Slashdot Mirror
Cloudflare's CEO Has a Plan To Never Censor Hate Speech Again (arstechnica.com)
"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.
It took 50 million deaths last time those fucks got power, this time we need to kill them all a lot sooner.
Once you give into that sort of thing you will do it forever. You are now marked as someone who can be shamed into whatever they want. Enjoy the fruits of your weakness. They will do it again. You will cave again.
It's retard shaming.
According to the Cloudflare CEO, his plan to never censor hate speech is to never censor hate speech. Again.
Great plan, thanks.
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?
Fuck him. Too late. He damaged free speech.
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.
once again the sjw/pc censors won. and you wonder why your country voted for trump. i'll spell it out for you: they were tired of political correctness, social justice, and all the negativity those beliefs engender (pun intended). your president leaves a lot to be desired, true, but it could have been a lot worse.
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?
This cuts off funding from internet sponsors, and that directly reduces the evil and terrorism and murders that the Nazi and Fascist groups not only advocate but directly commit.
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!
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.
... is not a goddam binary paradigm.
Make all that shit a utility and let the gods straighten out the fucking mess.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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."
-Styopa
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 hosted by a different company. If the hosting company is known for housing Nazi propaganda and that sort of thing, perhaps say so. Name the hosting company if appropriate, but don't start getting into making editorial decisions about what can and can't flow through your pipes, unless you want to turn into a company that sells only a flowers and rainbows subset of the internet.
Some elected Democrats have said REALLY nasty things about Trump. Trump has said offensive things. Is Cloudflare going to get into deciding which of those things can be seen through their proxies? Things said by both sides could certainly be called "hate speech". I don't think Cloudflare wants to get into the business of deciding which hate speech is okay with them.
Al Sharpton talks about "offing [killing] copsâ and "crackers", is Cloudflare going to ban him? Never should have started down this road.
speech, you must limit free speech.
Cloudflare is not an ISP, your geek card has been revoked!
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
It was his choice to make and I hope he enjoyed it. Most of us don't stick to our values 100%.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
When Wesley Crusher was asked why he came so much in his mother's ass, he replied, "Well, first, I really like to try get a son that turns out just like me," and after a moment's thought he added, "Plus, it's really hot seeing Tasha Yar try to lick it all out."
he never had to kick them off in the first place. I'm guessing he was more concerned with his bottom line if he continued hosting them. e.g. worried he'd get boycotted.
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 through our house and senate and folks like the Daily Stormer helped put the folks in charge that made that happen.
Thing is, this shit will get out of hand, like it always does, and sooner or later those angry, disenfranchised people are going to turn on somebody. It'll be some harmless minority used as a scapegoat. Maybe the Jews. Maybe the Muslims. Doesn't matter. If anyone reading this has the slightest interest in stopping that, well, now's the time. Get out there and vote. And not just in the major elections. Not just in the mid-terms. In the bloody primaries. You've got to identify why these people are so damn angry and do something about it. Otherwise somebody else is gonna come along, organize them, and do horrible things. I've got 2000 years of history backing me up on that one. At least.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Freedom of speech and freedom of action are two very different things, at least in a civilized society.
It seems we as the human race are still struggling to reconcile these two freedoms in a way that ultimately benefits all of us.
Either way I fucking hate Nazis, but I do believe they should have the right to speak, however much it makes me sick to my stomach.
Citations needed.
Cloudflare is not an ISP, your geek card has been revoked!
Your authority for such revocations has been revoked due to the fact that you failed to note the 'just operating caches' part of the logic. Now that said-
unless you want to turn into a company that sells only a flowers and rainbows subset of the internet.
This is exactly what all the network infrastructure profiteers want. They also want it to run real smooth, with all dissent shouted down by the cabal in power. All while they rake in the big bucks.
It's obvious enough to me that cloudflare is evil insofar as they don't point out that Free Speech could be adequately defended if the ground rules of the internet included the ability for all users to run an apache httpd server/service as easily as they can run a gmail client. In such a situation, cloudflare indeed just becomes another CDN that no Free Speaker has any dependency on in any way whatsoever.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Also, if a cop lets an armed criminal shoot civilians, that's bad. If a cop shoots an unarmed civilian, that's bad. It's almost like context matters.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Nope, nazis can go fuck themselves when asking for citations. This isn't Berlin you dumb cuntwerfer. Nobody walks like a faggot and calls it military around here, that's Trump on his way to pound-me-in-the-ass prison. BITTE!
