671–680 of 1001 posts
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just don't want to live in a world where society is governed and censored by big corporations. Wanting them to do so to further my worldview invites others to further the worldview of people I oppose. Leave the governing to the government, especially when it comes to systems with very broad usages (social networks, internet infrastructure, etc.)
I just don't want to live in a world where my trans friends get relentlessly harassed and cyber bullied until they kill themselves. Can I have that?
Assholes and trolls are still going to exist regardless of what any platform does.
You can’t have what you want by trying to pressure cloudflare, it won’t make a positive difference. Do something real instead of advocating for something toothless and symbolic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is this: if there are certain types of content that they deem unacceptable to host, why do they deem it acceptable to protect? I disagree that the paragraph you quoted is relevant to that. But if it is, then it doesn't seem good that their goal of eradicating cyberattacks is more important to them than actual human lives.
To use the analogy in the blog post: renting out a building to drug dealers is different from having firefighters save the drug dealers from a fire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and every large platform. There is so much harassment, doxing, and other disturbing behavior on all the platforms.
This is a remarkably facile comment; on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram you can find people who aren't out to drive trans people to commit suicide, and content which isn't about how to best call SWAT teams to people's homes. On KiwiFarms, that is all there is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and every large platform. There is so much harassment, doxing, and other disturbing behavior on all the platforms.
And each of those platforms you've mentioned have explicit rules AGAINST harassment, doxxing, swatting, and other reprehensible behavior KF engages in. Sure, it may be posted, but lots of it is removed as soon as it is identified and/or reported.
Policies don't mean anything when a huge amount of it stays up and the platform does nothing about it.
There are posts literally and explicitly calling for people to murder others on Twitter. The posts have been there for multiple years (at least the last time I checked). Twitter and the other big players completely fail at content moderation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care if they have policies. They have a huge amount of posts directly advocating violence and doxing that don't get removed.
> Difficulty preventing it at much larger scale does not make them equivalent to Kiwi Farms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just don't want to live in a world where society is governed and censored by big corporations. Wanting them to do so to further my worldview invites others to further the worldview of people I oppose. Leave the governing to the government, especially when it comes to systems with very broad usages (social networks, internet infrastructure, etc.)
I just don't want to live in a world where my trans friends get relentlessly harassed and cyber bullied until they kill themselves. Can I have that?
Large corporations policing free speech is a horrible trend that often enough goes absolutely wrong and the only way to prevent censoring content inappropriately is to not censor anything at all. There are laws and courts that judge over what content should stay online and it should stay their responsibility. If we give that up, we replace democracy with a technocracy, that already showed us plenty of times is not so…
> 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…
Cloudflare is not a public service, the comparison with firefighters is not apt. I’ve been seeing this confusion more and more recently, probably because of the size and omnipresence of corporations. I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts or simply ignorance, but the distinction has to be emphasized. Corporations and public services are completely different beasts, with different legisla…
A gas station has a moral obligation to sell gas without discriminating by race, etc. A gas station does not have a moral obligation to sell gas to arsonists.
I'd be suspicious if a gas station made a press release about how they'll sell gas to anyone but also donate to charity to "make things even". Sounds like they want arsonists to know where they can buy gas.
I am amazed at how cloudflare has turned around and become a reputable, reliable company re: arbitrary breaches of contract based on the CEO's personal opinions. After he breached contract with the Daily Stormer because of "a bad mood" I was sure it'd just devolve into a no-holds barred censorship-fest. Instead he's managing to hold the line against all of the authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other…