Cloudflare's CEO Has a Plan To Never Censor Hate Speech Again (arstechnica.com) 395
"Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince hated cutting off service to the infamous neo-Nazi site the Daily Stormer in August," reports Ars Technica. "And he's determined not to do it again. 'I'm almost a free-speech absolutist.' Prince said at an event at the New America Foundation last Wednesday. But in a subsequent interview with Ars, Prince argued that in the case of the Daily Stormer, the company didn't have much choice." From the report: Prince's response was to cut Daily Stormer off while laying the groundwork to make sure he'd never have to make a decision like that again. In a remarkable company-wide email sent shortly after the decision, Prince described his own actions as "arbitrary" and "dangerous." "I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet," Prince wrote in August. "It was a decision I could make because I'm the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company." He argued that "it's important that what we did today not set a precedent." Prior to August, Cloudflare had consistently refused to police content published by its customers. Last week, Prince made a swing through DC to help ensure that the Daily Stormer decision does not, in fact, set a precedent. He met with officials from the Federal Communications Commission and with researchers at the libertarian Cato Institute and the left-of-center New America Foundation -- all in an effort to ensure that he'd have the political cover he needed to say no next time he came under pressure to take down controversial content.
The law is strongly on Cloudflare's side here. Internet infrastructure providers like Cloudflare have broad legal immunity for content created by their customers. But legal rights may not matter if Cloudflare comes under pressure from customers to take down content. And that's why Prince is working to cultivate a social consensus that infrastructure providers like Cloudflare should not be in the censorship business -- no matter how offensive its customers' content might be.
The law is strongly on Cloudflare's side here. Internet infrastructure providers like Cloudflare have broad legal immunity for content created by their customers. But legal rights may not matter if Cloudflare comes under pressure from customers to take down content. And that's why Prince is working to cultivate a social consensus that infrastructure providers like Cloudflare should not be in the censorship business -- no matter how offensive its customers' content might be.
So let's see what I've learned on Slashdot today (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's a "good" website lots of people want to access, any private entity that stands in the way of freely accessing that site = evil.
If it's a "bad" website lots of people don't want to access, any private entity that supports freely accessing that site = evil.
Any questions?
Re: (Score:2)
If a private org wants to censor, fine. Let them brag about it on their signup page.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about freedom. It's impossible for everyone to do anything they like all the time, so there has to be a balance.
Someone wants to post content on the internet. Someone else doesn't want to host said content because they find it repugnant. There is no solution that doesn't involve disappointing someone.
You could argue that not forcing someone to do something, i.e. host the content, is the lesser of two evils. You could argue that by offering a service to the public you accept certain responsibilities, su
Re: (Score:2)
Someone wants to post content on the internet. Someone else doesn't want to host said content because they find it repugnant. There is no solution that doesn't involve disappointing someone.
That's where you're wrong. There doesn't require a balance, rather all that's required is the host to be "treated as a dumb pipe." See how easy that is?
There are people who are quite happy to host that content, until someone with an axe to grind decides that they're going to dox, harass, and threaten that person and their family for allowing them to host it. Just remember that there are plenty of groups out there that are more then happy to try and shut you up for having the wrong view point, plenty more
Re: (Score:2)
the big means to censor at the moment is the "stop funding hate" campaign from a few twitterati activists who are "shaming" companies for advertising on newspapers they find objectionable (though perfectly legal and normal - mainly the Daily Mail at the moment which is a centre-right paper that also has an unhealthy (IMHO) section on celebrity gossip)..
They've managed to get paperchase and pizza hut to apologise for running adverts in these newspapers - PH for running a "free pizza" giveaway in the Sun news
Re: (Score:2)
What part of the world allows that? My understanding is that even in the US, once alerted to abuse a "common carrier" has to shut it down. So for example if someone reports to Cloudflare that a site they cache contains illegal images (as defined by US law) they have to take action or become liable.
