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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#301

Post by Spivak »

bqe wrote: post #294
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)…

> 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 switch what you said around a little bit: "I get the whole 'people can choose to interact with whoever they want' argument, but in order to do anything, you have to interact with people." So you're saying I have to interact with Nazis? I have no choic…

A few business decide not to provide goods and services to black people -- not great but there are other options.

Every business decides to stop doing business with black people we have a real problem.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#302

Post by thinkfurther »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #241
jacalata wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have silenced dissidents for thousands of years too, why aren't you willing to be optimistic about that?

I am. Dissenting speech will continue long after Cloudflare is acquired/out of business/etc. I'm only here to draw light to hypocrisy.

Nah, you wish there was hypocrisy where there's really just you not being up to speed.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#303

Post by fixermark »

mc32 wrote: post #194
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…

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

That doesn't seem to be the case. It could be hypothetically (Cloudflare certainly has no interest in admitting that there's an upper bound to the DDOS they can mitigate and hackers have found it), but I think the "I remembered I'm a CEO in a country where there is not much restrictive policy on who a company chooses to do business with, and I think even my customers will agree 'Nazis suck and don't deserve a platform'" explanation holds here.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#304

Post by ruleabidinguser »

jquery wrote: post #264
tootie wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one who supports Trump or Daily Stormer are likely not applying nearly as much inductive reasoning to their decisions as you are in this comment.

According to Blind, at least 40% of Silicon Valley workers support what Trump said regarding this incident. Probably less than 1% support the ideas of Neo-nazis or the Daily Stormer. You're making a false assumption and dehumanizing those who disagree with you.

Yea ok whatever you say nazi

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#305

Post by pharrington »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #187
jquery wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Parallel is not equals.

edit: To expand, observing and noting key similarities between two different sets is not equivalent to saying the two sets are equivalent.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#306

Post by bqe »

Spivak wrote: post #301
bqe wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 switch what you said around a little bit: "I get the whole 'people can choose to interact with whoever they want' argument, but in order to do anything, you have to interact with people." So you're saying I have to interact with Nazis? I have no choic…

A few business decide not to provide goods and services to black people -- not great but there are other options. Every business decides to stop doing business with black people we have a real problem.

If you think Nazism, a racist, hateful ideology opposed to the existence of many groups of people, is equivalent to being black in America, we have nothing to discuss.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#307

Post by the_rara_avis »

davemp wrote: post #283
michaelchisari wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your opinion of the paradox put aside - Karl Popper was a well-regarded 20th century philosopher, not some flimsy rando-streamer with 20 subs on Youtube.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#308

Post by syrrim »

gbarc888 wrote: post #271
throwaway7312 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Christian bakers were sued and then forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because sexual orientation is a protected class. "Alt-right" or whatever Daily Stormer is, is not a protected class. "Political party" is a protected class, which puts Daily Stormer in a possibly fuzzy territory (I have never read Daily Stormer so I don't know if they count as a political publication).

That's stupid. Why should I have anymore right to discriminate against people with red hair than people with black skin? If it's wrong, it's wrong no matter the group you do it to.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#309

Post by jbooth »

humanrebar wrote: post #297
jbooth wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's better than if they had reverse engineered the policy. Do it or don't do it, but either way, stand by your actions and get outta here with the mealy mouthed BS. IMHO.

I feel like a lot of Supreme Court decisions are reverse engineered. I'm not sure that bell can be un-rung.

That's different, the SC isn't an executive body.

An executive changing policy and then throwing up their hands, "I have no choice, it's the policy!" is dishonest and doesn't fool anybody.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#310

Post by kelnos »

rangibaby wrote: post #221

slippery slope

I really dislike the perfunctory "slippery slope" type argument. It's never an argument not to do something; it's merely a warning to make sure that you don't use an action as a stepping stone to taking more extreme actions.

Saying that banning certain things is a slippery slope, and using that excuse to never ban things, means that it's ok to allow truly horrendous things to happen, just because of fear of overreach.

When we say we have freedom of speech, but then in the next sentence remind people that you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded space, we recognize that restricting some speech can be a slippery slope, but we do so anyway because not doing so would be much worse.

Post reply on HN