Auf Wienerstain!
Yes, this may be the pretty simple situation where obstructing/resisting good is evil, and helping evil is evil.
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.
Whereas much of Europe thinks that once you have an idea of seeing evil speech that matches well-formulated laws, fighting such evil is just as legitimate as fighting a robbery or fraud.
>Muh socialists
You yankees get dumber every year.
Why do stupid people need to not be on the internet...? Is that even a real question? Stupid people on the internet is how we get infected botnet computers that then run even more if the internet for everyone. Not that insecure internet connected devices are any better, in fact they've made infected home computers a secondary target, but dear God people. Think before you post.
Look for the piece on a dude named Anglin. All that is Trump, is he.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...
And Roy Moore's your daddy!
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.
Is not this something, the fabled Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent from ever happening?
No, of course not. Nazi's speech is specifically exempt from any and all protections, is not it?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
Yes, irony noted.
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."?
However that said he seems to be rectifying the situation and to get away from the fascists who want to control what content passes through Cloudflare he should come to New Hampshire and take part in the Free State Project. Lots of like-minded people here were not happy about this action he took and thought it went against everything the CEO stood for. Understandably it's hard to stick to principles when you are amongst the socialists in Silicon Valley.
Words can be infectious to a population that isn't taught to be critical thinkers.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Only a totalitarian-minded, nanny state socialist would consider choosing not to forget the 100+ million people that socialists have killed in the last 100 years to "getting dumber." Your definition of being smart is to forget the slaughter that leftists have always committed? Classic. And so predictable.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I couldn't care less about the opinions of some racist asshole. But what the hell do you think is going to happen when you start stripping people's right to free expression with vague TOS? You do realize that America is a nation of 100 million gun owners with about 500 million guns between them? Do you really think you're going to get very far? News flash, US is not actually just New York and LA and a lot of fly over states that don't matter. Do you need more of a reminder that the US military is almost to a man politically right wing?
I'll tell you what son, you go right ahead and try to otherize everyone you don't like with your unearned sense of moral superiority. It can't possible go bad for you.
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 specified by a user, of material of the userâ(TM)s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
512(a) through 512(d) lay out the four types recognized by law, each with slightly different requirements to have Safe Harbor:
A) Transitory ISPs (transit backbones and access providers)
These ISPs move data, but never store it for long periods. Note that just as your local ISP provides their customers internet access at home, the backbones provide internet access to their customers, the customers' data centers. Network engineers split access and transit into two types.
B) Caching ISPs
These operate caches and do not materially alter the nature of the content. These provide a *buffered* connection to the internet - requests coming in from the internet are sometimes satisfied by the ISP re-sending the response their customer provided earlier.
C) Hosting ISPs
Store data at the direction of the user. These provide highly reliable internet connections for customer software, with hardware also provided.
D) Search engines and indexes. Provide access to the internet not as a wire, but as a means of locating the desired internet-accessible resources. Legally an ISP, not an ISP from a network engineering perspective.
This is why we're in favor of free speech, because the world's dumbest sacks of shit like this guy think they can define the terms.
Real definition:
Nazi = political group that committed genocide in the name of race
Internet definition
"Nazi" = anyone that didn't vote for Hillary and tongue the sweat off her disgusting corrupt ass
So you feel ashamed now?
Nobody is obligated to educate you.
... "arbitrary" and "dangerous".
If one doesn't exercise a level of censorship, a community standard, the result is the hate-wars one sees on Twitter.
It always fascinates me that those touting 'free speech' and screaming down censorship ignore the censorship endemic and unique to the USA: (non-fascist) socialism. When someone speaks of the necessity of combining government control and capitalism: either as socialist-capitalism or welfare-capitalism, the speaker is vilified, hated and silenced in the USA.
They want to kill nazis. Then everyone they don't like is called a nazi. Millions die. All justified in their minds.
The word from the deep state surveillance system must have trickled down to the corporate level: persecuted groups are seriously contemplating violence against their authoritarian oppressors
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
So you agree
Nazis = evil
Nazi sympathizers = evil sympathizers
"Any questions?"
