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

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#381

Post by [deleted] »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #292
tyre wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When you use the tired, old "businesses can refuse to serve anybody they want" argument, understand that you are using the same arguments used in the past to refuse business to various races, creeds, orientations etc. that are now protected classes. That really ought to make you queasy and perhaps you should contemplate why. By the way, some states are now recognizing that political affiliation needs to be a protecte…

[deleted]

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#382

Post by javagram »

busymom0 wrote: post #207
Spivak wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be legally required to do business with any customer? At some level does a person not have the right to say, "I don't like you and won't take your money?" Sure, the US and others have protected classes that limit the reasons you can refuse to do business with someone but those are more to do with people in those classes being unfairly burdened and facing difficulty living tier day-to-day lives.

> 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…

Your statement about Section 230 is a little unclear, so to clarify - what you are expressing is what you want the law to be, not what it actually is.

“Platform” vs “publisher” is not part of the actual Section 230, which allows platforms to keep the protection while doing all the active censoring and moderating that they want. There’s a good summary on Wikipedia.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#383

Post by rfrey »

internet_user wrote: post #258
ALittleLight wrote: post #91

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.

Of course, the only bad speech is speech you personally dislike?

Of course it will be true on its face that "bad speech" will be disliked by the people claiming it is bad.

This phrase suggests that ALL speech that non-absolutists dislike will be categorized as harmful enough to society to be disallowed. That is a view nobody I've ever met holds.

I am not a free speech absolutist. I believe 99.9999% of speech I dislike, even speech I dislike intensely and believe is harmful to society, should still be allowed by society. That I think 0.00001% crosses a line where its harm outweighs the benefit of an zero-tolerance, non-negotiable absolute freedom of speech.

Throwing off a facile "oh, you'll just ban speech you don't like" is just jingoism. It's no different than saying people who favour less immigration are Nazis, or people who favour universal health care are communists.

It avoids thinking by name-calling.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#384

Post by Mirioron »

yongjik wrote: post #240
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…

In every other, let's say, G20 country, someone shooting up a shopping mall and killing 20 will absolutely make national news - they will talk about it for months and it will be ranked "top ten worst news for $country in 2019", if not the absolute worst. In some countries (let's say, Korea) reporters will probably dig into the shooter's elementary school transcripts and interview second cousins. In other words, if an…

>In every other, let's say, G20 country, someone shooting up a shopping mall and killing 20 will absolutely make national news - they will talk about it for months and it will be ranked "top ten worst news for $country in 2019", if not the absolute worst.

I don't think this would apply to China and India. Every other country in the world has a lower national population than the US. Yet I doubt that your statement even applies to countries such as Brazil and Nigeria.

You really do have to take population numbers into account when you look at what the media focuses on. No other western country even comes close to the population the US has, so it gives the impression that the US is somehow much worse.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#385

Post by abernard1 »

saagarjha wrote: post #126
King-Aaron wrote: post #56

A lot of not-so-subtle support for 8chan leaking into this thread. Cloudfare aren't a government. They aren't a democracy. I don't know why some people seem to think they should act any differently. If you own a notice board in the real world, and someone put something horrible on it, you would take it down. This is no different.

The problem is that Cloudflare keeps trying to position themselves as not being in the business of deciding what can be on the internet, but they have twice made the decision to do so. Also, since you mentioned it and hence made this disclaimer obligatory: I have zero sympathy for 8chan, and I don't agree with the views espoused there.

Cloudflare has also come out directly in support of "net neutrality" (https://blog.cloudflare.com/tag/net-neutrality/).

Broadly speaking, there's (at least) two forms of net neutrality:

1) Different classes of traffic will be treated identically and not throttled indiscriminately (VOIP vs web content vs bittorrent etc.)

2) Content cannot be arbitrarily restricted by a technical provider.

If there was substantial abuse with their platform based upon technical reasons in case 1, I could see that as cause for termination.

Their arguments against denying service to 8chan are based upon case 2. Given where Cloudflare sits in the internet infrastructure layer, their supporting a pro-net neutrality position enforced upon ISPs while not applying that standard to themselves strikes me as more than a tad hypocritical.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#386

Post by internet_user »

pilif wrote: post #368
internet_user wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, the only bad speech is speech you personally dislike?

I feel that an easy rule to apply is that speech about hurting or even killing others is unambiguously bad speech Everything else is up for debate. But this single exception I hope every human being can agree on.

How about you go and campaign to ban major news networks from reporting on successful drone strikes and bombing raids in Iraq/Syria /other such places.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#387

Post by cheeky78 »

8chan didn't cause the incident. The shooter did. If we find out that the shooter played a specific video game that a previous shooter played..should it be banned as well?

I'm old enough to remember all of the court cases that involved distressed parents blaming hard rock/metal bands for influencing their children's suicides.

These sorts of incidents are starting to remind me of the religious right's censorship crusade in the 90s...this time it's coming from the left.

Banning these sites will only push them underground. They aren't going away. The end result will be absolutely no way of knowing when and where a shooting may occur.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#388

Post by i_am_nomad »

devmunchies wrote: post #172
anonu wrote: post #114

Very well written and cogent post. But as they point out, the internet is designed to be open and free. And this type of hateful content will still have a platform. There's sadly nothing that can be done about that. You can always suppress and control speech, but the people who want to hear it will also always find a way to seek it out.

Why should we censor hateful speech? Do you mean violent speech? Whenever I come across hateful speech I usually chuckle, roll my eyes, and move on.

Which is the response that is arguably the most mature and best for society. Unfortunately, not everyone reacts that way.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#389

Post by rdtsc »

01100011 wrote: post #354
rdtsc wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Actually not sure. I guess even for 2, why is there more attention received for some vs others? So it's a bit tautological / recursive.

The media is in the middle of the feedback loop, it can both generate attention and react to it. Given that position they push a narrative if it gets more ad views.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#390

Post by word-reader »

cthulha wrote: post #353
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…

It had already been against Cloudflare's ToS to transmit unlawful content, like child pornography or sex trafficking. These things do not exist on 8chan. I am suggesting that Cloudflare could have clarified or expanded "unlawful content" to include certain types of incitement to violence that are normally considered within 1st amendment bounds.
Post reply on HN