Why We Terminated Daily Stormer • Hacker News Board

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#371

Post by tedivm » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 1:55 AM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #353

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 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 suggest…

It's not a false equivalence because I wasn't trying to compare the two. My entire point was that the illegal content, and stuff that we all know is bad, is still online- anyone can access it with a small amount of effort (or not), and even though big companies are already blocking it and refuse to host it the content is still readily available.

If we can't even get that content offline, the idea that cloudflare refusing to host this website means this website won't be able to find hosting is absolutely absurd.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#372

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 1:55 AM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #358

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. Clien…

> 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.

Companies make those clauses arbitrary for a purpose: that's so they don't get a bunch of amateur legal eagles who will attempt to argue forever about what they can and can not get away with. By purposefully leaving a gray area the company can draw the line by adjusting to fluid conditions when it suits them.

You can disagree with that but I totally understand why a company like Cloudflare would want to reserve some room for maneuvering: it is impossible to know what the future will throw at you.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#373

Post by Barrin92 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 1:57 AM UTC

davemp wrote: post #249

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…

> It's sort of disconcerting to admit this but recent events have me reevaluating the utility of unvarnished free speech as a societal value. Very disconcerting that you and so many other people feel this way. Free speech and competition of ideas is an essential part of our society. To deny free speech is to oppress. > no recourse to the psychological and structural damage they do to our society through their dishone…

>Open, civil, and logical debate of ideas is your recourse. If your ideas cannot win over the majority, maybe you (and possibly that society) deserve to lose

Why should anybody deserve to lose because they fall victim to the masses? How is that in any way justifiable? This is tyranny of the masses, nothing else.

And I would suggest to you that there are numerous countries on this planet that have not elevated free speech to the status of religion, yet guarantee civil rights for much longer than the United States do.

>To deny free speech is to oppress.

And how does this constitute an argument? We oppress the Marburg virus, why are we supposed to turn the other cheek when our society and our values are threatened by destructive forces?

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#374

Post by lisper » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 1:59 AM UTC

jay-saint wrote: post #192

yahna wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gee, I hope my site doesn't happen to anger him in some way.

There are few things worse than nazis. Just make sure your content is better than fascist propaganda and you should be good.

> There are few things worse than nazis. Just make sure your content is better than fascist propaganda and you should be good.

One man's fascist propaganda is another man's social revolution.

This is the thing everyone forgets about the Nazis: they genuinely thought they were the good guys.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#375

Post by kelnos » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 1:59 AM UTC

bqe wrote: post #350

Honest question for people who think this stifles freedom: do you also think taking down ISIS recruitment videos is anti-free speech? Should we not do that either? Online radicalization is real. The challenge of how to deal with that and offer considerable freedom on the Internet will be a challenge for our society.

A very good point. The anti-censorship narrative feels very similar to the right's denial (or at least it's willful ignorance) that white domestic terrorists are a thing in the US.

How is speech perpetrated by white supremacists to incite violence any different from that of foreign terrorist organizations?

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#376

Post by maxlybbert » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 1:59 AM UTC

xorbyte wrote: post #259

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm no lawyer, but I seem to recall that a contract that allows one side to unilaterally withdraw for unspecified reasons is not a real contract (the legal term is "illusory promise" or "illusory contract").

Cloudflare apparently has a legal team, so I have to assume they know whether their terms of service are actually an enforceable contract, but that provision sounds fishy to me.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#377

Post by Spivak » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 2:01 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #351

bqe wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course, but you're ignoring that protected class status is usually granted when discrimination be so pervasive that it is a burden its recipients.

If it becomes commonplace to discriminate against people based on their political ideology then we may very well see the 'political party' protection broadened.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#378

Post by moe » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 2:01 AM UTC

This is what I call good marketing!

There's dozens of CDNs to choose from (https://www.cdnplanet.com/), with the best one obviously being https://fastly.com

However, for most companies it's a wash which CDN to pick.

Unless you're serving media to a large audience the cost is usually in the low triple digits. And unless you need to serve problematic regions (parts of Asia, Africa), there is barely a difference in performance between most of the contenders.

So what tips the scale for any one of the CDNs?

Well, after this move me and certainly others will definitely consider Cloudflare more often than previously - out of sheer sympathy.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#379

Post by Iv » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 2:01 AM UTC

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 am conflicted. On one hand, I totally agree with what you say, on the other hand, the reason I am agreeing is that I fear what a nazi would do with that kind of power.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#380

Post by ng12 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 2:02 AM UTC

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…

> So you're saying I have to interact with Nazis? I have no choice? Hardly.

That depends. Who are you? Is there a code of ethics that would compel you to interact with someone? Is it damaging to society if there isn't?