What you actually learned on Slashdot today:
Slashdot has comments from multiple people with differing viewpoints.
How very progressive of you, you homophobic arse.
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"
You also agree
Homosexuals=Evil
Homosexual supporters=Evil supporters.
If a private org wants to censor, fine. Let them brag about it on their signup page.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It would but problem with net neutrality as it is now, only ISP's can be found to be violating it. Companies like google and facebook are exempt from net neutrality so they can do what they please.
It doesn't work, bro.
Some websites are more equal than others.
GAS THE KIKES
RACE WAR NOW
14/88
This will be hidden - that's the internet in 2017.
They might as well be, the naive internet infrastructure which has survived long past it's use by date requires parties like cloudflare and cloud providers to make it function.
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 troll elsewhere.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If you can't provide a compelling reason for why they are wrong then perhaps they are not.
I thought he kicked them off because something said by Stormfront was a very strong implication that cloudflare was endorsing their speech rather than simply protecting their platform and free speech.
Your absolute stupidity of what you say is offensive to me. I think you should be locked away to prevent public exposure of such stupidity. How does that feel moron? The context is words and words do not and cannot hurt as much as bitch ass babies like you like to whine deserve censored ten fold.
evil
subjective
terrorism
citation needed
murders
citation needed
not only advocate but directly commit
citation needed
Normally I would expect you to see the error of your thought process, but that would likely fall on deaf ears.
funny how cloudfare didn't give a shit when they (tDS) kept writing about massacring all jews, but got deleted the moment they called a fat female fat... don't kid yourself, this isn't about anti-fascism, this is about gynocentrism.
1) When did the term "hate speech" come into popular usage, and WHO made it so?
2) What is "hate"?
3) What did the word "hate" USED to mean, for the past 2,000 years, before it was redefined to mean "anything that doesn't go along with the controlled media's narrative"?
Go back to China bootlicker. Thats where you belong.
Only a small penis nazi appologist like yourself would be entertained by such arguments.
Kill yourself. You kind lost WW2 and YOU'LL LOSE AGAIN. Freedom makes better snipers. Get ready SS asslicker. Im gunning for YOU.
Please explain why cloudflare isn't just a protection layer for the httpd service. For there to be no dependency it should be up to the httpd admin to choose cloudflare or another similar service. Is this possible now?
I ask because I have a social consensus AI primitive looking for something to spin off. I failed to notify countzero@google.com with this experimental tidbit, "which is to reduce sentences to a number using my modified Shannon algorithm (SFE). I then combine this number with the SFE of each word of every other sentence and solve a diagonalized grid of cells, one for each combination. All such activated unlabeled forms can, in linear time, in my generalization of PCA, pluck incoming questions out of a stream if they cause a rise above an interpolated significance threshold, relative to the form of which a hashed location in hyperspace is determined by its eigenvalues. Because many forms of unrelated subjects can hash to similar approximate locations, the means I took to resolve this involved awakening forms of hyper-parameters, some of which will radiate a cascade of albeit short-lived activators. The question is answered by the perfected Hamiltonian that immediately forms through all possible routes.
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, such as upholding the principals of free speech.
There is no simple, consistent solution. It depends on the nature of the content, and the context in which it exists (the Daily Stormer stuff was immediately after a literal Nazi used his car to murder and injure people in broad daylight, apparently convinced that the war had started).
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
A slight correction: nobody has any obligation to him to provide an education; but, society has an obligation to itself to eradicate ignorance. The simplest means by which to do that is to educate at every opportunity. The less ignorance and apathy there is in the world, the better the world is for all of us.
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 less frequently I am likely to encounter them, which is a net gain for everyone, including me.
When we openly educate each other, we literally all win.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
What is the site’s free speech was to post simple-to-follow code and instructions for damaging cloudflare itself? Would the CEO bravely defend the right for the destruction of property in the name of “free speech”?
Now compare to the Weimar Republic in which Hitler obtained absolute power perfectly legally by discovering that its constitution legally allowed its own dismantling?
If its a "bad" website then it shouldn't be allowed to fester in the dark.