The US allows this, so does Canada, so do nearly all western countries. The UK does not, but then you don't actually have protections on speech. The host is treated as a dumb pipe, but is required to remove illegal images and report them to various authorities. It's no different then a person who rents a news press and uses it to publish child porn. The device is neutral, the action is illegal, along with the production/distribution is also illegal. In both cases the "owner" is given a reasonable perio
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so you agree with me. Being a "dumb pipe" doesn't absolve the pipe owner of all responsibility.
It does and it doesn't. I'm not agreeing with you, rather you're partially correct. You also conflate speech with illegal images which makes no sense, especially in the US which has broad speech protections, unlike the UK where you're actively restricting speech.
Incredible how this simple statement that we both actually agree on triggered one of your snowflake buddies to mod my comment as "troll".
Snowflake buddies? You might want to think on that. Maybe you've just managed to piss so many people off with regressive stances that people believe that your views are terrible. And believe it: Compared to people in north america, your views es
Re: (Score:2)
Is the US constitution really that narrow on speech? As in things like photographs can't be considered protected speech?
In any case, even pure mouth-noises are included. Speaking state secrets to unauthorized persons is a crime. If your server has such data on it and you are notified, you are obliged to remove it or face legal consequences, are you not?
As for snowflakes, you just prove my point. People whose feelz are hurt by views they don't like, trying to stop people upsetting them. To be fair to you, at
Re:So let's see what I've learned on Slashdot toda (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, in the USA the concern is perhaps that people or the government might not actually be able to really determine fairly and objectively what is evil and what is good in speech. That hence one should just allow all of it.
In the US the stance (among people with at least half a brain) is that all speech is free speech, the laws apply especially for things you personally detest. It is meant to give the most hated minorities of society the chance to get their ideas out, the good bits to grow and the bad bits to be reasoned out instead of festering until the people holding those ideas snap. All governments want to remove free speech, all major corporations want to control free speech and argue it is within their right to do so (nevermind their existence is predicated on the government saying they are entities and the government doesn't have that right, yet they have somehow been granted such a right which is illegal for the government to grant.) In the short term free speech can cause a bit of chaos, in the long term free speech increases stability by a huge factor, politicians, shareholders, and bureaucrats only think in the short term and hence they mostly despise free speech and will latch on to whichever jackass has the most revolting opinion of the day to call for banning it.
Re: So let's see what I've learned on Slashdot tod (Score:2)
I don't disagree but I'm yet to see any of the race hatred (or white male hatred on the other side) being "reasoned out"
Re: (Score:3)
Here is an example [townhall.com] of what you speak of. Not that it will matter.
This is good (Score:3, Informative)
Censorship pretty much always ends up being abused. Let the neo-nazis spew their hate, and most people will recognize them for the raving lunatics they are. But don't censor them. That road doesn't lead to anywhere good.
Just because... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I can't stand the content, the content should be there so that people can see for themselves how bad it is.
--
It's a bird, it's a plane!
Re:Just because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your an idiot? Does that need further explanation? I suppose it does because you are a fucking idiot or an SJW. (Same really... fucking idiot)
One is by definition illegal and the other is allowed by free speech.
Only an SJW would confuse illegal content with something that person disagrees with.
So a fucking idiot. You fucking moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm. He did.
Things that are illegal : do not leave there for people to see
Things that are not illegal, just stupid: leave there so people can see how stupid it is
It's why feminist websites haven't been removed from the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
You're exactly right, and that is exactly why SJW are scary as a group. Because "I don't like it" becomes "Should not be allowed" becomes "Illegal to say". It is all part of the "I'm offended, which is an micro-aggression, which is an assult, which allows me to punch a Nazi, everyone I don't like is a Nazi, I can punch anyone I don't like".
Knee-Jerk reactions are easy when you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Net neutrality ... (Score:2)
... is not a goddam binary paradigm.
Make all that shit a utility and let the gods straighten out the fucking mess.
Free speech takes courage (Score:5, Insightful)
It's EASY to say "that offends me, ban it!"
It's harder to say "that offends me, but I need to stand against it on its merits, not just because I have the power to ban it."
