Slashdot Mirror
Cloudflare is the One Tech Company Still Sticking By Neo-Nazi Websites (qz.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: One company is sticking by The Daily Stormer and other far-right websites: the cloud security and performance service Cloudflare. Cloudflare acts as a shield between websites and the outside world, protecting them from hackers and preserving the anonymity of the sites' owners. But Cloudflare is not a hosting service: It does not store website content on its servers. And that fact, as far as the company is concerned, exempts it from judgment over who its clients are -- even if those clients are literally Nazis. In a statement Cloudflare sent to Quartz and other publications yesterday, the company refused to explicitly say it will continue to do business with sites like The Daily Stormer, but pointed out that the content would exist regardless of what Cloudflare does or doesn't do. "Cloudflare is aware of the concerns that have been raised over some sites that have used our network. We find the content on some of these sites repugnant. While our policy is to not comment on any user specifically, we are cooperating with law enforcement in any investigation. Cloudflare is not the host of any website. Cloudflare is a network that provides performance and security services to more than 10% of all Internet requests. Cloudflare terminating any user would not remove their content from the Internet, it would simply make a site slower and more vulnerable to attack."
UPDATE: The Daily Stormer now says Cloudflare has decided to drop their site after all.
UPDATE: The Daily Stormer now says Cloudflare has decided to drop their site after all.
Cool that someone still stands for freedom of speech.
Most people were brainwashed to think that freedom of speech means "freedom to say anything - as long this are the 'good things'".
Free speech means nothing if it's not applied to everyone, including the most odious. For there is always something you would like that someone else would consider obscene and block.
Let it all through. Let people choose and find their own way.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
All publicity is good publicity.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Or maybe they have very strict guidelines on ethics and don't bend them just because they "don't like somebody". It could be they believe in not interfering with free speech, no matter how repugnant. A consistent view point in this world of hypocrites is a breath a fresh air.
On the contrary, they are the only ones with ethics.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
When you prevent people from speaking, you led everyone down a slipperly slope of fascism.
From a business perspective, and looking over the long run, this is probably the most sensible move to make.
This could help establish them as a trusted service provider that won't engage in sudden knee-jerk reactions that could have devastating consequences for their customers.
Even if you're not doing anything deemed "wrong" today, you should be concerned when companies providing a critical service have shown themselves willing to suspend a customer's service suddenly.
While the risk of a service provider failing unexpectedly is always present and should always be taken into account, a service provider that commits to impartiality and the avoidance of sudden knee-jerk reactions could very well give it a leg up over its competitors when it comes to choosing a service to use.
If I were choosing a service provider, I would likely not choose any of the ones that have engaged in knee-jerk reactions that could harm their customers. Even if it cost more, or even if there was perhaps less functionality offered, I'd be much more likely to consider a service provider that prioritizes providing high-quality, uninterrupted service over playing political games.
Man, Damore was right that the west coast Techies are all about shame. even if its constitutionally protected speech. I for one applaud CloudFlare while simultaneously giving the Nazis the finger.
The Swiss banks tried to hide behind that for years... "Oh you see, our confidentiality rules are so verrrryy ethical."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"The First Amendment really was designed to protect a debate at the fringes. You don't need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with, because that speech will be tolerated. You need a First Amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable or outrageous or offensive - because that is when the majority will wield its power to censor or suppress, and we have a First Amendment to prevent the government from doing that."
- ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro
It's true that companies are not limited by the First Amendment, but it's refreshing when one acts as if they were.
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
What would Godwin say about a post actually BEING about Nazis? Oh, nevermind...this is what he would say.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Are we going to get an article about how the ACLU is "sticking by Nazis" as well? Just because a company or group doesn't immediately go out of their way to embargo or shut down a group doesn't mean they're in cahoots with them. There is a difference between supporting a group and providing services to that group as part of a general policy of service for all as a matter of principle.
