241–250 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
KF actively pushes people to commit suicide. People have died because of them.
So does Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and every large platform. There is so much harassment, doxing, and other disturbing behavior on all the platforms.
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…
Agreed, we have a justice system based on what we agreed as a society. The rule of law. If you want to prohibit speech to white supremacists, fine, let’s pass a law and if it doesn’t hold constitutional muster, go ahead convince everyone to amend the constitution. But since our founding fathers made this process difficult on purpose, let’s take a different approach: that’s what social justice is. It is anti-democrati…
The idea that this is what "we agreed as a society" is absurd. The justice system is a thing that evolved in our society largely as a result of powerful people feeding it when it protects their interests.
That wad of text was hard for me to read / get a lot out of. The image though made sense to me: https://blog.cloudflare.com/content/images/2022/08/pasted-im... I think I'd take a similar approach. Basic services, transit and etc would involve less moderation. Actually hosting someone else's BS on my systems more potential moderation. Personally I wouldn't host some jerk at my house, I still would argue they deserve b…
I find the article hopeful for the future of free speech on the internet. Even though the ability to host content on the net is one thing and lacking access to most platforms (where the users actually are) like youtube, facebook, instagram, tiktok is another. The most important thing nowadays is access to the siloed user bases for people who try to express dissident opinions, not the access to the net as whole, even…
This ship has sailed since about 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_cor...
I would like to see new companies that completely reject the status quo in every way:
- No HR departments
- No virtue signaling whatsoever
- Cubicles are back, no open offices
- Only hire based on competence
- Explicitly prohibit any kind of activism at work
- No politics at work
- No tolerance to anything but work. If you sexually harrass someone, instantly fired.
- No woke HR training (no one watches it, yet no one has the courage to say anything about it)
- No green washing pledges (these are not as effective as public thinks)
I'd sign up for a job there. People need to read 1970's annual reports. They were so amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Transparency in a society is extremely important. It is a fundamental right to gather and publish information bringing to the publics attention harmful, disturbing and potentially illegal behavior. 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 probl…
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…
> 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. It's the exact same pattern: Zealots trying to use censorship to suppress those that don't adhere to their ideology. The reason it's confusing is because you're looking at it as a left/right issue when it's not. It's an authoritarian/libertine or extremists v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...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…
And all that while the company refuses to acknowledge that it is full backing. Cloudflare loves to call back on the law when defending Kiwifarms, but then equate themselves to a public utility. If the law intended for it, DDoS protection would be a public utility or at least a protected class of service that can't refuse customers. And if you say that it should be and the law is just lagging behind (and I'd tend to a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Have you thought about the reverse side of your argument? Someone falsely accusing you or your persons of insert-your-favorite-harm and then having your life upended by the social justice mob or corporate actions? It needs to go through a trial. That's what its for.
I doubt they'd be as happy if sites that host speech critical of MTG were being held responsible for contributing to the three SWATings she had recently, to name the most recent example, but this is too emotional and I think people want the corps to respond because they know that the law is harder to change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guess what? They do. FTA: > Our decision to disable access to content in hosting products fundamentally results in that content being taken offline, at least until it is republished elsewhere. Hosting products are subject to our Acceptable Hosting Policy. Under that policy, for these products, we may remove or disable access to content that we believe: [...] Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of ot…
The article says that providing CDN and DDOS protection services for KiwiFarms doesn't constitute hosting. The GP commenter clearly disagrees. I'll be honest: it really does seem like a distinction without a difference to me. If Cloudflare stopped doing business with Kiwifarms, it wouldn't be online. Kiwifarms is doing a great deal of harm to the world by being online. At the end of the day, Cloudflare has a moral re…
Someone said The Daily Stormer and 8Chan are online today.[1] But this would mean Cloudflare can stop doing business with Kiwi Farms without limiting speech.