Re: (Score:2)
No, courage is what is required to kill all Nazis and Fascists, and not only build but protect a civilization.
A civilization of people who kills those they don't agree with. Can't argue with that. Apparently neither could Joe G., Adolf H or Uncle S.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so anyone that disagrees with you must be a Jew, er, "russian troll"?
Yes, you're ENTIRELY different than Nazis.
Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
When private companies own and operate the internet, it seems like a very slippery slope to curbing free speech. Who is to say that Google or the like, won't be told by the shareholders to not host content because it offends their advertisers.
This seems like a very real consequence of allowing private companies to be gate keepers of the information on the internet, who can choose what content to offer without impunity.
--
"Bad boys, bad boys, what you going to do? What you going to do when they come for you?" -- Inner Circle
Re: (Score:3)
You speak directly to my point. The gatekeepers will choose content. With net neutrality they aren't allowed to discriminate per government mandate.
--
"Bad boys, bad boys, what you going to do? What you going to do when they come for you?" -- Inner Circle
Re: (Score:2)
What is your proposed solution? Seems like you will have to pick one of the following:
- Force advertisers to advertise on sites that might damage their brands.
- Set up a hosting service that isn't reliant on advertising for revenue. So far no-one has found a way to make that work, except for having it funded from taxation.
Is there some solution I have missed?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm referring to the article, and opining on Net Neutrality; the people that deliver and pass on content vs. creating it.
On another note, I think its very dangerous when we as a society, vote with our feelings when it comes to the media (web). It is a super slipper slope when we self censor based on a twitter handle. People urging each other not to do that is the only way I can see it happening.
I don't have an answer to the advertising question, but let me know if you figure it out and I'll help you mone
Re: (Score:2)
Mandate is an official order to do something. Definition of Mandate [dictionary.com]
In this case, that means companies are forced to not discriminate.
Back to my original point. Without Net Neutrality, it is a slippery slope into censorship.
--
"What's Papa gonna sell our steers for?" - Arliss Coates
Re: (Score:2)
With net neutrality they aren't allowed to discriminate per government mandate.
No, they are forced by the government to convey things they don't want to. You've got it exactly, perfectly backwards. You want private people and the organizations they build to be forced by the government to give a platform to people with whom they disagree. You want the government to control your own editorial decisions, instead of you doing that according to your own standards.
A more accurate analogy is organizing a protest in which every time you were to utter something into a megaphone the manufacturer didn't agree with nothing but silence would came out the other end.
Or the only post office serving your area burning letters addressed to you because they don't like you.
The FCC has no control over "information services" which originate content. ISPs are being paid to forward packets in the same way megaphones forward sound or sorting machines forward letters nothing more.
Allowi
I get him (Score:2)
It was his choice to make and I hope he enjoyed it. Most of us don't stick to our values 100%.
I'm not a free speech absolutist (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I'm not an *anything* absolutist. Things like absolutism and zero tolerance are attractive because they make decision making easy in a complex world -- too easy. Sometimes you ought to be forced to wrestle with tough calls; to choose the lesser of two evils or between alternative goods when you can't have both.
And for that reason the way Daily Stormer was forced off the Internet disturbed me, even though I *despise* those people. It's the easy call: here's a problem that's attracting a lot of negative attention, so let's make it go away, and by "go away" we mean sweep it under the rug so someone else has to deal with it. Does anyone think that will make those people disappear? That it will stop others from becoming radicalized? I for one think it will work in their favor. Authoritarians love to view themselves as victims just as much as they love to be victimizers; those are two halves of the same coin for them. They adore being wronged, because in their very tiny minds that gives them permission to wrong others.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe they have a point that others keep proving
No. Others keep proving their own prejudice, idiocy and lack of reasoned thinking but that doesn't in any way validate the Daily Stormer.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct, but instead of silencing Daily Stormer, you've helped Streisand Effect it to the point where I had no idea it existed, but now I am fully aware of it. free advertising.
