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

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#331

Post by slg »

baddox wrote: post #283
word-reader wrote: post #199

This post repeatedly refers to 8chan as "lawless" and "unmoderated" but it is neither. As a whole, it is a public website subject to US law, complete with DMCA and search warrant contact forms. The sitewide rule is that all content must comply with US law. The media also keeps saying 8chan, 8chan, 8chan over and over, when it is really just the one most popular board ("pol") that is being discussed. But there are hun…

Isn’t the concern about the gradual radicalization that occurs in these online communities, and not about specific posts that threaten violence or announce impending mass shootings?

And the grandparent's comment about there being boards for other topics is why the radicalization is such a problem (the same thing applies to Reddit and Youtube's recommended video algorithm). The normal content is what attracts people to the site, but once there, they see the radicalized content mixed in with it. This ends up normalizing the radicalized content making it easier to recruit new members. Very few people will go out of their way to go to the Daily Stormer or some other site dedicated specifically to hate. But it is easier to be lured in when that content is just a part of the site.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#332

Post by chx »

rand_r wrote: post #263

The best argument I’ve heard for being a free speech absolutist is that speech is the highest form of thought in Humans. We think via dialogue. We arrive at the truth via dialogue. 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.

Limiting who and how can experiment with anthrax doesn't seem like a limitation on science -- it looks sanity to me.

Since ideas are just as viral and as deadly there is nothing inherently wrong with limiting the spread of some.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#333

Post by ViViDboarder »

devmunchies wrote: post #130
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…

>8chan is supporting these actions You don’t know anything about the chans if you think 8chan collectively supports shootings.

I don’t think they are referring to the people on it collectively. The site owners are implicitly supporting it by not moderating that type of content.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#334

Post by geofft »

word-reader wrote: post #199

This post repeatedly refers to 8chan as "lawless" and "unmoderated" but it is neither. As a whole, it is a public website subject to US law, complete with DMCA and search warrant contact forms. The sitewide rule is that all content must comply with US law. The media also keeps saying 8chan, 8chan, 8chan over and over, when it is really just the one most popular board ("pol") that is being discussed. But there are hun…

> Cloudflare would have been in a better position to actually change 8chan if they had kept them on and pressured them.

So, this was Cloudflare's position as of earlier today: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/04/mass-shoo...

> "It would be the easiest thing in the world and it would feel incredibly good for us to kick 8chan off our network, but I think it would step away from the obligation that we have and cause that community to still exist and be more lawless over time."

> "For us the question is which is the worse evil? Is the worse evil that we kick the can down the road and don’t take responsibility? Or do we get on the phone with people like you and say we need to own up to the fact that the internet is home to many amazing things and many terrible things and we have an absolute moral obligation to deal with that."

So, the question for you and for Matthew Prince-as-of-a-few-hours-ago is, if Cloudflare was in fact in such a better position to actually change 8chan, why didn't they?

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#335

Post by wvenable »

cambalache wrote: post #228
busymom0 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should be legally required to do business with any customer? No you shouldn't be. But this should also be treated 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 fo…

Go open an ice-cream shop and refuse to serve Asian people because you dont like them.

You can refuse a serve an Asian person. You just can't refuse to serve Asian people in general.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#336

Post by jlgaddis »

ipython wrote: post #140
selectodude wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but now they can be DDoS’d.

Isn’t the DDoS a form of free speech though? At the risk of being uber pedantic, on the internet, speech is reduced to packet delivery from source to destination. Therefore, one could make an argument that DDoS protection is in itself stifling free speech?

In the same way that punching someone in the face is "speech", yeah.

In the U.S., at least, one is free to argue any number of ignorant things -- and often does.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#337

Post by ebg13 »

xfitm3 wrote: post #304
baddox wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t the concern about the gradual radicalization that occurs in these online communities, and not about specific posts that threaten violence or announce impending mass shootings?

Isn't banning/silencing communities like these the real radicalization?

They're not being banned or silenced. They're being told "get off my property".

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#338

Post by spaginal »

lurchpop wrote: post #282

Isn’t this all predicated on a manifesto that surfaced before the dust even settled? Also saw reports the manifesto was a hoax. Everyone needs to slow the hell down.

Essentially. Mass shootings have turned into a political spectacle at this point. It is it’s own version of a left versus right blood sport now, where everyone is quick to keep a score.

The media and entertainment industries specifically, since they own the eyes and ears of America, want to desperately pin every shooting on white conservatives. Any iota of evidence, verified or not, will get blasted into the aether as a boastful victory dance. Then they blast it 24/7 and glamorize it, and we get more copycats looking for desperate attention being further fueled by it.

Case in point, look how the media handled the shooter that was a Bernie supporter. Violence, compelled by a difference set of hateful ideas and language, but it was given a day or two and buried. No knee jerk reactions, no 24/7 parade of glorification and filth, just buried.

It’s rather perverse and grotesque.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#339

Post by meddlepal »

xfitm3 wrote: post #304
baddox wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t the concern about the gradual radicalization that occurs in these online communities, and not about specific posts that threaten violence or announce impending mass shootings?

Isn't banning/silencing communities like these the real radicalization?

CloudFlare is under no obligation to serve 8chan. There is nothing radical about denying service to unprotected classes of people you don't want in or using your business.

I would agree this is a problem if the US Government was trying to suppress speech.

Post reply on HN