Live data from Hacker News

Terminating Service for 8Chan

new.blog.cloudflare.com

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#491
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.

> I haven’t heard of a good rebuttal to the above reasoning All important philosophy and epistemology has occurred in countries with free speech restrictions.

Are you making a dig at the U.S.A? Haha :D

I think I get your point though: It’s not an absolute game. You can do a lot of useful thinking even under some restrictions, so we’re forced to consider everything with more nuance.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#492
post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of staying the obvious, the various media outlets in the US have all by this point joined either the red or blue team and now report only on those incidents which could harm the other team in the eyes of the public.

Exaggeration isn't helpful.

Where did he exaggerate?

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#493
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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"? Ultimately the courts determine which speech is "good" or "bad" by interpreting the law, but all property owners can determine what speech is permitted on their property (like what cloudflare is doing). I accept some limits on free speech. I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause (yelling fire in a crowded theater). I think con…

>From an internet freedom standpoint I think this signals we have an over dependence on cloudflare, not that we have a free speech problem.

Both can be true.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#494

This is the same argument cake shops make against taking order from gay people. I do believe that so-called manifesto is mind-numbingly dumb, fact-free and it is dangerous in the sense it will inspire more violence against innocent people. But that precisely what makes it a good test case for asking some fundamental questions. Can commercial businesses with deep reach, pricing power and critical function deny service…

Great example of the slippery-slope fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I would disagree a bit. The concern here is that we are leaving doors wide open for businesses to deny service based on their beliefs. We are accepting that people have no right of due process of the law and businesses can just decide to act as judge and jury to punish anyone they desire based on their beliefs. It is likely that businesses will be never exploit the extreme and be benevolent in exercising this power. However its troublesome that it can happen and that they have this power. One of the core foundation of civilized society is to remove this unpredictability, however small it may be, by establishing crystal clear laws.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#495
Twitter and Google (& YouTube) have systematically removed ISIS content and redirected these people to messages/sites that are designed to disrupt and deprogram their ideology. They’ve done this effectively for years. They choose not to apply this approach to white supremacy.

https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1158032847560675328

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#496
post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 r…

Free speech is a hard requirement for democracy, and a hard requirement of free speech is accepting the freedom of speech you find objectionable. Your nation was founded upon this principle as a cornerstone, and yet you have regressed back to ochlocracy. It wasn't even 100 years ago that any discussions of LGBT welfare were censored the same way by people with the same mindset. > Would you want me to come up to your…

Most democracies have limits on freedom of speech. Do you think Germany is not a democracy for disallowing some references to Nazism? Do you think Finland is not a democracy since we can and have fined persons for "inciting against groups of people"? Let alone for slander and such.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#497

Free speech is a cultural value. It sometimes manifests itself in the form of codified laws like the first amendment to the US Constitution. However, free speech is not limited to the USA. The idea behind free speech is that people are allowed to put forward new ideas ( especially ideas about how to organize society, what is good and moral etc ) so that people can consider and accept or reject them. The idea is that…

Free speech also includes the freedom not to support speech you disagree with.

Neutrality is not support

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#498
post #434
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.

That is very well put, far from the rabid madness that usually seems to be conjured up when gun control is discussed. I spent some time studying it to spot the weak point. I guess it is the phrase "to disarm them", which is somewhat provocative, since no-one would seriously advocate taking away all guns. Even Japan, with just 5% of the gun violence of the US, allows some citizens to have some guns. Another issue is w…

> no-one would seriously advocate taking away all guns

While I believe this to be true, virtually any sort of "turn in some of your guns" event in the USA would... not be viewed with any nuance at all. Even machine guns were more-or-less exempt from turn-in, provided they were registered by a certain time. Moreover there are already very, very many semi-automatic pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns in circulation--it's not as if a lot of folks have a bolt-action 22 cal rifle and just a few have semi-automatics--the sort of guns that can be fired and reloaded somewhat rapidly, that's what we've got. Setting aside the fact that a rifle is more powerful and aim-able, but harder to conceal, compared to a pistol, I'm not sure what characteristic of a "bad" gun the American government could successfully put forth.

All that said--from whom would you propose to confiscate what guns?

> Another issue is with your stated statistic of death via mass shooting. This obviously ignores maimings and other non-deaths, and also deaths from guns in non-mass events, such as burglaries, accidents.

Well, agreed! Mass shootings and terror attacks inflict many fewer casualties on the American population compared to robberies, gang and drug violence, alcohol and smoking, fatty foods, traffic accidents and DUI, swimming pools, etc. However, it does not seem to me that these other perils are used to buttress the case for banning the instruments of such trouble. I don't mean to be glib, and indeed it is hard to imagine a bad actor using an undoctored swimming pool against innocents, but it does seem to be the case that the electorate lacks the will to stamp out certain risks. And this lack of will is not really related to the measurable impact of the problem.

> What happens to a young child's mind from having to participate in active shooter drills?

We could reflect on the schoolhouse duck-and-cover drills for nuclear war in the 1950s and 1960s--like, isn't contemplating nuclear annihilation and nuclear winter much more terrifying and existentially dreadful than locking the classroom door? Maybe it isn't a good idea to traumatize children with visions of a terrible but statistically very remote fate. On the other hand, local police and school districts must be seen to be doing something, so maybe it is practically unavoidable.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#500
post #170
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?

> How is this implemented?

By throwing up their hands and claiming that it's too hard to implement.

8ch is not running a highly sophisticated software stack. (Quite honestly, their code [1] is pretty terrible -- it's a bunch of frameworkless, hacked-together PHP.) Nothing about their setup is especially elaborate or unusual; at best, "we can't ban content" is an admission of their incompetence.

[1]: https://github.com/OpenIB/OpenIB

Post reply on HN