I call B.S. (Score:2)
This is not going to be a popular thing to say, well, anywhere, but the ruling party in America loves stuff like the Daily Stormer. I'd like to call them 'useful idiots' but that's making light of them. They're a mix of extremely disenfranchised people and the people who exploit them for gain. Such things have always been useful. Right now
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. The rich ultimately aren't any smarter than the poor. They're short-sighted, greedy, and stupid, just like pretty much everyone else.
So squeeze the poor for more and more, manipulate them into giving even more after that... and then be surprised when the methods they use to do it get out of control and bite 'em in the ass, HARD.
I used to think maybe scientists should have more say in politics, but as I get older I'm starting to think the primary advisor to any politician should be a historian.
Re: (Score:2)
harmless minority used as a scapegoat. Maybe the Jews. Maybe the Muslims.
One of those is not a minority. Shit, the non-harmless members of one of those are not a minority.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not going to be a popular thing to say, well, anywhere, but the ruling party in America loves stuff like the Daily Stormer. I'd like to call them 'useful idiots' but that's making light of them. They're a mix of extremely disenfranchised people and the people who exploit them for gain. Such things have always been useful. Right now we've got a multi-trillion dollar tax cut for the 1% that got ram-roded [sic] through our house and senate and folks like the Daily Stormer helped put the folks in charge that made that happen.
I want to make sure I understand you properly. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who didn't vote for your party - and I'm assuming you were with Her - then you are a Nazi. And that the reason she lost are all of the people who voted for someone else?
You want to know where the problem is, look in the mirror. If you can't honestly accept that not everyone outside of your echo chamber isn't an evil, Nazi sympathizing, racist, deplorable Bad Person, then we're fscked as a society.
Fuck it, mod me
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with Mr. Prince, and I respect that he's willing to risk his name and company to stand behind his beliefs.
The Anarchist's cookbook is Illegal in Australia. Possession of the book is enough to get you arrested in the UK. China's great firewall is tighter than ever. Censorship is alive and well in the modern world, and I do not see that as progress.
What happened to: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
Stepford students. [spectator.co.uk] Children being taught that they need to have a safe space and be protected. Institutions of higher learning pushing only one view point, instead of challenging multiple viewpoints. Professors pushing and punishing students [nationalpost.com] for having the "wrong view point" and so on as to not offend people. The big push for political correctness and not hurting feelings, microagressions and all the other associated bullshit. That disagreement is harassment. That facts are racist. Take your pick.
Reme
Re: (Score:2)
Key Problem: Lack of Critical Thinking (Score:3)
Words can be infectious to a population that isn't taught to be critical thinkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Words can be infectious to a population that isn't taught to be critical thinkers.
You sir, are quite correct. If more people out there simply "follow the money," then you see that racism, prejudice, and bias are all masqueraded as class. In order for the 1% wealthy elite to maintain their status quo, they must create rifts within the 99%. The easiest way is for them to create artificial differences between race, color, and creed to keep the bottom 99% fighting amongst themselves based on aforementioned differences. In reality whatever differences that do exist are negligible. Our bodies
Just because you're a free speech absolutist... (Score:2)
The easy solution for this (Score:2)
Free Speech (Score:2)
Not only am I Jewish, but I am an ardent supporter of free speech. Freedom of speech and the press does not only apply when politically correct or even convenient. It applies to almost all circumstances, the "fire in the crowded movie theater" clause notwithstanding. If a KKK group wants to spread all kinds of falsehoods and lies, then that is their right. By banning speech that you simply do not like, you simply pour gasoline on their fire. You give them cause celeb and a point to rally on. So long as a gr
Stop 'censoring' people using Tor, then, asshole! (Score:2)
Re: Kill all Fascist and Nazi Supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, and what happened back then? They moved the culture until all anti fascist voices in Germany were outside the realm of 'acceptable discourse', just like pro Nazi comments are on Cloudflare. The best defense against totalitarian ideals is free speech, where all discourse is acceptable.