Actually, my original point was more about the companies ethics(or lack of), not about anyone persons freedom of speech(or lack of). This isn't about government censorship, this is about the moral values of the people making decisions within that company. You, and anyone else, can say anything they like. Doesn't mean I have to support it what you say or do business with you. That isn't based on your religion, skin color, gender, or anything else. Let me give an example: Does a radio host have to leave on a caller who is spouting inciting racial or ethnic hate speech? No. They don't have to condone it. Honestly, they don't even have to give them a place to speak. They have a street corner, if they are so inclined.
Rights can be in conflict. Which was more important? Hitler's right to free speech or a million Jews and their right to life?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
the company refused to explicitly say it will continue to do business with sites like The Daily Stormer, but pointed out that the content would exist regardless of what Cloudflare does or doesn't do.
While I and probably most of us find the content disgusting and repulsive, I for one am glad Cloudflare is standing up for free speech even they disagree with. This takes real balls. And it's a good thing. Free speech isn't optional. Only listening is optional.
It seems far more ethical to respect that you should not have the power to decide whom is and whom isn't allowed on the internet. I also like how you put it all down on the money, pretending like Google would care in the slightest if they didn't need some positive PR to take eyes and ears off the Damore storm.
Oh, and Cloudflare also noted they are cooperating with law enforcement, assuming there was anything they could do. You know, that stuff that isn't just virtue signalling. Seems like a respectable line to walk.
Keeping hands off also seems far more practical since Google and others now have shown that they can be freely petitioned for moral arbitration. Because they will be getting many a petition from now on, and social pressure to act upon them too. First the easy targets that no-one likes...
>It's true that companies are not limited by the First Amendment, but it's refreshing when one acts as if they were.
There seems to be some limits. We don't want companies refusing services to gays or muslims or minorities.
There is also limits on companies firing employees who try to unionize or talk about working conditions.
And we don't want them firing pregnant workers or disabled people for no reasons.
Most americans wants some limits to protect people, this includes people who dont agree with.
Pastor Martin Niemöller said it best.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Article has already "Nazi" in the title. What are we supposed to further trol^H^H^H^Hsay about Cloudflare ?
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
If Antifa and BLM had just stayed home and not gone to Charlotte, then KKK and Nazis would have had their rally, looked like fools, and then gone home.
Everyone would see what fools they are. The press would make a single mention o the rally and that would be it. No one would care what they said or think.
But nooo. They had to go in and start some shit. Now, they are the opposite side of the coin. Anyone who wanted to justify the KKK and Nazis just had to point to Antifa and BLM.
Good job guys.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
https://prism-break.org/en/
Came across this link ages back and bookmarked it - reading your comment, I figured you may find it useful for alternatives to the tech goliaths that everyone uses.
""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Is entirely separate from, "I disapprove of what you say, but for $X I will actively carry around a placard saying it for you. I'll print your copies for you, and I'll even pound the pavement to deliver your flyers for you."
I'm not sure why you think believing in free speech, and defending free speech requires me to actively engage as a participant in spreading their crap around?
them supporting them has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech does not mean you have to provide someone a platform to speak from, if anything they are ignoring free speech as they are not voicing their own opinion by NOT providing the platform to them.
This way people can say whatever they want and no one will get upset, ever.
Giving a speech gassing anyone.
Why can't you morons discern between speech and actions?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Cloudflare is allowing an unfettered "Public Square" on the internet. As much as it sucks, we need calm down and talk this shit out.
The real question is what freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press all mean in the virtual world. I don't agree with what was said, and I certainly don't agree with any form of censorship regarding speech. I really would like to see some of these cases make their way up to the supreme court to reaffirm some of the rights which have been diluted over the past 4-5 decades.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
That's a false analogy.
Neither Hitler nor anyone else has a Right to murder anyone.
Hitler does have a right to express his views and the views he placed forth in Mein Kampf were banal. Just another ranting cafe revolutionary speaking against the evils of big business and banking cartels.
The issue is Freedom of Speech, not Freedom to Kill others. By your standards we should prevent Muslims from preaching Sharia Law (Koran plus Sunnah) after all it preaches the killing of non-muslims and promotes slavery and torturing and killing atheists. Surely such hate speech should be banned by Google as well.
