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

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#441

Post by rsynnott »

internet_user wrote: post #250
hi5eyes wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*so in that sense, the media is juicing its numbers thats all they're doing >public is not made aware of this very tragic problem everyone is quite aware of what the problems are, many view the children murdered during Sandy Hook as the end of the conversation. The decisions were made. most first world countries have solved these problems, the US meanwhile... ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regu…

Think about this event for 1 minute: He drove for -9- hours. NINE HOURS. Do you think it would take less than 9 hours to pour some diesel fuel on fertilizer and flatten the entire WalMart? People will just move on to other weapons: knives, bombs, etc. Norway has very restrictive gun laws. Breivik managed to get enough fertilizer to make a bomb that was mostly a distraction, but still sent 8 people to grave and injure…

The UK ‘knife crime’ thing is severely overhyped (in particular, most of the figures you’ll see include mere possession of a knife under certain circumstances). The UK’s intentional homicide rate is middling for Europe and about a fourth that of the US. Homicide rate has risen a little bit over the last few years.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#442

Post by ignoramous »

Lazare wrote: post #15

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…

Cloudflare is committing itself to do as they are told by the governments, in the spirit of upholding the law [0] on govts' behalf (despite under no obligation to do so), if they deem fit.

Whether this makes them reasonable, time will tell. Full marks to Cloudflare for so eloquently addressing this and covering themselves with as much grace as they could muster. If one reads between the lines, censorship is coming. This isn't different from what jgrahamc said a few months back in the news [1].

Signals a new era for Cloudflare, going from protector to arbitrator [2], for better or for worse.

[0] for instance, it was and still is a crime to be a minority in some countries.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774347

[2] Not an expert, but it'd be nice if they allowed 30 to 90 day time period before termination, rather than doing it overnight?

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#443

Post by pilif »

internet_user wrote: post #386
pilif wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reporting on harm is not the same as inciting harm

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#444

Post by FourScore »

Lazare wrote: post #15

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…

So you're willing to give unchecked control of online discourse to a private corporation?

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#445

Post by slg »

madamelic wrote: post #110
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.

>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…

>How do you determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad"?

Speech becomes bad when it infringes on the rights of another group or individual. Where that specific line is drawn does vary, but the underlying principle is the same and one that seemingly everyone agrees with. The US happens to be near the absolute extreme to where this line is drawn.

Whether you think hate speech infringes on the rights of the targeted group is up for debate. People don't have an inherent right to not be offended (which is why I am against the few western countries that still have blasphemy laws). However, hate speech on sites like 8chan does often lead to speech that incites violence. There can be no debate that people have a right to safety. Speech that incites violence infringes on that right.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#446

Post by Jyaif »

What's happening is that 8chan is indirectly costing Cloudflare money by hurting their brand and their employees' morale. Rather than refusing sketchy clients, companies should factor these costs in their pricing. Conversely, universally loved entities (e.g. Greenpeace) should be be offered lower prices.

This would create an incentive for companies to be better.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#447

Post by Alex3917 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #435
Alex3917 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, neither does anyone have a right to an audience. Free speech includes the right to be heard. That's why the government is allowed to kick you out of political rallies/meetings if you're just there to protest or whatever; you're not allowed to try to shout over someone else to prevent them from talking, rather if you disagree with them then you need to go find your own followers to try to convince. edit: To all…

This has nothing to do with the right to be heard. In this case, it'd be about requiring CloudFlare to _assist_ 8chan in _being_ heard. And there's no such right, or ruling. 8chan's hosting isn't even being yanked, only their access to an edge caching CDN. I'm really struggling to see a "free speech" issue here. What if Google Analytics decides not to offer 8chan analytics? Does that also interfere with the right to…

> In this case, it'd be about requiring CloudFlare to _assist_ 8chan in _being_ heard. And there's no such right, or ruling.

The comment I was replying to was about what the constitutional right to free speech entails, not about what CloudFlare is required to do.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#448

Post by 481092 »

kuzehanka wrote: post #425
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.

You're in favour of censorship. Moderation is keeping discussion civil and on-topic, which interestingly enough mostly happens by itself in 'absolute free speech' spaces. What you support is the selective suppression of ideas that you don't like. Don't call it moderation. Call it by its name. Censorship. Cloudflare isn't 'moderating' 8chan. It's deplatforming it and enacting censorship.

"Absolute free speech" is like anarchism. I've yet to meet someone who fully practices them both yet they will preach it and condemn others with their self-righteous hypocrisy. Would you want me to come up to your kid and cuss him out for no reason? Your mom? I wouldn't even have to use foul language to bother them. Any number of reasons I could really annoy you or your loved ones with free speech and in some cases really make them fear for their life, legal or not, especially if I was famous and had an internet army to "play" with them.

Free speech is the equivalent of "utopia". It doesn't exist because even the most ardent endorsers have shown kinks in their armor where they don't want people to use it against them at certain times and certain ways. You argue against the selective suppression of ideas yet you may reply to me and tell me this idea needs suppressed. Most people already see the kinks of hypocrisy in it and have long realized it, like all other freedoms, are best used moderately so as not to infringe on the freedoms of others.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#449

Post by NikkiA »

55555 wrote: post #170
NikkiA wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8chan claims not to be able to ban content because of the way they are set up, as such they have no real control even over people running pedo boards. That is pretty obviously 'lawless by design'.

> 8chan claims not to be able to ban content because of the way they are set up How is this implemented?

The only people that can ban content are the board owners.

Sure I imagine they could go db diving and ban content manually, but they don't want to.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#450

Post by panarky »

the8472 wrote: post #427
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.

> Then I went to where was free speech was absolute and saw what was discussed. That suffers from a selection effect. Since not many sites prioritize free speech and only allow things within some narrower region of the overton window to be discussed it follows that the more extreme positions get pushed to sites that allow more. If, hypothetically, every site were tolerant then you wouldn't have that association. Also…

These sub-communities that people want to censor, do they have any redeeming value?

Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a precedent for some hypothetical future censorship of something worthwhile?

Post reply on HN