I'm a good healthy person. However if we sterilize all the bad thoughts out then only the strongest of them survive and at that time I will lack the cognitive immunities (experience) to take them on. I'm not embarrassed to say that I have no idea nor give a damn what a Neo Nazi is right now. Hate and ridicule me all you like but its the damn truth. That classification is EMPTY without a specimen. When it comes down to the last few people talking about Neo Nazism then they are all that remains of Neo Nazism.
Sure failures are poor solutions, but a solution still must be found. If someone is going out of their way to spend a piece of their life to say something then there is always some general worth even if entirely void of context.
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 that are willing to lie to try and ruin you. The fact that currently this is the standard go-to tactic of the progressive left, feminists, and so on should be telling you just how much of a chilling effect their actions are having on society. Of course those same people are now getting a taste of the same rules and actions they pushed in the first place, and are being silenced. So suddenly it's a very "real problem" for them.
And before you try the "but the left/feminism/etc really isn't doing that..." yeah you can stop with the bullshit, because they are. Whether it's feminists pulling fire alarms at a MRA meeting, doxing people to get funds pulled from a male domestic abuse shelter, what's happening in the dark and dirty underside of "feminist" culture in tech(like with google, ada initiative, and so on), or what happened at Wilfred Laurier, the left has a very big pro-censorship problem. And a very big problem with identity politics if someone dares to walk off their plantation.
There is no simple, consistent solution. It depends on the nature of the content, and the context in which it exists (the Daily Stormer stuff was immediately after a literal Nazi used his car to murder and injure people in broad daylight, apparently convinced that the war had started).
Well the guy wasn't a literal nazi, he was an ethno-natioanlist which isn't the same thing(remember it's okay to be white). Reminder that the case still hasn't gone to court either. And that whole "free speech" thing still applies to them, unless it falls directly into "fighting words" aka actionable threat. Which wasn't the case. But if you want to roll that way, it would mean that you're a literal fascist, with your statist goose-stepping to stifle speech you don't like.
Om, nomnomnom...
Not quite that black/white though, is it.
Randomly killing someone that poses no threat to your life is clearly a bad thing.
Speech/beliefs/opinions are a bit more scaleable. Granted Nazi hate speech is so far up the scale that it's pretty black, but that will not be the case every time.
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?
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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 newspaper most recently. I think they also attacked Breitbart using the same tactics a while
back.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/...
Nazi this, nazi that, whom do you think owns that media, cloudflare, facebook, amazon, all banks? You are just another goy looking for his retard flouride mouthwash.
What happened to: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
Stepford students. 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 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.
Remember 2 years back with that professor who told students to grow up over Halloween costumes? Then was yelled at on the quad by an insane student who screeched that "university wasn't about an intellectual space, but about 'building a home.'" Or the professor that screeched "she needs some muscle over here" to get rid of that nosy student reporter and on and on and on and on... Yeah. There's an entire generation out there who've been taught this. There's that same generation that will go out of their way to hound, harass, you and your family if you dare to step out of line. They're today's young budding fascists who believe that the state should determine what's right, and they'll use the power of the state or their group to make sure it happens.
Om, nomnomnom...
society has an obligation to itself to eradicate ignorance
Society doesn't have an obligation to do a damn thing. You're projecting your values on to others.
Those are Enlightenment values, which are nothing but instruments of white supremacy. The Enlightenment is on the way out, to the tremendous applause of the world community. A generation from now, Rousseau will sound like a nutcase extremist and people will wonder why he was ever taken seriously.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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 period of time to report it.
Om, nomnomnom...
Compare racism and extremism in the US to Europe if you don't see it. Europe has strict anti-hate speech laws. They also have much larger problems with things like nazis than the US does. You probably don't believe it, because shocker, the news media doesn't like to cover it, but seriously go over there and check it out some time. The US really doesn't have a problem with extremism comparatively. Just look at the number of "home grown terrorists" that make the news in the US vs in Europe.
When private companies own and operate the internet
Like Reddit is doing now? Like Twitter is doing now?
They have never done a good job vetting their customers. Many attack sites sit behind their service. They made their bed, let them lie in it.
Social media is already filled with this. Wrong someone and they'll dig up all your info, post it publicly, harass your employer, then all their 1000 "friends" will dog pile on top.