Oh. And there were some idiotic things written and promoted by Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and others. Those works should be banned as well. After all, think of all the deaths caused by hateful religions.
Don't forget banning the works of gay murder Che Guevara as well.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Absolutely.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Disagree. It would be like Staples being able to refuse to sell you paper because they don't like what you're writing on the paper. Or Dell refusing to sell you a computer for what you write.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Exactly
Alternatively, if protestors hadn't protested against the KKK and Nazis, the KKK and Nazis would have been emboldened and run bigger marches next time round. You cannot be sure that not protesting is more effective than protesting.
No. Cloudfare protects the right of people to say unpopular things.
If we allow censorship of racists now, it will be censorship of everyone in short order.
If Antifa and BLM had just stayed home and not gone to Charlotte, then KKK and Nazis would have had their rally, looked like fools, and then gone home.
Everyone would see what fools they are. The press would make a single mention o the rally and that would be it. No one would care what they said or think.
But nooo. They had to go in and start some shit. Now, they are the opposite side of the coin. Anyone who wanted to justify the KKK and Nazis just had to point to Antifa and BLM.
Good job guys.
yes, let's just let the KKK and Nazis go unchallenged that'll show them.
Disagree. It would be like Staples being able to refuse to sell you paper because they don't like what you're writing on the paper. Or Dell refusing to sell you a computer for what you write.
and Staples and Dell would be in their rights to do so. it's called the free market. why do you hate the free market?
It's not so much the counter protesting that is the issue. It's the violence that comes from counter protestors. This has been happening for well over a year now. Antifa has become increasingly violent, so now we see right wing protest groups arming themselves. It's a shame that it has come to this. If you want to protest, be armed.
Giving a speech gassing anyone.
Why can't you morons discern between speech and actions?
why can't YOU realize that some speech IS action. yelling fire in a crowded room. calling for the lynching of black people. screaming for a "whites only" country. stop being naive or bluntly obtuse, whatever you're doing.
At least someone is standing by Free Speech. Go to Hell Snowflakes.
That will show everyone what morons they are.
They come into town, wave their flags, give their speeches, and then leave town. Then everyone thinks, WTF? and forgets about them.
You have never heard that saying about Sunshine being the best antiseptic? When people hear what they actually have to say, they will dismiss them is nut and cranks.
Or, you can go start a war with them and then everyone will wonder what the war is about and possibly side with them in your war on Free Speech.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If Antifa and BLM had just stayed home and not gone to Charlotte, then KKK and Nazis would have had their rally, looked like fools, and then gone home.
Everyone would see what fools they are. The press would make a single mention o the rally and that would be it. No one would care what they said or think.
But nooo. They had to go in and start some shit. Now, they are the opposite side of the coin. Anyone who wanted to justify the KKK and Nazis just had to point to Antifa and BLM.
Good job guys.
yes, let's just let the KKK and Nazis go unchallenged that'll show them.
Because tooling up to go meet them head on worked so well!. Please - the counter-protesters were anything but pacifist.
One group of assholes held rally. Another group of assholes went along specifically for the purposes of disrupting that rally.
Simmering tensions amongst two opposing groups of extremists was going to end badly regardless of who you think is right.
And just for the record, the videos I've seen show both groups being belligerent; it's pretty obvious that people were going to get hurt.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
> I'm not sure why you think believing in free speech, and defending
> free speech requires me to actively engage as a participant in spreading
> their crap around?
Who was talking about you. Do you own the Internet?
As everyone here likes examples, lets assume that air was a controlled medium and it was impossible to transmit sound via air without approval (for a fee) to "AirSoundWave Inc.", a private company.
Do you still think that "Free Speech" does not require that company to "actively engage" (i.e. taking money and providing approval) to anyone who wants to speak "freely"?
Well, nowadays public speech basically means Internet and for most people the Internet is such a medium controlled by companies.
I have no problem with certain forms of speech to be restricted by law (we actually have that in Germany). But restrictions of speech by private peer pressure on/by companies leads to a society where the minority (or the less loud majority) has no free speech anymore.
