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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#981

Post by madeofpalk »

sqldba wrote: post #513
tuna-piano wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so bizarre. He tries to have it both ways. He says "no one should have that power", but then says he did it literally earlier that day. He says CloudFlare isn't changing their "content-neutral" policy... but clearly they did change that policy. I have many reasons to oppose nazis, including incredibly personal ones. That said, I think crossing this content line for an infrastructure company is a big deal, and I…

What gets me is - I don't think Daily Stormer was even important, was it? I mean it's not like this is a giant propaganda machine with millions of visits a day run by Hitler. It seems to me to be pretty much a pissant little blog. To be completely honest - when I went to look at what the fuss was about a few days ago - I couldn't see any serious hate message because it read like hilariously sarcastic teenage angst an…

> I couldn't see any serious hate message because it read like hilariously sarcastic teenage angst and black humour (no pun intended).

I think you're taking a very optimistic view on the content there.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#982

Post by madeofpalk »

derefr wrote: post #347
y7 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is in a way much worse than if they actually changed their policy. With this precedent, it looks like what they're saying now is "we're not policing content, except for when our CEO feels like it". Basically this is a clear act of corruption, given their own proclaimed principles of content neutrality. That the ultimate trigger seems to have been that the removed site said something negative about CloudFlare is…

Is it corruption when a governor issues a pardon, or a president vetoes a bill? The point of an Executive is to be able to do act-utilitarian evaluations of context, while the organization itself is stuck following rule-utilitarianism.

> Is it corruption when a governor issues a pardon

Well... umm... I've always thought this was a very strange perversion of the separation of powers and the fundamentals of our legal/justice system...

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#983

Post by ckw »

wanda wrote: post #779
ckw wrote: post #611

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech. Noam Chomsky

Non-sequitur. It's from Noam Chomsky so it's not surprising, he has a predilection for fallacies. Just because two "bad" people liked something in a certain way does not mean that "good" people must therefore like it the converse way. Both Goebbels and Stalin may also have liked butter and jam on their toast, but that doesn't mean I should eat toast with just butter. If that seems a little facetious, consider it this…

  Just because two "bad" people liked something in a certain 
  way does not mean that "good" people must therefore like it 
  the converse way. Both Goebbels and Stalin may also have 
  liked butter and jam on their toast, but that doesn't mean I 
  should eat toast with just butter.
Chomsky is not claiming either of these people were bad, he's saying they were uncontroversially opposed to free speech, so as to highlight the defining characteristic of support: tolerance of views one finds odious. It doesn't really seem like you disagree, you just are not for free speech:

  I do not think it is unwise to regulate free speech. It is 
  not wise for a civilisation, with laws, to allow people to 
  flaunt their breaking of, or desire to break, said laws, 
  without some legal consequence.
Which is fine. Just understand your position.

  I wonder if Chomsky would readily be the one to grant them 
  the freedom to speak openly about their preferences for 
  murdering and raping people, from his armchair.
I have zero doubt he would, and have no qualms saying that I do as well.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#984

Post by madeofpalk »

flamedoge wrote: post #533
dguaraglia wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due process? For what? It's a private company, deciding to terminate the contract with a shitty customer that is ruining their image. Worst case scenario the Nazis might have a case for breach of contract, but they won't get much out of it. Also, I'd love to see them show up in court to try to defend this as a "freedom of speech" case, and get told what a bunch of abhorrent human beings they are and to GTFO.

I think private companies serving public with ability to control visibility, especially those with majority marketshare should be subject to similar laws as anti-trust.

tbh, if they're that fundamental to our society then they should be nationalised.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#985

Post by int_19h »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #181
int_19h wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A protected class is what we decide should be one. There weren't any protected classes at all, until one day there were, and we added things to that list since then. Nazis specifically aren't a protected class, of course. Neither are white people. But (any) race is a protected class. And (any) political opinion could be a protected class, as well. IIRC, this is already the case in California, with respect to employme…

> A protected class is what we decide should be one. There weren't any protected classes at all, until one day there were, and we added things to that list since then. Yes, we advanced to being a more civilized society. Adding "politics" to the list of protected classes is akin to removing all the other ones, since someone's "idea" can be that their race/sex/age/nationality makes them superior to all others. I'd neve…

> Adding "politics" to the list of protected classes is akin to removing all the other ones, since someone's "idea" can be that their race/sex/age/nationality makes them superior to all others.