Right, so you agree with me. Being a "dumb pipe" doesn't absolve the pipe owner of all responsibility.
Incredible how this simple statement that we both actually agree on triggered one of your snowflake buddies to mod my comment as "troll".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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 are capable of.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
ISPs can throttle Alt-Right, Neo-Nazi, and other White Supremacy groups down to 1bps unless you buy the White Power package.
Bake that cake.
If you want to dress up as NAZIs, chant racist slogans, have mass torchlit rallies, intimidate and attack people, you should get exactly what we gave the NAZIs in WWII. Backed by the full force of The State, ie the National Guard should shoot all these fuckers, very publicly. And if they don't get the damn message and persist, shoot them some more.
I also don't have a problem with people spraying gasoline on a torch-weilding mob. It's what Dr. Frankenstein should have done.
You use "good" and "bad", but the belief that a certain race can be superior purely based on skin color is objectively morally questionable.
What entity in Australia made the cookbook illegal? What about the UK? What entity operates the great firewall in China?
Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
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 just as bad now, if not worse (at least Windows, as bad as it was, was content agnostic).
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
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 especially on speech are regressive. This is reflected in UK law itself, where what's permissible is clearly stated. Doesn't work like that here, which is whatever isn't stated is permissible.
Om, nomnomnom...
Solution: you can enjoy "broad legal immunity" as long as you don't remove content based on your own beliefs; as soon as you start removing contents based on your own belief, you are taking responsibility for what is going through your platform, and hence you can and should be held responsible for everything that goes through.
The lesson is that only opinions and views that have been reviewed and authorized by the Ministry of Truth are permitted to be displayed in public (including on the Internet). Public display of ideas that contradict what the Ministry of Truth has ordained to be true is a crime. Any person or organization who could or should have been aware of the commission of such a crime, and who does nothing to report it or stop it, is an accessory to the crime. The Ministry of Truth will employ a Legion of Honor to patrol the public spaces to ensure that any unapproved idea is removed and those responsible are banished. Any opposition to this decree is also a crime to be punished as severely as the aforementioned crimes.
The Dailystormer is consistently anti-semitic. Basically the whole site is reshares of clickbait MSM news with "see? Jews again," appended to or interleaved with the story. That's 70% of what they do, over and over. One guy can do this. Why is this nonsense credible enough to get more views than any other "white supremacy" web site? Because they keep getting kicked off the Internet by organized Jewish organizations.
Idiots! Get out of your own way. It is like Hillary 2.0.
I'm not sure there's a functional difference here with respect to NNs stated goals. Otherwise aren't we saying that if Comcast only allowed their own CDN on their network and as a result only companies that paid Comcast got fast content hosting to Comcast customers and that's ok?
No surprise.
Bigotry always has zero citations for their claims. Zero citations about Christianity having 100m. There wasn't even 100m people in the world during most of Christianity.
But remember, according to the double standard, bigotry is OK against Christians.
It all comes down to prejudice against people for having a different opinion.
Doesn't mean that you have to give them a venue, nor does that mean you have to do business with them.
If Matt is honest about his motives and believes cutting off service for Daily Stormer shouldn't be a precedent, he should immediately restore their service, or at least announce that intent if DS is interested in continuing to use Cloudflare. Anything short of that is just empty talk and shouldn't be trusted.
On the topic of Nazis: if you disagree with me about anything, you are a murderer and a Nazi. No, don't deny it, it's official because I said so.
is to take your money elsewhere. Make Cloudflare the CDN of racists and use a different CDN that isn't friendly to Nazis. We got Cloudflare bundled with our subscription to something else and refused to use it. It's a huge bone of contention with our provider that they basically sneaked it in and we're not going to sign up with them if Cloudflare is a part of it.
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 group is not directly advocating violence (I do not mean implicitly because anyone can make an argument for implicit), let them spout off while the educated world laughs at their lunacy. I loath these groups as much as anyone, but gagging them will not make them go away. If you think they will up and disappear simply but trying to take away their soap box, you are sorely wrong.
