261–270 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A utility is typically a natural monopoly providing some sort of essential service. Cloudflare is neither.
What happens if all other providers refuse you as well on same basis? What if Comcast refuse you to provide any internet service because they don't like your views on net neutrality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Given that, this seems like a reasonable exercise of that power, and that's about the best we can hope for. Maybe, this event may become the precedent for all future hosting providers of unpopular opinions and where denial of service attacks become used against these hosting providers. Losing protection from anti-ddos service(s) becomes a process to eliminate the unpopular opinions being expressed. I think this is d…
It is disingenuous to describe white supremacy as "an unpopular opinion".
Criminalizing free speech limits our ability to think and arrive at the truth, and that can’t be good for anyone long term.
I haven’t heard of a good rebuttal to the above reasoning.
This decision is yet another distraction. It's attempting to treat an ephemeral symptom in a rapidly evolving landscape of digital identity and communications. Things are only getting faster, easier, more connected, more distributed, and more encrypted. There is no going back. Until we collectively acknowledge that it's real humans behind these actions and create modern ways to identify and prevent them, a DDoS/CDN c…
>Until we collectively acknowledge that it's real humans behind these actions and create modern ways to identify and prevent them Surely this has no downsides at all. For example, you can rest easy because YOUR ideas and YOUR opinions will never stray off the “approved” line. ... how is it people in tech can’t see past their own noses on things like this?
We don't allow people to drive anyway they like on the roads, we have basic set of rules that allow everyone a lot more freedom to go where they want, violation of those rules tends to cause harm, and if it was total "freedom" then it would be chaos. If we cannot work out what those are for speech( and we already have some )so that everyone gets more effective freedoms, then more harm will keep happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mass shootings (generally) don't kill that many people. They are scary, yes, but not that deadly (statistically) Logic like that is usually applied to forces of nature. Or at least things that provide utility in return for this risk (e.g. cars). Mass shootings don't really fit that mould. "stop telling people things" strikes me as a strange response. We could have a nationwide epidemic of mass shootings flying unde…
> We could have a nationwide epidemic of mass shootings flying under the radar entirely. There are published statistics. They suggest that the focus should be on car safety, driving and worrying about bad habits that have health impacts. We'd know if there was a problem and the evidence is that your greatest enemy is you. It'd be interesting to get statistics on how many of these shootings are linked to drug abuse th…
But no government data unlike car deaths, because the gun lobby blocks any attempt to actually fund research into gun deaths.
On the one hand, I like the idea of a free, open, and distributed internet, where no one company or government has the power to control what is distributed or discussed. As the great John Gilmore said, more aspirationally than accurately even then: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." On the other hand, we don't live in that world, and I don't know how well it would work in practice if we d…
This feels like a misunderstanding of the word freedom. Freedom in speech means that I can say what I want. It does _not_ mean that a hosting company has to host it or that a CDN has to optimize it or that a search company has to rank it or that an ad-network has to monetize it. Each of those players is free to do what they think is best with their time, resources, etc.; which often includes thinking of what "the pub…
Should that mean the water company can cut your water off for criticizing them?
Should that mean that a bank can refuse to give you a loan, because you said something bad, even if your credit is more than acceptable?
-------------------------------
Remember this: its the extremist that the law is made around. And soon enough, the law will be wrapped around non-extremists and used as let another tool of influence and control. The worst part is that anyone who speaks against this sort of law is seen to be defending the extremists, and is seen as a despicable person - yet the criticizers never stop to think about the average Joe and Jane.
This ain't the internet I was promised when I was 11.
It would be better if cloudflare terminated service for all media outlets. Every time you turn a mass shooting into a national spectacle, it inspires copycats in rapid succession as we've just seen. Mass shootings (generally) don't kill that many people. They are scary, yes, but not that deadly (statistically). Keep it local news, don't publish the name of the killer, basically keep the story away from the front line…
I disagree. News reports what happened. These days people seem to see news organizations as the enemy or at least the news organizations they don't like. Although one thing I have noticed about news these days is it tends to voice personal opinion openly much more than years ago. Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings wouldn't spout their own opinion they'd tell you what happened, and that's it. Show the bodies,…
CloudFlare is not a notice board. They are practically a utility. PG&E aren’t a government, and they can’t cut off your electricity because you’re an extremist. What about ISPs? Should Cox, Comcast, Frontier, etc be liable for what flows through their pipes? Media companies say yes, but what do you do when your ISP says “bye” because you visit 4chan? Go to another ISP? In most areas of the US, you can’t
>They are practically a utility. How exactly does a person come to believe nonsense like this? The US government doesn't even argue that the internet itself is a utility. I know that net neutrality has been argued about extensively, but people seem to forget that neutrality lost . Even trying to start a discussion from where you are standing is off to a bad start. You are ignoring reality from the get-go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yes, and ultimately noticeboardflare has the right to do whatever the hell they want. And if your noticeboard is inciting nearly weekly mass homicides, maybe the noticeboard you're trying to support is a shitty noticeboard.
> you're trying to support This isn't about "supporting" someone's views. This is about simply allowing one to speak. Otherwise Google should be held liable for every single illegal thing that happens on their platform (and there are ton of those).