701–710 of 1001 posts
This Kiwifarms website uploaded Keffals new address and pinned it to the site. Someone has already taken a picture of her apartment and has already been swatted. https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1565050152510947330 https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1565061484073390084?s=20&...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who gets to decide what is "political", too.
Topics that cause disagreements not related to the job can be classified as personal and/or political. We should not take X as client, they are bad -> political We should not take X as client, my ex work there -> political We should not take X as client, they are unreliable with payments -> not political We should not take X as client, clients W, Y, and Z will drop us -> not political
"Why would they drop us?"
"I'm sorry Dave, corporate code forbids me from discussing that"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hosting and DDoS protection are different services. Think of them like a landlord (hosting) vs fire department (ddos) situation - one of them can morally refuse their services to people that they think are doing wrong/illegal/immoral things, the other one doesn't. Not that I agree or disagree with this argument - just wanted to point out what their reasoning seems to be.
> Think of them like a landlord (hosting) vs fire department (ddos) situation This is kind of a ridiculous comparison. A real-world landlord is a private individual extracting rent from their tenants while a real-world fire department is a publicly funded institution with a duty to protect everyone. Cloudflare offers both its hosting and DDOS services as a private company. They aren't morally obligated to provide any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is permitted to say is something for the courts, not for the whims of private businesses, to decide. To the contrary, in this case it's exactly for Cloudflare to decide. They're not a utility.
They've decided they want to be seen as a utility. You undermine your DDOS protection business if you drop controversial customers. They are exact type of customer who need DDOS protection the most.
What does that even mean? How does one defraud the public?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a platform of services like a government service is typically provisioned. While not a democratically elected government, they use governance all the same.
> It's a platform of services like a government service is typically provisioned. It's a monopoly funded by taxes obligated to serve everyone? > While not a democratically elected government, they use governance all the same. This is meaningless.
I did not say it was a government service, I said a platform functions a lot like a government service, especially when multihoming is limited due to switching costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
Hosting content and distributing it are different things (in the same way that printing letters for someone is very different to operating a mail service carrying everyone's letters).
This Kiwifarms website uploaded Keffals new address and pinned it to the site. Someone has already taken a picture of her apartment and has already been swatted. https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1565050152510947330 https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1565061484073390084?s=20&...
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cloudflare. It's in the TOS. They're not a utility, so yes, they get to decide.
Ok then: they have decided, and they decided not to take KF down. 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.
Right, so what exactly is your point here? "Who gets to decide?" -- They do -- "Ok, that's what they decided".
We're all aware of who decided and what they decided. Decisions come with consequences, among them being criticized for your decision making.
That has a real risk of leading to the law being expanded to cover those things. I think we are better off with the law as a second or third layer of morality enforcement rather than it being the first layer.