Slashdot Mirror
Cloudflare Helps Serve Up Hate Online: Report (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader writes: If you've been wondering how hate has proliferated online, especially since the 2016 election, ProPublica has some answers. According to ProPublica, Cloudflare -- a major San Francisco-based internet company -- enables extremist web sites to stay in business by providing them with internet data delivery services. Cloudflare reportedly also keeps to a policy of turning over contact information of anyone who complains to operators of the offending sites, thus exposing the complainants to personal harassment.
TCP/IP enables extremist web sites to stay in business by providing them with internet data delivery services
So Cloudfare sells their services to everyone who's willing to pay for it.
The ultimate in diversity and that's now "bad"?
Are there calls to stop providing services to Stephen Colbert's show and CBS now then?
No?
Huh...
"hate" is a subjective term. people can get offended by anything they choose.
so unless there is a call for actual and specific illegal activity(say by calling for murder of a specific individual or group) such speech should not be censored based on such a vaguely defined term.
that is my opinion.
of course private companies have a right to do what they want with their property, either to censor or not. others(myself included) have a right to criticize that too, either way.
What sort of stupid hit piece is this?
I'm not even going to bother picking this apart because (1) other slashdotters will and (2) no one on here is stupid enough on here for this spin.
I scrolled back up expecting to see another infamous BeauHD submission, but its msmash. C'mon, don't lower your standards.
Otherwise known as forwarding the complaint. They aren't policing content. Calling this "doxxing" is like complaining that Amazon gave your address to UPS.
Actually, there *is* quite useful way to define extremism that doesn't rely on on subjective value judgments about the admissiability someone's particular ideology.
To the degree that a person tends to perceive the world as polarized into two camps with no overlap or middle ground, that person is an extremist. It doesn't mean he's wrong on any particular issue.
So, socialists who think anyone who isn't a socialist is a fascist are extremist socialists. Likewise capitalists who see any departure from laisez-faire as tantamount to communism are extremist capitalists. Their comrades with similar views about issues but somewhat more flexible views about people are not extremists.
Extremists view the world as populated by the moral equivalent of angels and devils; consequently they have a severe difficulty with compromising or horse-trading, which is tantamount to a deal with the devil. This is why extremist movements are notorious for schism.
This also explains the resurgence of extremism in the age of social media. It's never been easier to surround yourself with like-minded people, no matter how outré your particular mania is.
Now "hate speech" is an entirely different matter. It's poorly named because "hate" is not the defining characteristic. The defining characteristic of hate speech is intimidation. Suppose you burn a cross on a black family's lawn, not because you have anything personal against blacks, but because you know that it's better for your property's value if the neighborhood is entirely white. That's still hate speech, even though you don't feel any hate. On the other hand if you politely inform your black neighbor so you'd prefer it if the two of you stayed out of each other's way because you hate blacks, that's not hate speech.
Hate speech is a crime against liberty: it's an attempt to force people not to live here or put their genitals there, when it's none of your damn business.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Correct. This is not news. it is political propaganda.
These stories, like the "extremism on Youtube" stories, are designed to put pressure on companies to abandon their free speech principals and submit to the will of the media and the political class.
Let us be frank: The article mentions the "Daily Stormer", but the actual websites which will be banned are almost certain to resemble the Prop or Not list of alleged "Russian Propaganda" sites. A list promoted heavily be the Washington Post and other MSM sites which ultimately included many independent bloggers and even left-wing progressive sites like nakedcapitalism.com.
The Propornot list was a list of doubters. Sites which would not tow the propaganda line, on war, on the banks, on the economy, on the election. These are the sites which the political class has been scheming to proscribe since the election. I would hope that people can put aside their political preferences in that election long enough to acknowledge that it was a shocking defeat for the Media and the increasingly corrupt political establishment. Regardless of your opinions on him, someone the political class did not want got in, and they are making moves and exerting political pressure -- usually through their lapdogs in the media-- to prevent ANY such repeat occurrence.
Regardless of whether you'd prefer vote for Trump or Sanders or any other disruptive candidate come 2020, if this censorship drive continues, the MSM will dominate the internet as well, and you'll be stuck with the political equivalents of Hillary and Jeb Bush.
How is it a "doxx" to forward complaints about a site to the site owner after telling people that you will forward complains to the site owner? Just look at the CloudFlare abuse report form -
(emphasis added)
They're not looking up your information, they're forwarding your feedback about the site to the people who actually control the site. It's your fault if you don't even read the damned page and send your contact info to some site telling the people who run it just how much you hate them.
I thought due process in Cloudflare's home country included the right for someone accused of a crime to confront his accuser (U.S. Const., Amendment VI).
Cloudfare shouldn't be policing their customers. If someone is violating the law and you are the victim, report it to law enforcement or initiate civil proceedings. It is the function of courts to issue permanent injunctions if the law is being violated and Cloudfare will comply with these injunctions; Cloudfare has no duty to act as an arbitrator, nor should it have. Also when it comes to spam, publish a restrictive DMARC policy and sign your outgoing e-mail streams using DKIM. Discard bounces if necessary.