Those are Calls to Action. Not protected.
Stop being a fucking cunt moron.
So..
Fightinfilipino is a cock sucking, mother fucking, butt raping, autistic, retarded, spastic, murdering, moron and a piece of shit. And he's probably Gay to boot.
That's protected.
Fightinfilipino just killed my kid, Kill that son of a bitch!
That's a call to action. Not protected.
Get the Picture?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
these are _literal_ Nazis. This is calling a spade a spade.
/. for at least a year. You know all this. Are you trolling or cherry picking your facts to preserve your own world view?
If they wanted to advocate for something peaceful they could do so without flying Swastikas. By calling themselves Nazis and flying their colors they automatically imply their intention to act violently because _Nazis_solve_their_problems_with_violence_! This is not up for debate. You might just as well argue grass is blue and the sky green. Hell, you'd have a better chance of proving that because at least color on some level is subjective. The only way you can argue that Nazis are non-violent is if you're arguing against facts from the get go.
Also, when the hell has the left ever argued against free speech? Go Daddy not doing business with Nazis is as much a freedom issue for them as it is for the Nazis. It only becomes a free speech issue when access to _government_ services is denied. And so far as I know it has not.
You and your goofy sig have been on
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Alternatively, if protesters hadn't protested against the KKK and Nazis, the KKK and Nazis would have been emboldened and run bigger marches next time round.
The Charlottesville rally was already set up to be the biggest white supremacist gathering in recent history, described by one of the organizers as "the biggest rally event we've had this millennium", pulling in members from the KKK, the proud boys, neo-Confederates, neo-nazis, and just about every other white supremacy group in the nation.
Still with all this coordination and bluster the event planner requested a permit for at most 400 people. Now that may seem like a lot but these people were coming from all over the country, hell that murderer that drove into the crowd was from Ohio. The white supremacy movement, with months of coordination and planning, could only gather less than 400 people for one of their hate rallys. There are high school graduating classes with more people than that. With the events in Charlottesville and the media's endless reporting before and after it may seem like these groups are very large and a profound influence on society, but the truth is that these people are a very very small minority of the population and most people do not believe like they do. The KKK and Nazi's may become as emboldened as they want, I do not see them ever fielding marches that exceed the size of a high school football stadium. Because no one wants to join them.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
...sticking by neo-Nazis.
Sticking by neo-Nazis.
The ACLU is sticking by neo-Nazis.
They must be in league with them.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Disagree. It would be like Staples being able to refuse to sell you paper because they don't like what you're writing on the paper. Or Dell refusing to sell you a computer for what you write.
and Staples and Dell would be in their rights to do so. it's called the free market. why do you hate the free market?
Especially if the paper were to be used to print invitations to a gay wedding...
Would you prefer if every company kept a random list of who they would and would not take money from? Wouldn't it be great if you went grocery shopping and were told "we don't serve your kind here"? No need to justify it, after all, they're a private business.
Or is it only ok when it happens to people you dislike?
Or you could protest on the other side of town.
Disagree. It would be like Staples being able to refuse to sell you paper because they don't like what you're writing on the paper. Or Dell refusing to sell you a computer for what you write.
and Staples and Dell would be in their rights to do so. it's called the free market. why do you hate the free market?
Especially if the paper were to be used to print invitations to a gay wedding...
nuh uh, you're not getting away with this one.
turning away customers because they're going to use your product to say vile shit = sure, whatever
turning away customers because of WHO THEY INTRINSICALLY ARE = discrimination
it's pretty damned obvious.
There seems to be some limits. We don't want companies refusing services to gays or muslims or minorities.
I think the free market takes care of that problem. It's just bad business to refuse potential customers. You can get away with it to some degree if that particular group you're refusing service to is small and no one else cares about them at all, but that's hardly the case. If a business refused service to gays or Muslims (both small groups in the U.S.) they don't just lose those customers, they also lose any customers who disagree with their policy of refusing those customers. You can't on one hand complain about the prevalence of social justice activists, but then also suggest that none exist to vote with their wallets. But the reverse is true just as well. You can't think that people who want to make social change are incapable of influencing the market.
