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

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#131

Post by doubleshame »

matt4077 wrote: post #106
doubleshame wrote: post #19

It is very important to distinguish something like Facebook blocking an account / Medium taking down a blog from a domain registrar refusing to cooperate. You are free to create a room where only some ideologies are allowed, but it's dangerous to play the same game with the ability to create the rooms . First the domain registrars, then networks say that they don't want to peer, and then we end up with a fragmented i…

> "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" It's not, actually. Fire is much better, and even alcohol is preferable. That's why there's very little open-air surgery. > It is not wise to pretend that an opinion that you do not want just simply does not exist. Reality doesn't support this idea. Every single country except the US has more stringent limits on what's acceptable speech. Yet among democratic countries, only the U…

Sure, fire is good when you're dealing with them roaches, but kill them as you will, does nothing for the ideas, which sunlight is good for.

Yes, the US actually does have excellent lines on what's acceptable speech. In my not-professional judgement, it's speech that is the proximate cause of violence and incites it, and the daily stormer is outside of that. If you're talking about the US, you'd let the courts decide, and not corporations.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#132

Post by doubleshame »

thinkfurther wrote: post #79
doubleshame wrote: post #19

It is very important to distinguish something like Facebook blocking an account / Medium taking down a blog from a domain registrar refusing to cooperate. You are free to create a room where only some ideologies are allowed, but it's dangerous to play the same game with the ability to create the rooms . First the domain registrars, then networks say that they don't want to peer, and then we end up with a fragmented i…

Sunlight in this case would be doing for Nazis what they themselves won't do because they're unable -- recognize them for who they are and act accordingly. > In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought This is not how any of this works.

We are NOT fighting the people here, we're fighting the ideas. I don't think we should ever forget this.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#133

Post by exabrial »

c3534l wrote: post #102
exabrial wrote: post #71

Also on sort of related note, this is why I disparage the "cake baking" and "wedding flowers" lawsuits... While I don't care what two adults do in the bedroom, I do care that a private business could be forced to render services. What if Mike Pence becomes president and uses the precedent set by these lawsuits to justify the passage of his version of Christianity into law? I think these issues are better left unturne…

Do you think I should have a sign on my business door that says "no blacks allowed," too? Also the cake incident also involved the owners posting the names and phone numbers of the gay couple on facebook and asked people to harass them.

No, of course not! I think the line is pretty clear there, a person can't choose to be black or white, but a marriage is an "opt in" event, two people are freely choosing to be married.

There have been a lot of these sorts of incidents; I didn't hear about the DOXing incident, that's quite sad, and of course, inexcusable, for any reason.

However, there was an incident [http://bit.ly/1MxG5S8] where a lady was good friends with a man and was a regular customer for years. She did not want her company's name associated with his wedding (sounds oddly similar to the OP), so she politely declined.

This all being said, I'm very curious how you reconcile the two situations, I'm interested to hear your viewpoint.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#134

Post by jquery »

hugh4life wrote: post #118
colejohnson66 wrote: post #26

I get the whole "companies can choose not to host whatever they want" argument, but in order to do anything on the internet, you have to interact with companies. If I want to run my own website, I need an IP address at the minimum, and ISPs are free to cut off my internet service if they don't like what I'm hosting. In a public setting, if people don't like what I'm saying, they can't force me to be quiet (generally)…

"Also, by not hosting Daily Stormer, you simply push them further down. One of the big reasons Trump won was because people felt like they weren't allowed to voice their opinions easily. There were people, basically closeted Trump supporters, who said they didn't like Trump, but secretly did. Pushing people down because they're "deplorables" simply reinforces their opinions." I supported Trump(though didn't vote sinc…

The larger point about trying to censor people out of having opinions instead of ignoring or condemning them is valid. This has raised their profile far beyond simply ignoring or condemning them and treating them like any other repulsive website (of which there are PLENTY that Google/GoDaddy/Cloudflare now "officially endorse").

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#135

Post by vopi »

mattnewton wrote: post #57
aphextron wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Playing devil's advocate here) But perhaps the web has reached a point where we have to consider it as a public service. And as such should be subject to free speech laws. There is precedent for this with the "equal time rule" for broadcast networks regulated by the FCC which guarantees air time to opposing political candidates during an election. I could easily see an argument to be made for forcing service provide…

Nazi's aren't a protected class. I don't have to sell you server space. But I also don't have the right to knock down your own server, should you set one up on the public internet.

So what if no ISP wants to give them inet?

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#136

Post by MollyR »

jack9 wrote: post #124
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 amaz…

It's my fear this locus of control or suppression of voices is part of the reason we have an increase in violent rhetoric.

I learned an important lesson in 2016, my worldviews are not shared in America outside of big cities. It forced me to realize that I didn't even know people disagreed so fiercely because of media conglomerate created echo bubbles.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#137

Post by thinkfurther »

doubleshame wrote: post #132
thinkfurther wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sunlight in this case would be doing for Nazis what they themselves won't do because they're unable -- recognize them for who they are and act accordingly. > In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought This is not how any of this works.

We are NOT fighting the people here, we're fighting the ideas. I don't think we should ever forget this.

You too should read this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032018

and maybe this for good measure:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15014737

I forgot nothing, I'd rather say I know things you haven't yet understood.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#138

Post by CaptSpify »

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.

This always sounded so silly to me. Are they legally allowed to refuse service to them? According to the law: absolutely. But that has no bearing on whether or not we are allowed to criticize them.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#139

Post by mindcrime »

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.

The first amendment guarantees the government will uphold this value.

More like "The first amendment purports to guarantee that the government will uphold this value."

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#140

Post by int_19h »

mattnewton wrote: post #57
aphextron wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Playing devil's advocate here) But perhaps the web has reached a point where we have to consider it as a public service. And as such should be subject to free speech laws. There is precedent for this with the "equal time rule" for broadcast networks regulated by the FCC which guarantees air time to opposing political candidates during an election. I could easily see an argument to be made for forcing service provide…

Nazi's aren't a protected class. I don't have to sell you server space. But I also don't have the right to knock down your own server, should you set one up on the public internet.

A protected class is what we decide should be one. There weren't any protected classes at all, until one day there were, and we added things to that list since then.

Nazis specifically aren't a protected class, of course. Neither are white people. But (any) race is a protected class. And (any) political opinion could be a protected class, as well.

IIRC, this is already the case in California, with respect to employment - i.e. you cannot be fired for expressing a political opinion.

Post reply on HN