Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#481

Post by reitanqild »

ibevanned wrote: post #426
jay-saint wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are few things worse than nazis. Just make sure your content is better than fascist propaganda and you should be good.

Yeah, like Communists right? Stalin and Mao killed far more people then the Nazis, but I'll be down voted and banned because my opinion doesn't fit your ideological narrative. This is assuming I even am allowed to post my view at all.

Fact.

Still to me blocking nazi comtent is even more obvious since their violence is even closer linked to their ideology.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#482

Post by maxlybbert »

matt4077 wrote: post #446
maxlybbert wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no lawyer, but I seem to recall that a contract that allows one side to unilaterally withdraw for unspecified reasons is not a real contract (the legal term is "illusory promise" or "illusory contract"). Cloudflare apparently has a legal team, so I have to assume they know whether their terms of service are actually an enforceable contract, but that provision sounds fishy to me.

> I seem to recall that a contract that allows one side to unilaterally withdraw for unspecified reasons is not a real contract I certainly hope you're wrong. Because I've "unilaterally withdrawn from" (i. e. "canceled") literally hundreds of contracts, and I don't remember ever giving a reason.

Don't take my word for it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illusory_promise .

If Cloudflare can cancel the contract at the CEO's whim without needing to prove that the customer has somehow violated some terms of use, then Cloudflare isn't "bound to perform" using Cornell's terminology.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#483

Post by pessimizer »

genon wrote: post #324

Absolutely correct. He is also effectively saying that since he can and will remove sites he personally doesn't like, that he personally approves of every other site using Cloudflare. The excuse he uses for terminating TDS is an absolute crock; if TDS genuinely did falsely and sincerely claim that Cloudflare supports them, then Prince could and should have simply asked them to remove that claim. It's an outrage that…

Nazis aren't a protected class, yet. Do you think that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against skateboarders, or people who refuse to wear shirts and shoes?

Not that you can't think that, but it's a weird personal ideology that calls for explanation and argument, not some pronouncement of what should or should not be done.

I'm pretty sure you can make the argument why gay people, women and racial or religious minorities shouldn't be discriminated against. Make the same argument for skateboarders if you don't want to make it for Nazis. Do you have an similar argument for why Nazis shouldn't be fired, or why we shouldn't consider whether the people that we do business with employ, or are, Nazis?

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#484

Post by backpropaganda »

jacquesm wrote: post #423
backpropaganda wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about white nationalists or separatists? People who want a white ethnic country with restricted immigration. Are they outside our moral tolerance as well? AFAIU, a lot of these so-called Nazis are just white nationalists who want to assert their superiority, but not in a Hitler way.

> What about white nationalists or separatists? People who want a white ethnic country with restricted immigration. They have the vote, don't they? > Are they outside our moral tolerance as well? Well, they are outside mine so if that's how you roll you won't find yourself invited into my house because you'd be incompatible with whoever else I might invite and you'd be incompatible with me. > AFAIU, a lot of these so…

What if they propose a 100% peaceful process? Imagine something like apartheid, i.e. segregated schools, restaurants, etc. There is literally no violence here. Are people allowed to believe in a different set of political axioms (isolationism against multiculturalsim/diversity)?

Note that I'm talking about what stance government and its institutions should take against such rebellion, not who you invite to your private party.

Also, these are not my political beliefs. Just trying to see where the line is being drawn here.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#486

Post by cestith »

derefr wrote: post #329
genon wrote: post #324

Absolutely correct. He is also effectively saying that since he can and will remove sites he personally doesn't like, that he personally approves of every other site using Cloudflare. The excuse he uses for terminating TDS is an absolute crock; if TDS genuinely did falsely and sincerely claim that Cloudflare supports them, then Prince could and should have simply asked them to remove that claim. It's an outrage that…

> if TDS genuinely did falsely and sincerely claim that Cloudflare supports them, then Prince could and should have simply asked them to remove that claim. The damage of libel is reputational damage. Getting the libelous claim retracted after the claim has been seen by the public doesn't undo or erase the damage the claim does. Usually you have to do something drastic to actively disprove the libelous claim, if you w…

It doesn't even have to cause reputational damage yet I don't think. IANAL, but the contracts one signs with this sort of company tends to include things like not claiming endorsement of the content by the provider.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#487

Post by redm »

A previous blog addressed a similar issue, about ISIS, with a very clear policy. It's worth the read.

From Mr. Prince:

"> What safeguards do you have in place to ensure that CloudFlare does not support illegal terrorist activity?

This question assumes the answer. A website is speech. It is not a bomb. There is no imminent danger it creates and no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of speech a site may contain." [1]

"Again, CloudFlare is not a hosting provider. If we were to terminate this, or any other customer, the material wouldn't go away, it would just be a bit slower and be more subject to attack. We do not believe that "investigating" the speech that flows through our network is appropriate. In fact, we think doing so would be creepy." [1]

[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-and-free-speech/

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#488

Post by dashundchen »

mnglkhn2 wrote: post #461
lern_too_spel wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False equivalence. Gay people don't choose to be gay, and gay people aren't harming others. A business can refuse to serve skateboarders, shirtless people, and other people who are being a nuisance; and it can certainly refuse to serve people who bring violence wherever they go.

You seem to contradict the recent view in the LGBTQ. community that gender is a social construct and that you can choose which gender feels right for you! Your implication that being gay has to do with biology and hence it has a hereditary component is at odds with what we are currently hearing from everywhere. Which view is it the valid one? To me these are exclusive so in the community should choose just one discou…

Wow, grossly misrepresented and mischarachaterized.

As a member of the LGBTQ community I have met zero trans people who feel that they chose their gender expression, and zero people who felt they chose their sexual orientation, instead of being born and growing into their identities over time. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I highly, doubt it's anywhere close to a plurality much less a majority.

Where exactly have you heard that most trans people are "choosing" their expressed gender? And why do you think there is one view for many people to "choose"?

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#489

Post by matt4077 »

cookiecaper wrote: post #165
jlgaddis wrote: post #11

This is a slippery slope, Cloudflare. Once you take it upon yourself to begin moderating and regulating content, you are now -- in my opinion -- obligated to do so consistently. Do you really want that responsibility? My opinion may be unpopular, however. I'm one of those folks that believe that everyone, equally, deserves to be able to express their thoughts, beliefs, and beliefs regardless of whether I agree with t…

The issue extends beyond the moral. They've set a precedential behavior and now it can be used against them. "You took down X, but you won't take down Z?" This could be persuasive upon a judge or jury. By starting down this path, they've set up a standard of behavior that they will be judged against, for better or worse, moving forward. That's a bad thing for us overall because now it won't just be something the CEO…

"The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

Post reply on HN