In the past one of the biggest arguments against this notion was that it's difficult for people to have the kind of information to make these informed decisions, but in today's world it's almost the opposite. We have so much information and a lot of it coming at us faster than we can process. We're practically drowning in it and it's almost necessary to spend more time filtering and evaluating that information than it is finding or accessing it.
You can't really legislate morality though, which I feel all of this is an attempt to do and only just wastes time. You probably don't have to look very hard to find a club that bans certain kinds of dress, which is just a contrived way of saying "no blacks". If someone really wants to keep a certain group of people away, they'll find a legal means of doing so, because the law cannot be proactive enough to prevent such from happening without being outright tyrannical. It's better to just let racists, anti-semites, and other bigots be themselves and to exercise your own free choice to not do business with them. In a world of things like Yelp it's pretty easy to get information even if you're in a new place and don't know any of the people or the local establishments.
You need to be protected from government, not from private companies. One of the social consequences of speech is that people won't help you spread it. You're arguing that one of the roles of government should be to force companies to provide the platform and voice to speakers.
That's wrong.
Niemöller wasn't talking about censorship. He was talking about NAZIS arresting and killing people. Abusing that quote to defend actual NAZIS is just mind-boggling.
Who was talking about you. Do you own the Internet?
By 'me' I meant, me, *or* anyone else (such as you, godaddy, google, or cloudflare). Don't be a pedantic twit.
Well, nowadays public speech basically means Internet
I agree.
and for most people the Internet is such a medium controlled by companies. I have no problem with certain forms of speech to be restricted by law (we actually have that in Germany). But restrictions of speech by private peer pressure on/by companies leads to a society where the minority (or the less loud majority) has no free speech anymore.
Basic Internet access (packet transit services) should be regulated as a common carrier and treated as a public utility. The ISPs should not know or care what is in your packets, and they should not be allowed to disconnect your service based on what is in the packets.
So if you want to host something buy some hardware and host it yourself. Nobody should have to do it for you, and if your message is so undesirable that you can't find anyone willing to do it, you can do it yourself. But I agree with you, to the point that you must be able to do it yourself; and to that end, as I said, basic packet transit needs to regulated as a common carrier and public utility.
Last I looked thepiratebay.org only had one ISP https://www.robtex.com/dns-loo... one of many that we have a right to.
A post rather than a reply - an attempt at a shot out to cloudflare and a thank you for your service.
Then we have thousands who should be tried for every murder of a police officer in the last year, right?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
They've been slowly disappearing over the last few decades of ignoring them. But hey, why not throw international light on them, stir up the pot, and give them attention to get their message out even wider and see if they can attract more members! Maybe they will even go back and partner up again with the Nation of Islam and both go and attack the Jews!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Then we have thousands who should be tried for every murder of a police officer in the last year, right?
yeah, those aren't BLM protesters. keep the lies up though! the nazi movement needs your support! /s
It's still hatred if the left does it.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Actually, they are - Snopes simply says it wasn't from New Orleans, but NY City. And says it "probably" wasn't the BLM group - but who else was it, your peaceful GOP members?
Here's another video of Antifa calling for dead cops. But you keep on defending that - it's not hate speech, right?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You mean like George Soros, the one that's bankrolling the leftist groups - in Berkeley, Charlottesville, and other places?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
you keep linking right-wing youtube channels. there's no way they're not credible. /s
look, just save yourself the trouble and link directly to Trump or something. at least you save time.
Why do socialists and communists get a free pass in these discussions? If you are going to talk about kicking totalitarians off the net, do it for all of them: Nazis, communists, and socialists.
And that is the problem with the modern political left - it's about the messenger, not the message. Classic liberals like Alan Dershowitz or the ACLU were at least freedom loving; there was an actual belief in honoring the concepts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Modern liberals have become the fascists they rail against. And they will use marginalization, the politics of personal destruction (starting with the personal demonization of USSC nominee Robert Bork), and the powers of Government to push their fascist viewpoints. Modern US liberals are anything but tolerance and inclusive - they are divisive and exclusionary and demand ideological purity above all else.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The best course of action absolutely is to ignore the "protest".
