Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Terminating Service for 8Chan

new.blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#511

Post by muzani »

roywiggins wrote: post #118
colejohnson66 wrote: post #100

CloudFlare is not a notice board. They are practically a utility. PG&E aren’t a government, and they can’t cut off your electricity because you’re an extremist. What about ISPs? Should Cox, Comcast, Frontier, etc be liable for what flows through their pipes? Media companies say yes, but what do you do when your ISP says “bye” because you visit 4chan? Go to another ISP? In most areas of the US, you can’t

Cloudflare is a CDN. 8chan has free choice to pick another. It's not a common carrier or a public service in any way. It's just big, which isn't the same thing.

A CDN isn't necessary for a large website to keep running either.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#513

Post by Natanael_L »

the8472 wrote: post #463
panarky wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These sub-communities that people want to censor, do they have any redeeming value? Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a precedent for some hypothetical future censorship of something worthwhile?

> These sub-communities that people want to censor, do they have any redeeming value? The usual example would be cartoon child pornography. Some want to see it wiped off the face of earth, others argue it provides an outlet for pedophiles. > Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a precedent for some hypothetical future censorship of something worthwhile? Maybe that too, but it's more abo…

They can host their own if it's legal, can't they? So sure, kick them off if they're disruptive and hateful. They don't deserve a megaphone.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#514

Post by simula67 »

root_axis wrote: post #512
simula67 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neutrality is not support

Rebroadcasting the message across the internet is supporting it.

If a message and its opposing message has equal access to the platform for rebroadcast, the platform is not supporting any particular message.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#515

Post by odessacubbage »

mort96 wrote: post #234
sytelus wrote: post #205

This is the same argument cake shops make against taking order from gay people. I do believe that so-called manifesto is mind-numbingly dumb, fact-free and it is dangerous in the sense it will inspire more violence against innocent people. But that precisely what makes it a good test case for asking some fundamental questions. Can commercial businesses with deep reach, pricing power and critical function deny service…

Taking orders from gay people and hosting services for sites which support far-right terrorism aren't exactly the same though. We can be against suppressing gay people and for suppressing far-right terrorism even if the means by which the suppression happens is similar.

and what about the the communities for queers and autistics on 8ch that will be lost in order to cater to your particular sense of indignation while in effect doing virtually nothing to limit the ability of psychopathic losers to kill large numbers of people? as an aside assigning any credibility to the motives of crazy person with no value for human life makes no more sense in the case of mass killings than it does to treat those of ted bundy or john wayne gacy or mark david chapman as credible.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#516

Post by zimpenfish »

umvi wrote: post #318
tim58 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad"? Ultimately the courts determine which speech is "good" or "bad" by interpreting the law, but all property owners can determine what speech is permitted on their property (like what cloudflare is doing). I accept some limits on free speech. I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause (yelling fire in a crowded theater). I think con…

> I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause (yelling fire in a crowded theater) I would argue this isn't speech any more than saying a phrase to Alexa that causes an API to be called which then detonates a bomb is speech. I define speech as expression of ideas. Basically, say I maintain a blog. Should there be limits on which ideas I'm allowed to express on that blog? Should I be thrown in jail if…

> Should I be thrown in jail if I express a "bad" idea?

If, say, you're aware that your readers have a tendency towards "exuberance" when it comes to dogpiling / harassing / doxing / etc. people you call out on your blog and your "bad" idea expresses a wish that someone has a very bad time of things, yeah, you should definitely be looking at consequences (perhaps not jail-level, mind) for that idea.

(cf people like Gervais on Twitter who have a consequence-free dogpile mob ready to relentlessly harass anyone criticising them. Or POTUS, in the current instance.)

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#518

Post by zimpenfish »

onyva wrote: post #495

Twitter and Google (& YouTube) have systematically removed ISIS content and redirected these people to messages/sites that are designed to disrupt and deprogram their ideology. They’ve done this effectively for years. They choose not to apply this approach to white supremacy. https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1158032847560675328

> They choose not to apply this approach to white supremacy.

"[...] the measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the very least, their supporters."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-t...

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#519

Post by odessacubbage »

kwesthaus wrote: post #510
FourScore wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But don't you see how the lines blue very quickly? It's not always as clear where morality lies as when some lunatic posts terroristic threats. Arbitrary value judgements must be made when enforcing censorship so censorship always leads to conflict between groups that disagree on what should be censored. That's why the best course of action is to not censor at all and allow the system to work itself out.

> That's why the best course of action is to not censor at all and allow the system to work itself out. I disagree with this sentiment, and upon reflection of why, it seems we've come to a real-life example of the trolly problem. Choosing to be passive and "let the system sort itself out" will almost certainly result in more deaths (edit: specifically in terms of mass shootings), but choosing to be active means the p…

the problem here is that in one case you're sending the trolley into a tunnel where the potential harm or prevention thereof is largely based on your preexisting (and likely incomplete) assumptions.

what if rather than being a viper pit of nefarious hatemongers seeking to brainwash the youth into committing acts of violence, imageboards tend to be popular among a subset of the population more prone to depression & more severe mental illnesses which also happens to the encompass the the kinds of loser psychopath edgelords who commit these sorts of crimes. the whole response around these events simply shows we've learned nothing from columbine and are still in essence trying to eradicate the trenchcoat mafia.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#520

Post by zimpenfish »

odessacubbage wrote: post #515
mort96 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking orders from gay people and hosting services for sites which support far-right terrorism aren't exactly the same though. We can be against suppressing gay people and for suppressing far-right terrorism even if the means by which the suppression happens is similar.

and what about the the communities for queers and autistics on 8ch that will be lost in order to cater to your particular sense of indignation while in effect doing virtually nothing to limit the ability of psychopathic losers to kill large numbers of people? as an aside assigning any credibility to the motives of crazy person with no value for human life makes no more sense in the case of mass killings than it does…

> doing virtually nothing to limit the ability of psychopathic losers to kill large numbers of people

Deplatforming 8chan isn't about limiting the ability of these people to kill large numbers (that would require effective gun control) - it's about removing a source of provocation, radicalisation, cheering, etc. for them both before and after.

Post reply on HN