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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#351

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bqe wrote: post #306
Spivak wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To add to this, race is a protected class [1]. We carefully and conservatively enumerate the classes a business holding itself out to the public may not discriminate based on. Political ideology is not a protected class almost anywhere in America.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#352

Post by kelnos »

hugh4life wrote: post #118
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)…

"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…

Agreed in this specific case: Daily Stormer is a hate group that promotes horrible things, and there probably isn't a better solution than to just forcibly shut them down.

But I think the poster has a point in the general sense: shutting people up through force rarely changes their way of thinking, and that can come back to bite you later on.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#353

Post by bmelton »

tedivm wrote: post #66
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)…

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 slippery slope argument is an awful fallacy and ignores the fact that we can't even get content most of the world agrees is bad (child porn, active malware exploits, spammers) offline

So is false equivalence. Child porn, active malware exploits and spam that fails to comply with the CAN-SPAM act are all illegal. Hating people is not illegal, nor is it illegal to have a website that hates people.

I'm not suggesting that CloudFlare was or is under any obligation to assist Daily Stormer in getting views, but deplorable or not, there's nothing I know to have been illegal about it, unlike the other bad acts you are lumping it in with.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#354

Post by ratsmack »

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…

I have to wonder if he really made that decision of his own accord, or did he receive one or more calls from large customers that influenced the decision.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#355

Post by lightedman »

CloudFlare could've just sued DS out of existence if the claim they are making is true, for libel/slander/defamation of character. Instead, they lose out on free money, lose out on delivering a bigger black eye to ethnicists, and possibly lose their service provider immunity.

Should've resisted the urge to punch a Nazi and acted like a real American instead. We don't fight, we sue.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#356

Post by leereeves »

derefr wrote: post #329
genon wrote: post #324

Absolutely correct. He is also effectively saying that since he can and will remove sites he personally doesn't like, that he personally approves of every other site using Cloudflare. The excuse he uses for terminating TDS is an absolute crock; if TDS genuinely did falsely and sincerely claim that Cloudflare supports them, then Prince could and should have simply asked them to remove that claim. It's an outrage that…

> if TDS genuinely did falsely and sincerely claim that Cloudflare supports them, then Prince could and should have simply asked them to remove that claim. The damage of libel is reputational damage. Getting the libelous claim retracted after the claim has been seen by the public doesn't undo or erase the damage the claim does. Usually you have to do something drastic to actively disprove the libelous claim, if you w…

If TDS did make such a claim publicly enough to cause reputational damage, there should be evidence we can all see.

Anyone know where that evidence is?

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#357

Post by _euac »

jquery wrote: post #213
rtpg wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe when you get in the business of providing speech as a service. For example, imagine you went into the wedding cake business, and someone came in and wanted you to make a gay wedding cake (note: not a wedding cake for gay people, but a wedding cake that normalized gay marriage). Now imagine you're a very old-school traditionalist about that sort of thing. Should you be compelled to make that cake with two women…

Heeeeell no!

The wedding cake case didn't have anything to do with free speech, and a lot to do with discrimination: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate....

Do not conflate a bunch of causes just because you feel they are related. It doesn't do your argument any favors.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#358

Post by grey-area »

While this was the right choice and long overdue IMO, it was the wrong way to do it. They should update their TOS to remove the arbitrary clause about terminating for any reason, and replace it with a concrete list of behaviour which is against their terms, like perhaps hate speech, violent threats and harassment. Cloudflare can decide where this line is, but there is a line and it should be clear to everyone. Clients deserve to know what the criteria are prior to signup, and Cloudflare deserves the right to choose which clients to service.

Thankfully Cloudflare are not and should never be in the position where they decide what stays on the internet, as they are just one provider, and do not have a monopoly. This is why monopolies are undesirable, even though most companies aspire to one.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#359

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

adventured wrote: post #260
jacalata wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People don't "understand" because you're wrong (or at least, have no evidence of being right). Infact, what you argue for is a worse outcome than your conclusion, an outcome where individuals and businesses are forced to support speech they don't agree with, thus robbing them of their freedoms.

Nothing is stopping you from self hosting what ever content you want. If you come to my machines, you play by my rules; simple as that.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#360

Post by leereeves »

dguaraglia wrote: post #336
kazagistar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much for believing in "due process".

Due process? For what? It's a private company, deciding to terminate the contract with a shitty customer that is ruining their image. Worst case scenario the Nazis might have a case for breach of contract, but they won't get much out of it. Also, I'd love to see them show up in court to try to defend this as a "freedom of speech" case, and get told what a bunch of abhorrent human beings they are and to GTFO.

Due process is something the CloudFlare CEO mentioned believing in.

I didn't see how it was relevant either.

Post reply on HN