Not at all. Adding the expression of some idea to the protected list does not, in any way, limit protection for other things on that list. It's the implementation of those ideas that would be a reversal.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#986

Post by gasof »

gasof wrote: post #675
adekok wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As someone who cherishes the rule of law over the rule of man, not aiding and these illiberal parties is the minimum. That's good. But the rule of law should apply over "not aiding" those people. In the private sector, there have been a number of cases where companies (a) don't apply their ToS to people they agree with, and (b) over-apply their ToS to people they disagree with. See Vidcon && Sargon for the most rec…

Safe spaces and diversity are diametrical to due process and tolerance. You're assumed guilty and treated as lesser if "privileged", which means white, male or both.

Do you find my statement idiotic, badly reasoned, unproductive or just "wrong"? I'd love to know, seriously.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#987

Post by dclowd9901 »

> We're going to have a long debate internally about whether we need to remove the bullet about not terminating a customer due to political pressure.

I think you can safely say this has nothing to do with political pressure if it's something you've asserted yourself. You can't say, "We've never taken down a website due to internal moral pressure," but that's something I actually consider when picking a business to do business with, so it stands to reason a business should make decisions based on this. Not everyone feels this way, and that's fine, but I prefer to do business with people I consider principled in the way that I am.

Is this a dangerous notion? It doesn't seem so in practice, in that the only people being banned are Nazis and child porn distributors; tough luck making that slope slippery with those two players.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#988

Post by dclowd9901 »

sqldba wrote: post #513
tuna-piano wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so bizarre. He tries to have it both ways. He says "no one should have that power", but then says he did it literally earlier that day. He says CloudFlare isn't changing their "content-neutral" policy... but clearly they did change that policy. I have many reasons to oppose nazis, including incredibly personal ones. That said, I think crossing this content line for an infrastructure company is a big deal, and I…

What gets me is - I don't think Daily Stormer was even important, was it? I mean it's not like this is a giant propaganda machine with millions of visits a day run by Hitler. It seems to me to be pretty much a pissant little blog. To be completely honest - when I went to look at what the fuss was about a few days ago - I couldn't see any serious hate message because it read like hilariously sarcastic teenage angst an…

You sound pretty privileged to only be asking for all of us to get along when so many people are asking not to be shot or subjugated by systems built to work against them.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#989

Post by dclowd9901 »

krapp wrote: post #73
joelrunyon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm struggling to connect these two phrases: "No one should have that power" "I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet" Seems like a very tricky precedent to set that you can just not allow someone on the internet. The natural question from this is: how long until this type of power is used against views you support?

>The natural question from this is: how long until this type of power is used against views you support? I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I support free speech, even when the speech is hateful and malignant, because I honestly believe the best way to combat vile ideas is out in the open where people can see them, hear them, discuss them and repudiate them. Cultures can't innoculate themselves against ideas without an…

Right -- for some reason or another, there is A Bright Line around Nazis that makes this a brain-dead decision. It might be that the name has become a by-word for "evil," but as someone who is _very much_ a free speech advocate, I have no sympathy for Naziism, or any kind of "speech" (however people try to bend that word) that advocates the ill physical will toward others. It's that simple. Any attempts to give a heady definition only result in convolution.

They're Nazis. They can fuck themselves.

Re: Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

#990

Post by maxlybbert »

dguaraglia wrote: post #938
maxlybbert wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CEO's explanation includes a section titled "freedom of speech The CEO doesn't describe any process that Cloudflare intends to follow that will provide predictable decisions. So the original comment is correct: the explanation doesn't describe anything similar to due process, even though the CEO explicitly says that is/will be Cloudflare's guiding light. For what it's worth, I think Cloudflare has a strong argume…

Gotcha, when he said "due process" he didn't mean it in the legal sense, but in the "we have to follow the right procedures internally to make sure what we are doing is right" sense.

Right. But I don't see where he describes those internal procedures. Basically, the post amounts to "we were upset that these guys claimed we supported them, so we canceled their account." There's a discussion about how important it is to not make decisions on a whim, but no discussion about how this decision wasn't made on a whim.
Post reply on HN