Terminating Service for 8Chan • Hacker News Board

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#551

Post by kelnos » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:29 AM UTC

sytelus wrote: post #241

mikeash wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A utility is typically a natural monopoly providing some sort of essential service. Cloudflare is neither.

What happens if all other providers refuse you as well on same basis? What if Comcast refuse you to provide any internet service because they don't like your views on net neutrality?

In my personal opinion, the size of "all others" matters.

If you have a monopolistic ISP that refuses to provide service to you because they don't like your content, and they're your only option, then that's a problem.

If you have multiple tens of CDN providers and they all don't want to carry your content, then perhaps you should really take a look at your content and have a hard think about why it isn't wanted.

And regardless, a CDN isn't necessary to host a website. A CDN certainly makes it easier to achieve lower-latency global reach, and is useful in helping you weather certain types of attacks on your infrastructure, but they're by no means required. And there are other ways to achieve those goals.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#552

Post by kelnos » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:32 AM UTC

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #178

King-Aaron wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are practically a utility. LOL. They are not.

They kinda are. DDoS protection is only viable at massive scale, but is table stakes for any website with content that someone out there might find objectionable.

There are plenty of other companies out there that provide DDoS protection. If they can't find even one that will host them, perhaps they might want to consider the possibility that their content is reprehensible and there's a reason no one wants to do business with them.

If Cloudflare was the only game in town (or close to it), I might be more sympathetic to this argument, but... they're not. Not even close.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#553

Post by hutzlibu » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:37 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #524

ViViDboarder wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If reported, Reddit (the company) will usually moderate or shut down subs like those. Recent example being what they just did with /r/T_D.

True, but it's a lot of work with no reward for the reporters.

How much work is it? You don't just click "report"? Or send a screenshot of such a forum? (I do not know)

And what kind of reward do you expect?

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#554

Post by cryptonector » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:37 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #548

cryptonector wrote: post #544

That a crazy person posts a screed somewhere then commits mass murder is not by itself sufficient reason to destroy the forum where they posted their screed. It's not remotely clear to me that 8chan glorified previous mass murders -- of course, I've not looked, but then, Cloudflare doesn't post any evidence of this either. But even 8chan they did, that's essentially what the media is doing every time they give wall-t…

What evidence do you have that they were "crazy"? Most people who commit mass murders are not "crazy" - they don't have psychosis, they know what they're doing, they plan the attack.

In my book anyone who would commit a mass murder is "crazy". I did not call the shooter a schizophrenic, or a psychopath, did I? "Crazy" is a colloquial term, not a medical one. That said, anyone who would kill random innocent people qualifies as a sociopath at the very least.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#555

Post by runeks » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:39 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #548

cryptonector wrote: post #544

That a crazy person posts a screed somewhere then commits mass murder is not by itself sufficient reason to destroy the forum where they posted their screed. It's not remotely clear to me that 8chan glorified previous mass murders -- of course, I've not looked, but then, Cloudflare doesn't post any evidence of this either. But even 8chan they did, that's essentially what the media is doing every time they give wall-t…

What evidence do you have that they were "crazy"? Most people who commit mass murders are not "crazy" - they don't have psychosis, they know what they're doing, they plan the attack.

> What evidence do you have that they were "crazy"?

They murdered dozens of innocent people. No one’s saying they were psychotic, necessarily.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#556

Post by kelnos » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:40 AM UTC

sb057 wrote: post #90

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 a company named Noticeboardflare has practically monopolized protection of noticeboards, and that if you do not have their approval, your noticeboard is impractical to operate.

> Noticeboardflare has practically monopolized protection of noticeboards

Your opening premise isn't even true. CF has nothing near a monopoly on CDNs.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#557

Post by dangxiaopin » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:41 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #544

That a crazy person posts a screed somewhere then commits mass murder is not by itself sufficient reason to destroy the forum where they posted their screed. It's not remotely clear to me that 8chan glorified previous mass murders -- of course, I've not looked, but then, Cloudflare doesn't post any evidence of this either. But even 8chan they did, that's essentially what the media is doing every time they give wall-t…

According to Cloudflare's logic, ISPs should have stopped peering with Facebook after NZ shooter livestreamed there.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#558

Post by KozmoNau7 » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:41 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #544

That a crazy person posts a screed somewhere then commits mass murder is not by itself sufficient reason to destroy the forum where they posted their screed. It's not remotely clear to me that 8chan glorified previous mass murders -- of course, I've not looked, but then, Cloudflare doesn't post any evidence of this either. But even 8chan they did, that's essentially what the media is doing every time they give wall-t…

Users on 8chan (and Kiwifarms and similar sites) very specifically rile up hatred, they are frighteningly good at radicalizing frustrated young men.

They regularly praise previous mass murderers and goad others into doing the same.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#559

Post by hutzlibu » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:42 AM UTC

edna314 wrote: post #549

FourScore wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people (no matter who does it)? Why is it so important that there are no exceptions to freedom of speech? Seriously, I just don’t get how the purity of the concept of freedom of speech can be so important that it beats common sense.

"Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people"

Oh, so you are in favor of shutting down all army related sites? Well, many pacifist would probably agree ..

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#560

Post by Lazare » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:43 AM UTC

blacklight86 wrote: post #525

What kind of free speech are we exactly advocating here? The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they'r…

> The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they're violating your freedom of speech. Popper taught us that we can't be tolerant towards intolerants, if we really want to protect our tolerant rule of law.

Everything you just said is essentially untrue when it comes to government censorship of speech in the US. Hate speech is certainly protected by the first amendment, with only a few narrow exceptions. Personally addressed, face-to-face insults, if deemed likely to start an imminent fight is not constitutionally protected.

(This is sometimes called the "fighting words" exception, and it's much narrower than you might think. The law is quite clear that just because the words might yield a violent reaction, they're still protected. Cantwell v. Connecticut involved anti-Catholic "hate speech", as we'd now term it, expressed in public in a neighbourhood that was 90% Catholic, enraged many listeners, and almost started some violence. Still protected.)

> You can still have freedom of speech while implementing moderation to make sure that hate speech, bigotry and fake news don't spread

Only if done, as here, by private organisations. Regulating bigotry on message boards is the precise thing type of things that the first amendment prevents.

There is no hate speech exception in the constitution. Hate speech is generally an example of what is most protected.