Live data from Hacker News

Terminating Service for 8Chan

new.blog.cloudflare.com

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#41
post #3

I thought they had just stated they weren't going to end suport: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20607945

I don't know if the article was updated or what, but near the end:

"Late Sunday, following hours of public criticism, Cloudflare announced a major reversal, saying 8chan had gone too far and “repeatedly proven itself to be a cesspool of hate.” Its access to Cloudflare services was scheduled to terminate at midnight Pacific time, making it more vulnerable to a potentially crippling cyberattack."

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#43
Well, they're at least making their position clear here. They are not a government or a public forum. As such, they can decide who and what they will support on the internet. Can't argue with their decision on that point.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#44
post #3

I thought they had just stated they weren't going to end suport: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20607945

Yes, but Cloudflare needs talented engineers, and talented engineers don’t sign up to serve clients like 8chan. Software doesn’t run on one person’s contrarian politics.

There is nothing inherently virtuous about talented engineers, and in fact some of the most talented engineers I’ve come across in the industry have very loose morals.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#45
If you build a system that is technically possible for someone to censor, particularly if you make it easy to do (and in fact where not doing so would cost them potentially billions of dollars in market cap in an upcoming IPO, recruiting, sales, vendors, etc), you shouldn’t be at all surprised when they do censor. It is interesting that Cloudflare has only really censored two sites (dailystormer and 8chan) outside of a fairly clearly articulated terms of service. There are clearly a large number of sites on Cloudflare which are a net liability to them and always will be, so the “free speech” stance is genuine.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#46

Why does Cloudflare feel the need to take action here? Only a minority believe that 8chan is the culprit in creating these gunmen, and fewer people have called for Cloudflare specifically to shutdown 8chan. By staying idle the conversation would've moved onto gun control, but now they're going to make this round of shootings all about online community policy which IMHO is a futile scapegoat.

> Why does Cloudflare feel the need to take action here?

The linked article gives their reason.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#47
He should fire his PR. Terrible writing and hard to read. And probably 4-5 times longer than needed.

Also it is bad idea to get political. And I feel that a lot of those companies are gonna get punished in the next few years.

And he didn't managed to even make his case. He accused 8 chan of lawlessness while never actually stating which law they broke.

Just say they are too much trouble and be done with it, without sounding fake.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#48
> the suspected terrorist gunman appears to have been inspired by the forum website known as 8chan

Is this because he posted his manifesto on 8chan or other sources point to 8chan as the source of his extremism?

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#49
This is great news.

There will be lots of people who are frustrated by this. They may say that Cloudflare shouldn't remove content unless they are legally required. Or that a CDN like Cloudflare is a platform layer, deep in the stack, and that it shouldn't be making decisions based on content. That they are a essentially a utility, and that they should provide the the same service to everyone.

But at the end of the day, companies are run by people. And those people should consider the positive and negative concequences of the services they provide. It is the moral thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is the courageous thing to do.

That doesn't mean they must block every potentially bad actor. And they don't need to block based explicitly on content. Here, the line was drawn at "platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design." But when situations arise that cause decision makers at an organization to re-consider providing their services to their customers, they should take that opportunity to re-evaluate. They should ask, "Do we want to be hosting this?"

In this case, they said "No."

Maybe some other customers will leave, afraid of being kicked off next. They should take that into account. If you think your service is sufficiently like 8Chan, you should probably leave Cloudflare. Or if you think Cloudflare's decision was arbitrary and that worries you, you should leave.

But maybe others will be happy that their CDN doesn't need to be associated with hosting 8Chan's content. I know I feel that way.

Maybe the goodwill you receive will lead to more financial success. But you'll probably never know. In all likelihood, so long as your customers aren't leaving in droves after you kick someone off your platform, you'll never know if the decision was the right financial decision.

You'll probably never know if it was a net positive or negative on your balance sheet. But you might sleep better at night. And maybe sites that enable the propagate hate will find it a little bit harder to survive. And I think that's great.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#50

Why does Cloudflare feel the need to take action here? Only a minority believe that 8chan is the culprit in creating these gunmen, and fewer people have called for Cloudflare specifically to shutdown 8chan. By staying idle the conversation would've moved onto gun control, but now they're going to make this round of shootings all about online community policy which IMHO is a futile scapegoat.

Political discussion happens all the time on Hacker News, but you don't see many mass shooters from HN. Culture of the online communities matters a lot (and moderation). I don't think chans create gunmen per se, but they assist to radicalize antisocial young men.

I don't think anything is gained from political discussion on *chans. Free speech is important, and no company should be legally punished for providing these spaces, but that doesn't mean discouraging them from existing is wrong.

Post reply on HN