191–200 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They (KiwiFarms, Daily Stormer) would be better not on the internet. Who should decide that? Cloudflare? you?
Cloudflare. It's in the TOS. They're not a utility, so yes, they get to decide.
Their TOS gives them the lateral autonomy to decide what breaks the TOS, whether or not something violates their TOS, and how harsh of a punishment to enact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not actually commendable to host content for white supremacists and transphobes. Free speech may be deserving of protection, but white supremacists using the internet to coordinate real-world activities (such as terrorist attacks) doesn't actually qualify as "free speech" deserving protection against "authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other down".
"I support free speech except the things that I don't like"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Free speech may be deserving of protection, but white supremacists using the internet to coordinate real-world activities (such as terrorist attacks) doesn't actually qualify as "free speech" deserving protection against "authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other down". Then I'm sure these activists will have no trouble moving proving their arguments in a courtroom, which is the proper space for such…
Unfortunately, it's extremely hard to prove allegations of abuse by skilled actors that know how to use their tools (tools that are really easy to use). KF's lead admin states it plainly: use a VPN, because KF complies with subpoenas. If folks were committing high-end acts of terrorism against elected officials regularly, the baddies might not be safe. But if you're a trans streamer with a small following, if the fol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Free speech may be deserving of protection, but white supremacists using the internet to coordinate real-world activities (such as terrorist attacks) doesn't actually qualify as "free speech" deserving protection against "authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other down". Then I'm sure these activists will have no trouble moving proving their arguments in a courtroom, which is the proper space for such…
Unfortunately, it's extremely hard to prove allegations of abuse by skilled actors that know how to use their tools (tools that are really easy to use). KF's lead admin states it plainly: use a VPN, because KF complies with subpoenas. If folks were committing high-end acts of terrorism against elected officials regularly, the baddies might not be safe. But if you're a trans streamer with a small following, if the fol…
It needs to go through a trial. That's what its for.
> Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. > For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation…
> ...we worked with our Proudflare employee resource group to identify an organization that supported LGBTQ+ rights and donate 100 percent of the fees for our services to them. I'm sure their LGBTQ+ employees will appreciate that when they get doxxed, swatted, and harassed every hour of the day and night because they're providing critical resources to the groups doing so. Their position probably really does come from…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Net neutrality was never about deplatforming, due process, or censorship. It was about ISPs prioritizing traffic or providing free bandwidth for their own services and throttling or charging extra fees for third party services (e.g. Time Warner providing access to their own streaming service without counting towards your bandwidth cap, but not doing the same for Netflix). It was an economic issue, not a political one…
>It was an economic issue, not a political one. The two can't be disentangled. Woke censorship is often justified through economic self-interest nowadays. Do you really believe activists 20 years ago would be placated if ISPs had simply promised to throttle only based on politics rather than economics?
> Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. > For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation…
> Another automated moderation system that checks for certain keywords? Ask the LGBTQ people banned from Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/Google/etc. if those systems really work all that well.
This is so, so true. Both automated and human review systems often times don't handle or protect minority users well.
(Reasonable Disclosure: I still terminated my services with CloudFlare over this.)
CloudFlare opened Pandora's box. It will never be able to shut it. When private companies become enforcers of public morality, you will quickly find morality is shaped by what is profitable. This is a horrible idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I support free speech except the things that I don't like"
The site in question is one of the most notorious doxxing and harassment forums, linked to multiple suicides of their victims over the years. I'm not sure what principled political speech you think is being protected here.
What principled political speech should be protected you ask? My answer is investigative journalism.
If you believe investigative journalism should exist and plays an important function in society, you should have no problem with outlets doing that.
Never thought I'd see the Left trying to weaponize corporations to suppress speech they dislike. Reminds me a LOT of Evangelicals in the 2000s - I know that comparison has been made frequently but that's the last group that made a serious censorship push. I wonder how all of this will end? I support CloudFlare here - they should act as a utility, not as an arbiter of content. This ends poorly and one day will bite th…
Quoted post unavailable.