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

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#281

Post by gbarc888 »

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.

> 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.

Wait a minute... where did you see that? This is the first time I have heard this part of the story. I thought the owners simply said "no", and then got sued for several hundred thousand dollars.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#283

Post by davemp »

michaelchisari wrote: post #208
MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sort of disconcerting to admit this but recent events have me reevaluating the utility of unvarnished free speech as a societal value. Taken to it's extremity, it's given us corporate personhood via Citizens United, and the codification of the principle that you (private or corporate personage) are entitled to speak freely at whatever volume you can afford to, including explicitly politicized speech. But more ab…

What you and a lot of us are experiencing right now is what Karl Popper called "The Paradox of Tolerance". Total free speech as an ideal (not as a legal framework) creates a paradox where it implores people to tolerate the speech of groups that actively intend to destroy free speech (both legally and ideally), such as fascist groups. There's a decent video explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH_JRcatCTk

I'll call bullshit.

You do not have to tolerate all speech in an ideological sense (the only sense that matters) just a physical sense.

Be careful when letting youtube faux philosophers feed you ideas.

EDIT: I apologize if this comment was busque. See my follow up below if you want more supporting arguements.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#285

Post by vacri »

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…

> The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.

So basically Cloudflare are removing their services because of libellous statements by the client, not content. This isn't corruption, but Business As Usual. You fuck over your business partners, and they kick back.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#286

Post by KirinDave »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #179
jacquesm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn't roadrage, it was murder. Now get off your fake high horse, you don't get to claim the moral highground on account of a bunch of people that would like to do the same to a fairly large number of people. Think of that one murder as a free sample of what is to come if these people get their way.

> This wasn't roadrage, it was murder. Now get off your fake high horse I'm attempting to prevent the cheapening of the term "terrorism", not adjusting my positioning on my high horse. Its a hate crime, not terrorism. > Think of that one murder as a free sample of what is to come if these people get their way. More of this will come regardless if these people get their way. Protests, tweet storms, and tearing down Co…

Weird. I thought Jeff Sessions and the justice department suggested it could be both.

Did I miss something?

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#288

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#289

Post by ue_ »

kevinh wrote: post #156
exabrial wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

You're conflating an act, getting married, with a state of being, being gay. You could use the same justification of marriage being an "opt in" event to justify refusing to serve an interracial couple or literally any protected class. Similarly, eating at a restaurant is an "opt in" event. Should you be able to discriminate at will in that circumstance?

I am by no means an advocate of Mill's liberalism, but according to that philosophy espoused everywhere else but the case of a business refusing access to black customers seems to me inconsistent.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#290

Post by colllectorof »

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…

The whole "Freedom of Speech" angle isn't really helpful here. I would phrase the question differently. From purely game-theoretical perspective, do you want companies that control large portions of our communication infrastructure make moral judgement calls regarding content passing through their servers and routers? Do you trust them to make the right moral judgements (however you define those) most of the time?
Post reply on HN