In America you have the right to hate whomever you so choose, and so long as you aren't making a direct threat, you can blame anyone for your woes. I want to know all sides and all points of view on issues so I can be better educated on how to combat the falsehoods. Sometimes a simple background search on the person espousing his or her views offers up an explanation as to why they can be completely disregarded. Sending a hate group underground by denying them their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of press, makes them all the more dangerous and difficult to monitor. Not only that, but we become hypocritical.
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 least you post a counter argument and don't just try to censor.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Here is an example of what you speak of. Not that it will matter.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I do, look at the attendance of KKK functions over time. It isn't a drastic figurehead changing his mind, it is all the masses that make dangerous ideas possible slowly slipping away.
A couple of dictators who borrowed Marx's writing for his populist rhetoric killed those people. I really wish people could get their facts straight on that one. Hell, people still call China communist today and it's not even pending anymore.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's called self preservation. You have a natural obligation to do what's best for yourself and society has the same. A society that fails to live up to that obligation soon fails, as we're beginning to see over the past few decades.
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. When those of us who know better eventually die of natural causes or fall victim to this idiocy, there will be nobody left to protect the special snowflakes and the decline will accelerate at an alarming rate.
This, my friend, is the part the skipped over in Idiocracy.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Soros must pay you well to shill for him, huh?
Regardless, doxxing, harassment, and death/rape threats have been the goto method for right wingers for decades. Some of them don't stop at murder either. Many of them are willing to rape your children to "get back at the liberals" because as this year has actively pointed out, almost every right winger is a child molester. The evidence is staggering.
First of all, trying to wipe it out is like Whack-A-Mole. It will keep popping back up. Itâ(TM)s impossible, and unintended consequences rule, like YouTube wiping out anti-terrorism videos because they contain key words that pro-terrorism videos might have. Crazy.
Second, I donâ(TM)t appreciate others trying to âoeprotectâ me from whatever I choose to seek out. It doesnâ(TM)t matter what it may be. Itâ(TM)s up to me, not them. Itâ(TM)s none of their business.
Having said that, I think the tools should exist for people to self-censor their feeds- they can protect themselves (and their kids) from whatever upsets their delicate constitutions, fine. But they do not have the right, ethically, to keep ME from information, acting like itâ(TM)s for my own good. Period.
What happened to: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
It went the same way as "Nazis are bad and have bad ideas."
2017: The year a bunch of people said, "Hey, maybe this time the Nazis have good ideas and we should listen to them."
If this Cloudflare CEO really means what he says, then he needs to stop blocking Tor exit nodes, making us solve recaptchas (at best) and blocking us completely (at worst). Seriously, stop even noting someone is using a known Tor exit node and treat the traffic like you would anything else!
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.
Proof is not possible. Freedom of speech as a societal aspiration is a philosophical choice we collectively make. That statement is the proof. You either buy in to freedom of speech or you don't.
Not necessarily true. You can see the effects varying levels of freedom of speech has on society.
I've seen it argued that free speech is not a right in the traditional sense, but a mechanism for problem solving in a society.
If you can freely speak, or some topics of speech are "inappropriate", then when your society faces issues, it is self-limiting itself to possible solutions. By allowing everything to be on the table (i.e., not "bad" speech), it allows for the greatest number of solutions to societal issues.
This success in solving problems can perhaps be measured the prosperity of a society.
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"
Have you heard of the civil rights movement? It was responsible for tearing down huge bulwarks of racism. You should look into it sometime.
If this Cloudflare CEO really means what he says, then he needs to stop blocking Tor exit nodes, making us solve recaptchas (at best) and blocking us completely (at worst). Seriously, stop even noting someone is using a known Tor exit node and treat the traffic like you would anything else!
This is probably because they're commonly used as relays for DDOS attacks. I commonly use a privacy VPN and have this issue, but as someone who deals with hosting some high volume sites I understand.
While it may be commendable and satisfying to shut down a website just because it's a filthy hive of neo-nazis, I'm sure it sent their legal team to DEFCON 1, as it could put their status as a common carrier at risk. So unfortunately any company that doesn't want to risk falling on their sword in the name of denying neo-nazis a platform can't afford to do so.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Well the guy wasn't a literal nazi, he was an ethno-natioanlist which isn't the same thing(remember it's okay to be white).