Re: Kill all Fascist and Nazi Supporters (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, and what happened back then? They moved the culture until all anti fascist voices in Germany were outside the realm of 'acceptable discourse', just like pro Nazi comments are on Cloudflare. The best defense against totalitarian ideals is free speech, where all discourse is acceptable.
It also gives law enforcement a much easier task of keeping an eye on them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being placed in prison/forced labor (in a konzentrationslager - sometimes in a vernichtungslager) or killed without a trial is now the same as not being allowed to spread hate on a specific platform?
(German used to differentiate from concentration camp which is a large camp or group of camps)
Re: (Score:3)
What happens when they democratically seize power and exterminate a lot of people? We'll just be fine with it because it was all following democracy and freedom of expression? Just to be clear this is not fiction, it has happened before and they want it to happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be conflating taboo and censorship.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Free speech encompasses the 1st Amendment, not the other way"
"Free speech encompasses the 1st Amendment, not the other way"
"Free speech encompasses the 1st Amendment, not the other way"
Re: Kill all Fascist and Nazi Supporters (Score:2)
Capitalist running dogs sure do hate free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution does not protect against consumer demand.
So that means NOTHING should?
That means there is no principle behind the law?
These are what leftists and many moderates implicitly argue. They refuse to address the reason for the law's existence: to maintain society. But it can only do so much. Society still needs to be maintained by the will of the people. So let's look at the law, understand it, and use it as inspiration to restore the will of the people.
Leftists and most moderates have abandoned liberalism completely. They have no concept of liberty at
Re: (Score:3)
The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.
And they were well within their rights to take action to stop someone from using their own platform against them. If I may opine, I'd say it's literally the only legitimate reason to boot someone off such a service; if you're going to slander someone, it's wise to not do so on their own platform, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Kill all Fascist and Nazi Supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
"The people I don't like are all bad and deserve to die!"
Signed
All Nazis and Weirdly Rabid 'AntiNazis' Who Never Understand How Nazi-ish They Are
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It took 50 million deaths last time those fucks got power, this time we need to kill them all a lot sooner.
I got news for you. Marxists killed many, many more people in the 20th century than Nazis and Fascists combined!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I got news for you. Marxists killed many, many more people in the 20th century than Nazis and Fascists combined!
Because it was only a twelve year Reich.
Re: (Score:2)
When people start talking about deaths related to communism they're usually referring to Mao's Great Leap Forward. And that... was done under the auspices of communism anyway, so okay. That's thirty million. World War 2 was seventy million. You've got a lot of ground to cover here, and I'm wondering how you're going to do it.
Um.. no actually (Score:2)
Re:Kill all Fascist and Nazi Supporters (Score:5, Informative)
It took 50 million deaths last time those fucks got power, this time we need to kill them all a lot sooner.
Let's put this in a perspective:
(This combines counts for ideologies with multiple denominations, thus putting in one bucket Mao+Stalin+Lenin+Pol Pot+Kims+Ho Chi Minh+misc African soviet-sponsored groups+etc -- without combining, China is 1st, Soviets 2nd; wars that are attributable to both secular and ideological reasons are attributed partially, with a weighted estimation so 10% religious gives only 1/10 of kill count. All of these figures are hotly contested, but ordering is pretty solid.)
Thus, Nazis are pretty evil (21M deaths is nothing we can forget), but they're boy scouts compared to some ideologies still in power (or, in case of Putin, called "our glorious past").
Thus, let's not discriminate between "kill all unbelievers, people of wrong skin color, shape of genitals, etc" ideologies and fight them either equally or based on actual harm done rather than on how reviled by those currently in power they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Please do not forget to factor in the increase of human population over the centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit numbers doesn't help making your case.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point of comparing the relative badness of these various groups? They are still extremely bad, so what is this "perspective" adding to the discussion?
