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

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#181

Post by unityByFreedom »

int_19h wrote: post #140
mattnewton wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 employme…

> 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.

Yes, we advanced to being a more civilized society.

Adding "politics" to the list of protected classes is akin to removing all the other ones, since someone's "idea" can be that their race/sex/age/nationality makes them superior to all others.

I'd never support a politician who promoted the idea of rolling back Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#182

Post by thinkfurther »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #159
thinkfurther wrote: post #142

Yeah, and you'll take it all down with your foolishness.

People have hated for thousands of years, and we've made it this far. Have some optimism. Mandating tolerance is about as likely to work as using a sieve to bail water out of a boat.

This isn't mere hate, and I'm not "mandating tolerance" either. I'm mandating you at least read people like Hannah Arendt and Sebastian Haffner instead of you projecting your naivety on me.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#183

Post by default-kramer »

breadbox wrote: post #72
Clubber wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time someone says that, I just hear "I'm defending censorship." Is that what you are doing, or am I just overly sensitive? I mean everyone on here knows this, yet every time someone feels they need to say it. We aren't debating what the first amendment protects, we are debating on wether it's good for our country to have all internet speech controlled by a handful of conglomerates. This is going to sound unfair…

If you label "not amplifying someone" as censorship, then there is obviously no such thing as uncensored free speech for everyone. The question then becomes who you step up to defend, and who you quietly ignore, when someone gets amplified over them.

It's not about amplifying someone. There is a difference between ignoring someone and silencing them. Cloudflare's move seems more like silencing than ignoring to me. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think everyone should be able to put their (sometimes terrible) opinions on the internet, and we'll trust society to decide which ideas are terrible and should be ignored.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#184

Post by unityByFreedom »

slg wrote: post #157
kazagistar wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the networking infrastructure carried that message. The people who manufactured the murder weapon assisted the murder goals. The point is that we have a legal process to deal with murder. If we wanted to suppress the message glorifying it and encouraging it, we should do that directly, and take down the site through legal due process. Going after infrastructure is the wrong solution when you should be confron…

>If we wanted to suppress the message glorifying it and encouraging it, we should do that directly, and take down the site through legal due process. That sounds like a much bigger conflict with the 1st amendment than society simply deciding to shun messages we want to suppress.

If it were taken down, yes.

What he's arguing, though, is to use courts because he knows courts would never do that in the US.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#185

Post by LeifCarrotson »

jacquesm wrote: post #175
ringaroundthetx wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't he face personal liability in a civil lawsuit for monetary damages? Like if Daily Stormtrooper's hosting costs go up in a DDOS

Obviously, absolutely not.

The site could, in theory, sue Cloudflare for failing to provide the services they paid for.

That is, they could do so if they paid anything for the services they received (they didn't).

And it's only if Cloudflare didn't have a "we reserve the right to discontinue services at any time for any reason at our sole discretion" clause in their ToS (they do).

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#187

Post by aaronbrethorst »

jquery wrote: post #126
tuna-piano wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Am I correct that you are equating a private company terminating its business relationship with an avowed neo-Nazi website with the U.S. military killing civilians?

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#189

Post by outworlder »

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…

Well, at least the CEO fully admits that it's an arbitrary decision. And indeed it is in his power to make.

CloudFlare is not the only player in town, and that's far from censorship.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#190

Post by xkcd-sucks »

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…

So what other arbitrary decisions has made that haven't attracted as much publicity?
Post reply on HN