331–340 of 1001 posts
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…
I'm agreed that they shouldn't need to, but not that they shouldn't at all. Making these sorts of companies on the hook for things their customers do would make it impossible to run a company like this at all.
But remember, companies are made up of people. Those people have values and, with those values, make moral judgments -- and it is entirely within their right to do so. In the majority of cases I would hope that most people would choose to be content-neutral, but I absolutely expect and support that some people will eventually hit a threshold where they cannot look the other way anymore. And, in general, I think that's _absolutely ok_.
>“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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not generally recognized as political speech. At what point is it acceptable to ban unpopular political speech, provided that speech is not a direct incitement to riot/violence?
Nobody is banning Nazi speech in America. Private citizens are just saying they don't want to be part of it. As many others have said, the Daily Stormer will find name servers and hosting partners in the same part of the Internet that brings up spam and scam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Of course they can sue. Anybody can sue anybody else for whatever fancy they have. But that's not the same as winning that suit.
>“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 much for believing in "due process".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you honestly think that the rest of the world is only now hearing about the Daily Stormer, then you must have a very plush rock that you've been living under. I assure you that many, many others have not had that particular luxury.
I don't think that's fair. Some of us work very hard for a living or have kids. I just learned about the Daily Stormer, this weekend. EDIT: on second thought, I wonder if this is what Daily Stormer wanted all along. They have raised their profile enormously now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you honestly think that the rest of the world is only now hearing about the Daily Stormer, then you must have a very plush rock that you've been living under. I assure you that many, many others have not had that particular luxury.
I don't think that's fair. Some of us work very hard for a living or have kids. I just learned about the Daily Stormer, this weekend. EDIT: on second thought, I wonder if this is what Daily Stormer wanted all along. They have raised their profile enormously now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No one liked what they had to say, but as Americans, we felt we were obligated to protect their ability to say it Their right to say it. Their ability to say it is a different thing.
Can you expound on what you see as the differences?
Their ability: do they have the tools they would like to have (and that others might own) to communicate effectively.