Not that I agree with the OP's desire to murder modern day Nazis, but the knowledge that other groups killed even more people doesn't really excuse or lessen any of the things they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put this in a perspective:
Citation needed? Can you provide a source for these numbers, otherwise I'll have to declare them a guess, even if they are right.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Kill all Fascist and Nazi Supporters (Score:2)
Exaggeration much? There's a huge difference between not wanting people to be bankrupted by getting sick and the mass murder of millions. BTW the Nazis were socialists in the same way as North Korea is a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Actual history.
Please don't dodge the question.
Where did you get the numbers from?
I want to believe, but I must see proof.
Re: (Score:3)
Like right now: you seem to be ignorant of the above, so I've educated you despite having no obligation to you to do so. Why? Because the fewer people exist who exhibit that level of ignorance, the le
Re: (Score:3)
It's a slow process, but it's happening. We put ourselves in a position where we believed we could stop teaching out kids common sense, so we stopped; now, we have people dying while taking selfies and walking int traffic while texting instead of looking where they're going. W
Re: (Score:2)
Society doesn't have an obligation to do a damn thing. You're projecting your values on to others.
I agree with this.
You ever notice how the biggest fucking idiots on Planet Earth always run in with drive by insults but never actually make a point or provide evidence of anything? It's like they know how fucking stupid they are, but their ego doesn't let them admit it to themselves so they just call people names and pat themselves on the back.
I also agree with this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Kill all Fascist and Nazi Supporters (Score:2)
That's exactly what it didn't say. Maybe you should've read it after all.
Re: (Score:2)
That's usually what they eventually get to.
Re:Kill all Fascist and Nazi Supporters (Score:4, Informative)
that seems unreasonable to include as the same idealogy that is in charge now. China has done a very good job of allowing enough of a market economy to not do that type of thing.
Like, herding Falun Gong practitioners for organ harvesting? Or keeping the majority of population as a caste deprived of most rights (hukou)?
Re: (Score:2)
Newsflash asshole, the Russians never left power. Or were you talking about the Chinese?
I love it when there's no way of knowing whether someone's being sarcastic, ironic, or just stupid. This comment made me laugh, whatever your intentions were.
Re: Kill all Fascist and Nazi Supporters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Kicking nazism off the internet isn't censorshi (Score:4, Insightful)
It's retard shaming.
I can't say that I agree with or support neo-nazi beliefs in any way. But I do believe in free speech. If they are so retarded, then why do you think they need to be removed from the internet? If they are so stupid that anyone can easily see it, what's the need to remove them from a place that you have to go look for them to even hear/read what they have to say? Why allow them to even try to claim some kind of victimhood?
Re: Kicking nazism off the internet isn't censors (Score:2)
How very progressive of you, you homophobic arse.
Re: (Score:2)
When I went through boot camp, it was probably even split between liberal city boys and conservative country boys. Many of them owned guns before joining, and were from families that owned firearms.
One recruit even had fired full-auto weapons before joining, but that was because his dad was a drug dealer.(1029, Oorah!)
Also creates legal risk when they start editing (Score:3)
So long as an ISP is just a "series of tubes" (actually fibers and routers such) through which anyone can send anything, they can't well be blamed for what one person requests or sends. As soon as they start exercising any editorial control, they start opening themselves up to be held not responsible not only in the court of public opinion, but LEGALLY.
I think the right move for Cloudflare would have been to condemn what was said while pointing out that they only operate caches. The site is actually hoste
There are four types of ISPs, not just your AOL (Score:3)
If you think your ISP, which I'm guessing is AOL, is the only type of ISP there is, turn in YOUR geek card.
The relevant law lays out four types of ISPs, network engineers split them up slightly differently, but still into four types.
17 USC Â 512(k)(1)(A) defines the general term Internet service provider:
(A)As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points spec
Re:gave in once (Score:4, Insightful)
The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.
Cloudflare didn't care if the world called them Nazi supporters, so long as they weren't using Cloudflare to do so. The Daily Stormer used Cloudflare to call Cloudflare Nazi supporters, so Cloudflare gave them the boot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kicking speech I don't like off the internet isn't a bad thing. If he applied that to speech I DO like, that would eventually become a bad thing, but it would take a while.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
I see why you hid behind anonymity for this one. The person to whom you replied expressed no preference on nazi or other kinds of speech; you're clearly projecting.
