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
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.
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 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.
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.
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/
We used to have many free speech TLDs, like .com .net .org .edu and all the country level domains.
Unfortunately many people think that the only speech that should be free is speech they agree with.
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?
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.
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.
If it does make it up to the SCOTUS, the outcome is pretty cut and dry. "Congress shall make no law...". Meaning the government can't take any action restricting free speech. In fact the entirety of the Bill of Rights is simply a list of things the government is not allowed to do. For example, the second amendment prohibits the government from restricting your access to firearms, but businesses are 100% in their rights to do so on their premises. A business is equally within their rights to regulate your speech on their premises (and web hosting can be considered virtual premises) for the same reason. So whether the suppression of speech happens in the virtual world or in meatspace, the only question the court needs to ask is whether it is the government doing the suppression. In this case, the answer is a clear 'no'.
Granted if the FCC declared all Internet infrastructure to be common carriers, then if an ISP, hosting provider, or other service provider such as Cloudflare decided to censor any content, then they would be in violation of the regulations. But that would be a statutory case and not a first amendment situation.
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