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

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#251

Post by [deleted] »

y7 wrote: post #178
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…

This is in a way much worse than if they actually changed their policy. With this precedent, it looks like what they're saying now is "we're not policing content, except for when our CEO feels like it". Basically this is a clear act of corruption, given their own proclaimed principles of content neutrality. That the ultimate trigger seems to have been that the removed site said something negative about CloudFlare is…

[deleted]

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#252

Post by jquery »

colllectorof wrote: post #153
tedivm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will always be companies that care more about making a buck than anything else. For years spammers and malware authors have been able to find hosting without issue, and taking them down has been a serious pain in the ass. All these nazis need to do is rent a server in russia (where they've moved their name server) and they will be fine. The idea that companies like Cloudflare should help support sites like this…

>The idea that companies like Cloudflare should help support sites like this is nonsensical. It is your framing of the idea that's nonsensical. Infrastructure companies should not need to police all their services. Heck, they shouldn't police their services. That is what real police and courts are for. As an analogy, should AT&T monitor calls and terminate service for customers using racist slurs? Now, a lot of peopl…

> As an analogy, should AT&T monitor calls and terminate service for customers using racist slurs? Now, a lot of people would surely argue that such example is false equivalency, but it follows from the same line of reasoning and would have similar long-term consequences.

Angry mobs aren't thinking about "long-term consequences." Unfortunately, the media loves angry mobs because it generates viewership and clicks.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#253

Post by throwaway7312 »

spydum wrote: post #233

I have read many of the threads here, and I think it boils down to this: do businesses (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) have the right to choose what content and customers they serve? Further, does it matter if they are a hosting provider? A network provider? A telephone provider? Can those providers cancel you if the company doesn't like what you say or are? This is tough: I honestly don't know if freedom of speech needs to be…

This is just the latest in a string of examples like this.

The Christian bakers / gay wedding cakes is one example.

But people being booted off services like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Patreon are others.

We ought to have the right to exclude people from our own private spaces, our own private clubs, and our own private businesses (freedom of association).

However, at what point (and at what scale) does our private club become so large it is a de facto public space?

There does not seem to be any real precedent for discussions like this. The Internet has created an entirely new wrinkle in the debate around free speech and public places.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#254

Post by fyrstenberg »

ceejayoz wrote: post #212
fyrstenberg wrote: post #200

There is some monkey-business here. Anyone knows why a PR company hired "protesters" to the event in the first place? (and why HN tries to hide this link when posted as submission?) https://charlotte.craigslist.org/tfr/d/actors-and-photograph...

You know literally anyone can post a Craigslist ad, right? I mean, https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/6256316306.html https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/chi/6216723045.html https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/6088811200.html https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/cle/6147468220.html all exist... and you think no right-winger ever went "let's spend a few minutes making a WordPress.com blog and a Craigsl…

As much as apps paying people to stay in front of resturants:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/08/1...

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#255

Post by jessriedel »

bnjms wrote: post #87
kazagistar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much for believing in "due process".

Much like free speech due process concerns citizens and their government rather than people and any public organization.

No. The 1st amendment is specific to the government, but free speech is a much broader normative concept. It is about cordoning off the market place of ideas from reprisals in meatspace. A canonical defense is John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" (available free online).

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#256

Post by jacquesm »

throwaway7312 wrote: post #253
spydum wrote: post #233

I have read many of the threads here, and I think it boils down to this: do businesses (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) have the right to choose what content and customers they serve? Further, does it matter if they are a hosting provider? A network provider? A telephone provider? Can those providers cancel you if the company doesn't like what you say or are? This is tough: I honestly don't know if freedom of speech needs to be…

This is just the latest in a string of examples like this. The Christian bakers / gay wedding cakes is one example. But people being booted off services like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Patreon are others. We ought to have the right to exclude people from our own private spaces, our own private clubs, and our own private businesses (freedom of association). However, at what point (and at what scale) does our priv…

> The Internet has created an entirely new wrinkle in the debate around free speech and public places.

No, absolutely nothing has changed. What has changed is that the internet has given every idiot out there a megaphone and a way to link up with other idiots at a moments notice and groups like the Neo Nazis love like minded company because there is safety for them in a crowd, a way to be part of the monster without having to stand up to scrutiny.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#257

Post by kelnos »

spydum wrote: post #233

I have read many of the threads here, and I think it boils down to this: do businesses (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) have the right to choose what content and customers they serve? Further, does it matter if they are a hosting provider? A network provider? A telephone provider? Can those providers cancel you if the company doesn't like what you say or are? This is tough: I honestly don't know if freedom of speech needs to be…

I think there should be two tests:

1) Does the reason for terminating a customer violate law that protects certain classes of people/orgs? If so, you can't do it.

Obviously there are jurisdictional concerns here, but let's assume we can navigate them successfully, at least most of the time, without a messy court battle.

2) For any content, regardless of #1, does the customer have other choices besides you? If not, you can't do it.

For the second point, I think that should be there to protect from a company arbitrarily imposing its values. My feeling is that if there's enough healthy competition (I won't define what "enough" is because I don't know, but hope that it could be definable), someone will host your content. And if no one wants to, that should be a pretty clear signal that you're so unbelievably far away from what the vast majority (or even the near unanimity) would consider acceptable that you really will want to rethink some things.

If you are the only option, then likely you are a legally-regulated monopoly anyway and have some rules around needing to offer service blindly (rules imposed in exchange for that monopoly status).

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#258

Post by emodendroket »

adventured wrote: post #224
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…

I find it incredible that so many people here do not realize what inventing and enforcing a new, arbitrary hate speech category will enable politically over time. While simultaneously they're terrified of Trump, they're extremely eager to intentionally give him extraordinary new powers of speech control. Or is the plan to only give those speech control powers to politicians & authorities one agrees with? It's like al…

In fact private corporations already have the right to censor or refuse service to any of their customers.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#259

Post by xorbyte »

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #193
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.

If he doesn't like your site, he may not allow you to use his service, which is something the TOS already cover.

Over time, such capricious terminations could lead to the Board seeking action against the CEO, depending on the impact to the business.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#260

Post by adventured »

jacalata wrote: post #231
adventured wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it incredible that so many people here do not realize what inventing and enforcing a new, arbitrary hate speech category will enable politically over time. While simultaneously they're terrified of Trump, they're extremely eager to intentionally give him extraordinary new powers of speech control. Or is the plan to only give those speech control powers to politicians & authorities one agrees with? It's like al…

Trump is going to run Cloudflare? What?

> Trump is going to run Cloudflare? What?

The debate is a wider cultural one, which ends in political action. That's how powerful changes to government are put into place. See: 1970s, or see: post 9/11.

The issue isn't whether Cloudflare should be able to control the content on its network, that's a small, narrow, mostly settled debate.

The very large issue is: is the culture shifting toward ending freedom of speech as we know it, in favor of controlled speech. That is the only debate that matters here, and it is occurring throughout this thread.

The consequence of any further limitations put onto speech eg in regards to the Internet medium, is that the next version of Trump will use his FCC in horrific ways to silence counter speech.

How do all the people here not understand this is the core issue? We just lived through a terrifying expansion of power post 9/11 because the culture became unduly scared, in which all the reasoning was fraudulent and solely used as a means to expand power. Now we have dozens of new power levers, increasingly abused by each administration.

The single most important bastion of freedom to protect, is speech + press.

Post reply on HN