Btw, who is bubba and is it legal in your jurisdiction to exhort his suicide?
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC The Daily Stormer was little more than a pathetic troll site.
What didn;t get kicked off the platform was pro-terrorist propaganda sites, when Anonymous originally wanted to censor. For some reason they were allowed to remain, and the CEO never woke up angry with them even though their shitty fanaticism contributed far more to deaths than anything that feeble "nazi" site ever did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot less than you think. Eventually people will just use the excuse in order to silence somebody else’s view. By then people will just willingly accept that they were taken out due to “offensive comments“. It run similar to the argument about gun control. Nobody wants to give a crazy person a gun. But having a law that says that people that arereported by their doctor are revoked of their Second Amendment rights Has already resulted in false reports by doctors who were simply anti-gun. U
Re: (Score:2)
You're being silly now, rage boy. Calm down. Go eat a snickers or something.
I'll just leave this here.
https://youtu.be/gtjr8LrTAJE [youtu.be]
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'll reserve my right to contact companies and let them know they are doing business with hatred, and let them decide whether or not they want to work with CloudFlare. First Amendment is a double-edged sword, so I hope very much we do not lose the social pressures that keep hate speech in the far corners vs. potentially showing up in a dangerous way in some auto-personalized result for a lot of users.
Normalizing hate is always, always how genocide starts.
No it always starts with nitwits silencing others out of fear. Genocides are not perpetrated by free societies.
Freedom does not exist merely for its own sake to afford people the space to be left alone. Freedom at its core limits the power (e.g. corruption) of the state in order to protect it from ITSELF. Without freedom history is crystal clear about happens next.. what always happens when power over others is consolidated.
We are already seeing the fruits of this throughout Europe:
https://theintercept.c [theintercept.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to your hate-filled world view?
How about I let both your stupid friends and the stupid nazis both have websites, and people can choose which of you sound stupider.
Re: (Score:3)
people can choose which of you sound stupider.
Simple: the Nazis sound stupider.
When the fuck did being a Nazi become OK again somehow? Probably when most of the people who fought them last time died off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your post raises a number of questions.
Why are you assuming he's a nazi?
Wouldn't your Grandpa have had too much sense to violent assault someone for no rational cause?
Why do you lack the presumed common sense of your Grandpa?
What are deets?
Why would you assume he owns SS skulls or a maga cap?
What term would you use for someone that would shoot someone purely because of the clothes they wear?
Why are you even posting on Slashdot, given that this isn't Reddit, Tumblr or your kindergarten whiteboard?
Re: (Score:2)
Is not this something, the fabled Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent from ever happening?
No. And I really don't understand how people can persistently misunderstand net neutrality so badly.
Cloudflare is a CDN, not an ISP.
The point is to make ISPs agnostic to the source and destination of packets.
No, of course not. Nazi's speech is specifically exempt from any and all protections, is not it?
Oh of course I forgot, you'e an idiot, so everything is "muh freeze peach" even if it's utterly irrelevant. Go trol
Re: (Score:2)
Name an argument for why Net Neutrality for ISPs is good and desirable, that would not also apply to the CDNs. You can't. Therefor, the distinction you just made is without difference.
Yeah, this seems like the only kind of argument you and yours [fcc.gov] are capable of.
Re: (Score:3)
No. And I really don't understand how people can persistently misunderstand net neutrality so badly.
Cloudflare is a CDN, not an ISP.
You're confused. No one "misunderstands" Net Neutrality, we just think selectively applying it only to ISPs is a bad notion and doesn't result in Net Neutrality at all, only a subset of it. If you push for Neutrality from ISPs, you should also expect it from CDNs and Content Hosts.
Only Content creators should be absolved of Neutrality.
That, or get ready for Anti-trust action that breaks up the many content host monopolies out there. You think Microsoft was bad in the 90s ? Youtube, Twitter, Facebook are