Rule 1 of trolls: Don't feed the trolls.
oh man you think i'm a liberal. hoo boy
dirtbag yellow journalist excessively editorializing by using the "sticking by" phrase to mischaracterize Cloudflare's stance on Freedom of Speech; support of free speech does not mean endorsement of what another says, it means you have the balls to stand on principle even when you find it distasteful; fucking lever-pullers have an easy time keeping the weak-minded distracted, divided and conquerable
Then they came for meâ"and there was no one left to speak for me.
Yep. So let's get those fucking Nazis now, before they come for the Jews like they keep saying they're going to.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm amused by how stupid such extremists sound, but discouraged to see the extremists patting each other on the back with "insightful" mods for such garbage.
I'll bet you don't understand how funny AND insightful it would be if I had an opportunity to shout "Fire!" when you [SuperKendall] are attending a crowded theater. Of course, there will be no fire, but it will be double funny if you get trampled to death.
My sig says enough about the confusion surrounding freedom.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
When I used the term "Nazis", I was using the same language as the OP, where the context indicates they meant "neo-Nazis", not the Nazis of the Third Reich.
Ditto for KKK.
Whether small or large, the question is "how do we make them smaller than today?". The OP suggested that protest was ineffective; I suggested that we could not know, and that protest may be more effective than lack of protest.
Totalitarian "Progressives" sure do love Capitalism.
Really? Bakers can refuse to bake cakes now?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Sorry. Doesn't work that way. In that case saying there are "too many white people", or "white people are the problem" should also be prohibited. Or calling for Sharia law (killing of gays and atheists) should also be banned, and certainly imans calling for the death of jews and non-believers should be arrested.
Should we arrest Farrakhan? How about Jeremiah Wright?
You forgot the First Amendment? It doesn't allow for direct calls for individual violence but it allows all hate speech. (The imans in the case above, in my view, crosses the line into incitement to violence.
Furthermore if a bakery is required to sell to everyone as it is a public business - the same goes for Google and Twitter and all other tech companies.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
pretty much yeah.
I don't appreciate the right of people to say things I don't like, largely because the things I don't like to hear are--obviously--things I think are objectional. You're obviously a terrible person for being a nazi, because the collection of knowledge I have leads me to believe this is a valid determination of you and your entire message if you're a nazi.
That doesn't mean I should be given the power to stop you from saying things I don't like.
We have exactly one acceptable system of mob rule, and that's government. When enough people have yelled loudly enough, the government changes the rules through a bureaucratic process involving campaigning, election, public scrutiny, open publication of new laws as they form, disclosure of who supported those laws and who suggested what parts, and so forth. It's hard to get new laws passed; and if you do something a lot of people don't like, you get thrown out, and now you're not allowed to make laws anymore.
If we changed the rules every time some small, loud group of millions of people in a country of hundreds of millions of people started shouting loudly that something must be done, we'd be back to lynching. Last time we had that, it was mostly white people lynching black people for being inconvenient or, frequently, just because the world would supposedly be better with fewer blacks; this is not a part of our history I'd like to repeat. Mind you, now we'll essentially lynch you for lynching someone; and that took decades of public outcry and political campaigning for human rights to set to law, and then more decades to get enforced--the court actually didn't enforce anti-lynching laws until 30 years after they'd passed.
So okay, we have assholes over here. I'm not comfortable with a group of corporations taking it upon themselves to make these assholes unpersons by their own decree, on a whim, to play up to a temporary media spectacle and gain the favor of the public. Each of them decides unilaterally to further restrict the span of a person's freedoms, rather than arguing to consensus on the degree to which a person's freedoms might or might not be restricted overall and by what stated rules.
