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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#191

Post by ceejayoz »

c3534l wrote: post #91
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)…

› if Google doesn't like a website, it can derank it If Google actually does that, they're asking for an anti-trust suit.

No, they're not.

Kinderstart v. Google for one of many examples.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#192

Post by jay-saint »

yahna wrote: post #173
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…

Gee, I hope my site doesn't happen to anger him in some way.

There are few things worse than nazis. Just make sure your content is better than fascist propaganda and you should be good.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#193

Post by slackingoff2017 »

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…

If he has the power to do such things then does it that is definitely HIS official policy going forward. Apparently company policy doesn't matter when you're the guy at the top, or at least that's what he's trying to tell us. Way to send a terrible message to your employees BTW.

If he doesn't like your site and has a bad day he's going to take you off the internet.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#194

Post by mc32 »

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…

Aside from the net neutrality or freedom of expression concerns, I wonder if it just became too costly to host them because of ddoses

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#195

Post by MichaelGG »

awinder wrote: post #155
jquery wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cool when can I come over to your house and spout crazypants shit?

As soon as his house becomes a major content-neutral platform that you practically need to use to publish online.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#196

Post by r1ch »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #144
tedunangst wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bonus question: what is cloudflare's role in either enabling or preventing the ddos attacks that one requires cloudflare to survive?

Do they enable any? I don't recall hearing about that.

They protect a large amount of the DDoS-as-a-service sites ("stress testers" or "booters").

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#197

Post by azundo »

notyourwork wrote: post #56
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)…

Reading this it sounds like you missed the intent of the post. Cloudflare would have not done this had there not been circumstances in which it was indicated that cloudflare supports the organization. It isn't clear to me where/how they determined this organization was "secretly" claiming cloudflare supported them.

The organization was publicly claiming that cloudflare secretly supported them.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#198

Post by rtpg »

jquery wrote: post #134
hugh4life wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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").

Serious question: where's the line?

The government shouldn't be censoring.

I don't allow white nationalists into my house.

At what point does "I" represent something too big for me to no longer have the moral privilege to refuse to collaborate with white nationalists?

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#199

Post by outworlder »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #45
RandVal30142 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also said this: >“I realized there was no way we were going to have that conversation with people calling us Nazis,” Prince said. “The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them and that is the opposite of everything we believe. That was the tipping point for me.”

Don't try to market yourself as critical Internet infrastructure if you're going to throw your principals away because someone made you feel icky. The Pirate Bay and DDOS gangs are okay, but this was the line? The worlds gone sideways. Edit: I was proud of Cloudflare not turning them off after their domain was deregistered. Now, so disappointed. Freedom of speech is rarely the speech we agree with. Or even speech we…

> Don't try to market yourself as critical Internet infrastructure if you're going to throw your principals away because someone made you feel icky.

"Icky"? They provoked this response by using CloudFlare's name in their cause. What would be the appropriate response?

Post reply on HN