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

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#211

Post by busymom0 »

roywiggins wrote: post #152
shapiro92 wrote: post #93

Very unpopular opinion. The internet should be free for everyone and no provider should have the ability to cut off services. The problem is not the platform but the people, hate the player not the game.

How do you filter spam if you can't moderate at all? HN only exists as a service because it's quite carefully moderated.

By treating it fairly.

Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom.

Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers".

A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry.

Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#212

Post by frabbit »

tim58 wrote: post #145
madamelic wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When I was younger I thought I was a few speech absolutist. Then I went to where was free speech was absolute and saw what was discussed. Now I favor moderation. How do you determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad"? I feel like there is no absolute way to determine this. (I am being genuine in asking, I want to know what caused this change and how you see "free speech") All speech is good in my opinio…

> 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[.] I think threats are a crime.

Does that extend to US presidential candidates? The Democrats and Republicans both have quite a history of that. (And I am certain that if I bothered I could dig up hundreds of other examples)

Free speech curtailment never works out well no matter the motivations. It is just another control used by the powerful to advance their own interests.

Yes Cloudflare has the right as a private company to do what they want etc, etc. The argument is not narrowly about staying within legal bounds, but what _ought_ to be.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=902894...

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#213

Post by ivl »

libria wrote: post #181
bentona wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like Cloudflare CEO can't decide whether he wants to truly be content-neutral. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/cloudflares-ceo-... Obviously not supporting these sites, but I think an argument can be made for at least being _consistent_ about whether or not you're going to allow only things you find morally reasonable on your service.

> The problem was that other Cloudflare customers started calling and threatening to cancel their service if Cloudflare didn't cut the Daily Stormer off. "The pressure to take it down just kept building and building," [the CEO] told Ars. [...] "I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet," So far he has been a "free speech absolutist" aside from the Daily stormer (economic extremes)…

> Daily stormer (economic extremes) and 8chan (public safety extremes).

Both actually share a large cross section of users. The Daily Stormer was named after storm troopers. It is a cesspool of white supremacists. The same problem that 8chan's userbase has. I expect we'll see a continued deplatforming of sites which allow that ideology to fester.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#214

Post by abtinf »

zaroth wrote: post #185
abtinf wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only governments can censor; it is not a concept that applies to private parties. Cloudflare's decision to not continue a business relationship with someone is not censorship in any meaningful sense of the word.

Of course it’s censorship. It’s just not government censorship.

That is like saying a grocery store that prohibits customers without shirts and shoes is the same thing as the forced famines of communist regimes: they are both starving people.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#217

Post by madamelic »

tim58 wrote: post #145
madamelic wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When I was younger I thought I was a few speech absolutist. Then I went to where was free speech was absolute and saw what was discussed. Now I favor moderation. How do you determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad"? I feel like there is no absolute way to determine this. (I am being genuine in asking, I want to know what caused this change and how you see "free speech") All speech is good in my opinio…

> 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 this signals we have an over dependence on cloudflare, not that we have a free speech problem.

I agree. I dislike the idea of large systems. Being able to throw their weight around is a symptom of the problem.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#218

Post by untog »

kart23 wrote: post #190
untog wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe, this event may become the precedent for all future hosting providers of unpopular opinions Maybe it won't! I feel like every time a controversial site gets shut down message boards are flooded with slippery slope arguments, but by and large I haven't seen it ever transpire.

I'd argue reddit is a decent example. They banned some very hateful subs, and then later started banning subs because they 'were not good for advertising' see r/waterniggas.

That's not a slippery slope, though. That's Reddit banning subs for two different reasons. I'd they banned subs for hateful content then changed the definition of "hateful content" to include things advertisers object to then it would be. But if they're publicly stating that they're doing it because of advertisers then it's not really related.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#219

Post by christoph »

illuminati1911 wrote: post #177
samstave wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am completely against not publishing the name of the shooter. I want to know who these shitbags are. I want their entire family shamed. Who was the shitty ass parents who raised the murderer? Who were his failed doctors or teachers of friens who failed to help prevent. I want to know every god amn detail about this person.. Look at vegas. Look at the failed police/FBI/CIA/whatever investigation that has provided ZE…

I this sarcasm? I honestly find it hard to believe someone would post something like this on HN seriously.

Trolling. Don't feed the trolls.
Post reply on HN