If the entire market decides to not do business with you, you starve for lack of capacity to draw income or--even with a state welfare--to purchase food from grocers who refuse to conduct business with you. The destruction of a person's freedom, his livelihood, and his life is no trivial thing, and should not be at the whims of the public attention, but rather at the public at-large via the representation of democracy and the bureaucracy of government to fulfill that duty of representation.
This is becoming a popular debate today. Even the recent trial-by-media of James Damore has drawn a fair bout of criticism, largely technical in nature by those who feel he was suggesting a fair perspective on the nature, value, and limits of diversity rather than a simple attack on women; yet there remains a large undertone that a person should be given the right of due process and just consideration, rather than a lynch-mob responding without a careful weighing of facts and a corporate sacrifice to appease the howling masses.
I wonder if this will become an important political topic in some future term, after the common man becomes an effective politician who has to cover his identity and watch what he posts to Twitter for fear of setting off a media attack and corporate blacklisting against himself.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Hmm. Your first statement in italics could, if taken seriously, be defamation. That's not protected.
In the UK (different speech laws) it's definitely not protected.
Are you saying that the video is fake?
Just that, you're ducking the question on whether this meets your definition of hate speech or not.
Lets make it easy for you. Skip the video, skip Youtube entirely. A simple question: Is advocating for the death of police officers hate speech?
Nah. You sound a lot more like a Nazi than a liberal.
oh i must be confused then after having railed against nazis this entire thread. come on, don't post AC you coward.
Are you saying that the video is fake?
Just that, you're ducking the question on whether this meets your definition of hate speech or not.
Lets make it easy for you. Skip the video, skip Youtube entirely. A simple question: Is advocating for the death of police officers hate speech?
and you're deflecting by using right wing propaganda to divert from the whole point: nazis are EVIL. you're doing what that jackass James O'Keefe was doing by doctoring videos and lying to the public. GFY.
Hmm. I'm not using right wing fucking anything, or doing any doctoring of videos. I'm asking you a straightforward question, which I noticed you still didn't answer.
My point is that you're equating speech with violent action, then refusing to tell us whether examples of speech qualify under your rules or not. Forgive me for being entirely fucking confused by you and your stance.
So Cloud Flare believes in "freedom of speech" for assholes like Nazis?
Good. Because if you don't believe in freedom of speech for assholes, you don't believe in it at all.
Nothing in this world is free - CloudFlare offers their service for free at the basic level, which means to make money they data mine.
CloudFlare adds tracking cookies to sites they serve. All the data passes through them using a CloudFlare issued SSL, they an authorized man in the middle. They can literally see, in plain text, any data passing through their service. Even on the paid plans where the destination site can provide their own SSL means that CloudFlare is given the ability to decrypt the traffic.
There is probably more value to them and law enforcement agencies to leave the service up so they can intercept all the traffic from their users to build cases against the site and it's users
Why isn't there pressure to remove BLM, radical Islam, Marxist, and socialist content?
Answer: because conservatives are OK with their being people who disagree with them.
Liberals are NOT OK with there being people who disagree with them.
American gulags are not far away.
I'm just going to go ahead and call you an idiot for ignoring the obvious context. If you follow the context, you would see I'm mainly talking about protests and counter protests occurring in the same spot for political reasons with antifa being present, not people protesting with no counter protests.
If you're opposed to the fundamental human right of freedom of expression, just say so. Don't be a pussy and hide behind metaphors, similes, turns of phrase, or any other slimy spineless evasion. Just stand up and say, "I don't believe that all people should be free to express themselves."
You are perfectly free to hold that opinion, but be warned that by establishing the precedent you empower your enemies. Once we can have a legal concept of "wrongthink" in the United States, don't get upset when the tables turn and your ideas are the ones that can lose you your job, get you kicked out of school, or even sent to prison. It is you who created the power to do so.
You guys are like the idiots who pushed the local school district into allowing churches to distribute pamphlets with kids, and then cried bloody murder when the church of satan was suddenly sending stuff home with kids. You opened the door you fucking morons.
A cry of "show some intellectual honesty!" to the face of those whose power of persuasion relies on exactly the opposite. Where are my mod points.
Give a separate country to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and save yourself from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10...
Casteism