Live data from Hacker News

Terminating Service for 8Chan

new.blog.cloudflare.com

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As soon as stormer was removed you changed from being a dumb pipe infrastructure company into one that can eject and censor at will. You're defending the Daily Stormer, do I read that correctly? > I look forward to an updating listing of sites that are not reachable via the cloudflare internet in various places. Cloudflare is not "the Internet". If Stormer or 8chan get kicked off of them, you can still access them…

You're defending the Daily Stormer, do I read that correctly? No, you're reading that incorrectly. stevenicr is referring to Cloudflare's values of "total content neutrality" [1] where they argued they were similar to a 'common carrier' and should provide services to everyone, like a phone company or mail service would. Such values have been articulated by Cloudflare's CEO himself [2]. Hence, the DDoS protection serv…

> stevenicr is referring to Cloudflare's values of "total content neutrality" [1] where they argued they were similar to a 'common carrier' and should provide services to everyone, like a phone company or mail service would.

...in the US

All of these free speech arguments need to be really clear that they're talking about the extremist version of freedom of speech used in the US.

Other countries have postal services and phone companies that place limits on what can be sent over them.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#632

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.

As long as they can be sued for liable the way any other publisher can I have no problem with them pulling 8chan. If they're going to selectively hide behind section 230 to promote their political agenda then I do, they can't have it both ways and I hope congress clamps down on this.

The EU might also hold them liable for tracking content of sites they proxy if they aren't careful.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#633

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…

Why do you think it might have been that the founding fathers were such advocates for freedom of speech? Do you think they were unaware that it would lead to the normalization of unpleasant things being said? These questions can be answered quite succinctly by asking one other question. In a nation without freedom of speech, who gets to determine what can and cannot be said?

The Treason Felony Act 1848 [1] is something that is still technically a part of the law in the United Kingdom even if not actively enforced. In 2001 The Guardian made a legal effort to finally have it officially removed from the books, and failed [2]. The act makes it illegal to call for the abolition of the monarchy within the United Kingdom, even "imagining" such is sufficient to conviction. The max penalty is life imprisonment -- quite progressive as it used to be death. This is a stark reminder of why and where the desire for free free speech came from. Imagine our past without freedom of speech. There undoubtedly would have been numerous states that would have made the mere advocacy for abolition illegal, others that would have made advocating for suffrage of various groups also illegal, and so on.

You may think it simple to demarcate a line between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' speech but it's not so easy and ultimately the individuals that get to decide as such are those with the most power in society. The lines end up being drawn as fairly and reasonably as our states draw the lines laying out their voting districts. Laws against free speech invariably end up being exploited to help entrench whatever political ideology happens to get a grip on power within a nation, as the UK laws past and present are a reminder of.

Such laws can even be used to enforced bigoted views. For instance in the UK in 2017 a 19 year old lady was arrested and convicted, forced to wear a ankle monitoring device, abide a curfew, etc for "sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network." Her crime? Quoting lyrics from a Snoop Dog song on Instagram. That conviction was overturned a couple of years later. In another case (again in the UK) a Christian preacher was arrested for stating that, while he was not homophobic, he believed that the Bible taught homosexuality was a sin. Again it was overturned, yet being arrested, let alone convicted, for such "offenses" is hardly a society any should thrive to emulate.

Ultimately, I think people only see things they disagree with as being affected. In reality once free speech goes it will also include some of your views you find in no way unacceptable. In Germany until 2018 it was illegal to publicly insult any head of state. It was revoked only when it became inconvenient to the powers that be. Following a comedian reading an obscene poem about Turkish president Erdoğan, Turkey demanded and lawfully received prosecution which ultimately led to the law's removal. Laws which make it illegal to "defame" the President of the German Federal Republic remain on the books.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848

[2] - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abol...

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They choose not to apply this approach to white supremacy. "[...] the measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the very least, their supporters." https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-t...

White supremacist terrorism cannot be directly ideologically challenged by our present political system in America because it is the founding ideology of the country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Destroyer

I think this statement is completely wrong and America is on of the most resistant countries against fascism because of its adherence to freedom which fascist really dislike.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#635
post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

I know that the American legislation is quite laissez-faire when it comes to defamation than in other countries (Canada, the UK and most of the European countries). But it still exists and I believe that the 8chan case still violated what's the defamation/slander bar in the US. According to these guys http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ there's defamation when the defendant: Published or otherwise broadcast…

> defamation/slander bar in the US

Those are civil issues, not criminal.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Perhaps only if commenters glorified it? I'm sure you can find people to do that on FB or anywhere else, and it may take time to moderate such commentary. But no one would deplatform FB or Twitter -- they're too big. This approach means we have a powerful dynamic in place to limit the reach of any social media that isn't already "too big to deplatform".

[deleted]

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#637
post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but how can anyone say "what kind" of free speech...? Don't you see that labeling or discriminating between "free speech of type A, allowed" and "free speech of type B, disallowed" defeats the whole notion of "free"? Somehow people tend to think that their own discrimination isn't, while others is.

There is a clear (and working) distinction between free speech of type A and of type B in other countries. In Germany, just as an example, you are free to express your OPINION (type A), but not to express false facts (type B). If you express false facts, knowingly, and those false facts have damaging effects you are fully liable for compensation. Simple example: if a person wrongly claims, that some local artisan's b…

But that is not how it works universally in Europe. In France for example, you can be condemned for stating objective facts under hate speech laws. For example one journalist was condemned for saying that minorities were over-represented in jail, because they were over-represented in crime. The judge stated that although that was factually true, it would also have a discriminatory impact on the minorities, & the journalist was thus condemned.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#638

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?

So cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against majorities are okay?

Glad I don't live in your country. Enjoy the hellhole you've created.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you an example in history when a lack of censorship posed a problem? I don't, so I value it very much. There were attrocities in my countries in the name of common sense on the other hand. Even if intuitive, censorship isn't an answer to anything.

I don’t consider deleting calls for violence towards minorities censorship. And I do think that history has shown too many times that propaganda is a powerful tool, that needs to be restricted. I mean you are free to doubt common sense, but I think doubting common sense is always the first step of becoming fanatic. What would be the country you are talking about? The way I could imagine for someone to commit atrocities out of common sense would be if he has a gun pointed to his head.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Perhaps only if commenters glorified it? I'm sure you can find people to do that on FB or anywhere else, and it may take time to moderate such commentary. But no one would deplatform FB or Twitter -- they're too big. This approach means we have a powerful dynamic in place to limit the reach of any social media that isn't already "too big to deplatform".

Please, as if Facebook would be taken down when a few pubescent mongoloids "glorified violence".

Glorification is a matter of free speech, because it is an expression of opinion. That you find it distasteful is fine, using that as a weapon is not.

Either way, Facebook won't be held accountable because it's funded by large investment funds, and HN won't complain because they're in bed together.

The "too big" argument is not a moral argument, that just says "we have money invested in it". If that's acceptable to you you have no morality.

Post reply on HN