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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#351

Post by ufmace »

rdtsc wrote: post #274
umvi wrote: post #34

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…

> By turning every mass shooting into a hysterical emotional maelstrom, you signal a green light to all the other potential shooters that this is how you get attention. I can see that point. There is also something odd about what shootings get publicized and which don't. Some shooters, seem to be getting more media attention than others. Is it the manifestos or maybe the number of victims? I remember the Congressiona…

It's the politics. If it helps the narrative of the left, it gets wall-to-wall coverage. If it hurts the narrative of the left, it goes down the memory hole as fast as possible.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#352

Post by snowwrestler »

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.

Free speech shouldn’t be criminalized.

But, neither does anyone have a right to an audience. And that’s what this is really about. Cloudflare is not depriving 8chan of their freedom of speech; they are just declining to assist 8chan in finding an audience.

I also disagree that speech is the highest form of thought in humans, but that is a sort of a side topic.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#353

Post by cthulha »

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

I call bullshit.

What plan do you have in mind for _Cloudflare_ to create a culture change on _8chan_?

How does this fit into Cloudflare's strategy and competencies as a network provider?

Are you suggesting they have some obligation to provide service and to try and shape the community, or just that they are compelled to provide a commercial service to people who encourage massacres?

You haven't thought through your own suggestion.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#354

Post by 01100011 »

rdtsc wrote: post #274
umvi wrote: post #34

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…

> By turning every mass shooting into a hysterical emotional maelstrom, you signal a green light to all the other potential shooters that this is how you get attention. I can see that point. There is also something odd about what shootings get publicized and which don't. Some shooters, seem to be getting more media attention than others. Is it the manifestos or maybe the number of victims? I remember the Congressiona…

What do you think is more likely:

1. News media decides how long to keep a story active in the news cycle in order to push a narrative.

2. News media reacts to the attention a story received and keeps popular stories active longer to sell more ads.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#356

Post by DoreenMichele »

internet_user wrote: post #285
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?

Has it occurred to you that radicalization actually happens offline, perhaps even in childhood, due to some kind of real life events, and nothing to do with internet at all? All of this rooted in meatspace. The so called "social defeat". How often do you see successful people that have a fullfilling life go on rampages?

Radicalization tends to be a function of getting access to a group of like-minded people who agree with your angry/hostile/prejudiced views while simultaneously being socially cut off from moderating influences. The internet is able to connect isolated individuals with that group of like-minded people.

One of the dangers of Internet access to such is people who only know you online may feel more comfortable with encouraging your radicalization than if it was in person because they aren't in immediate danger, nor at high risk of being asked to participate, etc. It can seem inconsequential to agree with extremist statements. People who might hesitate to agree in person may not hesitate to agree on a discussion board.

There are good and bad things that come out of the relative freedom to speak our minds online. Opportunity for radicalization is one of the bad things that comes of it.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#357

Post by the8472 »

slg wrote: post #331
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?

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 peop…

> The normal content is what attracts people to the site, but once there, they see the radicalized content mixed in with it.

I don't think this argument holds when the boards are compartmentalized. Otherwise you could generalize it to the internet as a whole, where things are also compartmentalized into sites.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#358

Post by s_Hogg »

smithproxy wrote: post #271
s_Hogg wrote: post #78

Seems to me like a lot of the arguments against why this shouldn't happen or isn't effective basically amount to some sort of whatabouttery. Well done Cloudflare, I hope their next host takes the same attitude or can be induced to.

Don't be fooled. It's not a virtuous move. It's a business decision. If they wanted to be virtuous, they'd start working with groups to solve the problem--counteracting radicalization.

I'm aware of that but nonetheless believe it's a step in the right direction and that they should be congratulated. I don't think this means anyone should give them an easier time as a result.

Countering radicalisation involves the use of both carrot and stick where services like Cloudflare and others are involved.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#359

Post by mLuby »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #306
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…

I think a point of contention over the unmoderated aspect is that compared to it's sister site 4chan which will actively coordinate with authorities and temporarily take the site down whenever evidence is being collected, 8chan appears to treat the authorities with contempt to the point of needing a search warrant. It's creator Fredrick calling for the site's shutdown was the killing strike in my opinion, though the…

>treat the authorities with contempt to the point of needing a search warrant

Everyone must comply with lawful orders—that's the point of the law. Respect is not mandatory (so long as it doesn't interfere with lawful orders); it is earned and can be lost.

If this were not true, the right to avoid self-incrimination would be meaningless.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#360

Post by sk5t »

untog wrote: post #159
sk5t wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with the return of some simple political will Gun control is a "third rail" in many political jurisdictions in the USA. Many Americans will vote against any agent who would disarm them; those voters are unlikely to see disarming to diminish the (very roughly) ~0.000001% chance of death by mass shooting as a sensible--or even Constitutional--trade.

85% of the population approves of increased background checks for gun owners. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing debate.

"Gun people" might be skeptical of the 85% number because there are already background checks, with which "non-gun people" by definition are unfamiliar. Is there something preventing the existing system from becoming better naturally (I honestly don't know the answer here)? I would hazard to guess the 15% of dissenters to be wary of the survey-takers' motives, the particulars of how background checks might be governmentally instrumented to be better, stuff like that. Consider that the prior administration floated the idea of barring folks on the no-fly list from possessing guns, which seems an awfully bureaucratically unconstitutional thing after even slight consideration.
Post reply on HN