have a conversation over what part of the infrastructure stack is right to police content.” (from internal email) >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 i…

It's so bizarre. He tries to have it both ways. He says "no one should have that power", but then says he did it literally earlier that day. He says CloudFlare isn't changing their "content-neutral" policy... but clearly they did change that policy. I have many reasons to oppose nazis, including incredibly personal ones. That said, I think crossing this content line for an infrastructure company is a big deal, and I…

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it" - US Officer, talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#127

Post by watersb »

I am surprised by the criticism of CloudFlare in these comments.

I was a systems admin for a while; User privacy and security were very important to me, despite my lack of technology or skills. FWIW.

CloudFlare did not necessarily follow "Due Process" because no such process exists. They seem to think that's a problem worth addressing.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#129

Post by thaumaturgy »

Matthew Prince is asking for a conversation to begin on establishing policy for supporting free speech vs. policing a service. Service providers of all kinds have been more-or-less flying by the seat of their pants on this issue, making up policy according to their individual ideals, and a lot of arguments so far have fallen along ideological lines.

As more and more people continue to participate in the internet, there are going to be more issues like this, not fewer.

So let's maybe kick off that discussion a little bit? Someone that's articulate might be able to build the foundation for a policy here that would be attractive to lots of service providers.

Some things to consider:

-> Local law vs. ethical considerations. A lot of expressions and statements that are just fine by US standards are illegal or otherwise censored in other place. Google has struggled with this in China for years now. There's no reason to believe that the US will continue to be a beacon for free speech forever. Efforts to control, surveil, and censor speech are ongoing in the US, as Dreamhost recently pointed out. How should services handle this? Do you adhere to local laws or to what you believe is right?

-> Free speech vs. abuse. In this case, I don't mean abuse-by-meanness, but abuse by misuse of resources. From blatant spamming all the way down to just being the loud-mouthed jerk who posts too often in a forum, there's a whole spectrum of abuses here and most service providers happily block this content. What constitutes abuse? Should everything be supported, to the best of the service provider's ability, or is this a point where nearly everyone agrees that free speech should be limited?

-> Free speech vs. disruptive or disgusting speech. Communities gather assholes. Some of them are accidental or ill (HN has its own, which it has merrily perma-banned), some of them just want to stir shit up. Some of them give us something to think about, they just want to be really abrasive in the process. What are the limits here? What if we end up on the wrong side of some issue, what would our opinions about limited speech be then?

-> Nice vs. Free. These all kind of could be distilled down into a single debate: do we want a nice society, or a free society?

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#130

Post by chickenfries »

jquery wrote: post #24
bwb wrote: post #10

Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :). Free speech is about your right to speak without the government locking you up, or censoring those who choose to broadcast/spread it. But nothing about free speech says someone else has to listen or spread it for you, companies included. The line is drawn at calling for violence though, which is pretty fucking tricky to navigate.

You're confusing free speech with the first amendment. Free speech is a cultural value says that controversial speech shouldn't be censored, rather it should be debated, condemned, or ignored. The first amendment guarantees the government will uphold this value. You are perfectly correct that private companies can throw the value of free speech in the dumpster if the CEO wakes up in a bad mood.

Free speech, the cultural value, can only be protected by the government. The market doesn't demand things like liberty and justice.
Post reply on HN