Not exactly the same thing but they have much in common, especially in the case of white nationalism (as the car attacker was). White nationalism is at the core of nazism: Not all white nationalists are nazis, but all nazis are white nationalists. And ethno-nationalism is inherently racist and therefore wrong.
It's okay to be white, but it's absolutely not okay to want to establish a white ethno-state. Also expressing pride of one's whiteness is a dick move (see: history).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
fuck Voltaire!
Here's the thing: If Net Neutrality becomes dead and ISPs are not only turning everything into walled gardens, but also tracking and logging everything, things like Tor are going to be the last bastions of any sort of online privacy. Penalizing people for using Tor just makes Cloudflare or anyone else party to whatever bullshit the ISPs want to impose on us.
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.
No, he didn't.
Downvotes don't stop you from posting. The fact you still are posting proves you wrong.
That you get upset at people exercising their free speech to downvote you makes you the snowflake, not them. Trying to pull a childish "I know you are but what am I" is just pathetic on your part.
I am "over there" and you shouldn't believe everything you read.
Yes I am. Did MLK and the KKK have lively debates about the merits of segregation then? If so you might want to change your history books.
The whole internet is a sea of unreasonableness. Do you want me to post people "reasoning out" things on Twitter?
The so-called 'Nazi' problem is white people standing up against the ethnic cleansing of Europe with millions of Arabs and North African Muslims under the guise of 'Syrian refugee' and diversity and Fill in the blank programs.
There is an invasion of Europe orchestrated by George Soros going on. It is an ethnic cleansing campaign. Ethnic cleansing is always racist except when it's happening to white people. Then it's just fighting the 'Nazi' problem.
Dare anyone to mention that these savages are committing mass crime and rapes. Don't be intolerant with your borders and racism. The hate-speech laws are used to crack down on anyone telling the truth, and targeted against white people.
Diversity programs and white-privilege and antifa and Anti-Nazi programs are just anti-white brainwashing. The media is a major part of promoting the leftist agenda.
I grant its a difficult line to draw. And I certainly favor erroring on the side of speech, not censorship. But, as you pointed out, Nazi hate speech is pretty far over on the scale.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
If it's a "private" internet entity, it can decide who it wants to deal with. Only in cases where there is insufficient competition is that going to cause any problems. Whether a website or a private entity is good or evil or bad is a somewhat subjective judgment call, and will have the effect that the people making the judgments give it. Things have been working satisfactorily on this basis for a long, long time.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Given enough competition among private entities, there's a simple, consistent, workable solution. If you run a web service, have your own terms of service and exclude who you want (as long as that doesn't run afoul of nondiscrimination law). If you need a web service and you're running a racial hatred site, shop around. There's probably someone who doesn't care.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't think that's true in the US. When you have agreed not to divulge state secrets, doing so is a felony. Once they've been divulged, an individual or private entity can further divulge them. This was tested in the courts way back with the Pentagon Papers, the decision taking into advantage freedom of the press.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No it isn't. You are conflating utterly different topics.
Self-preservation is making sure I have water, food and shelter, not giving lessons to self-centred people who think everybody owes it to them.
Aww, that's so cute. Little Billy thinks he's a man.
Is the US constitution really that narrow on speech? As in things like photographs can't be considered protected speech?
No photographs can be protected speech. The very narrow limits on speech are: "Fighting words" aka imminent threat. And "child pornography" which falls under the DOST test. A picture of your kids splashing in the bath isn't CP. A picture of your kids splashing in that bath, and being sent to a person requesting it can make it CP however.
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?
Depends on whether or not it's falls under whistle blower laws, it may or may not. Anything else is treasonable actions, different laws apply.
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 least you post a counter argument and don't just try to censor.
Or, they find your views so distasteful that they're pulling your soapbox out from under you. This is akin to the hecklers veto, something you support. I'm failing to see why you're having a problem when the same rules and conduct is being applied against you. Oh right, you suddenly don't like it when it's being applied against you...
Om, nomnomnom...
Social media is already filled with this. Wrong someone and they'll dig up all your info, post it publicly, harass your employer, then all their 1000 "friends" will dog pile on top.
True, which is why I use pseudonymous names everywhere. It's funny how much of a push there was to "use real names everywhere!" over the old belief that using real names everywhere is just a bad idea.
Om, nomnomnom...
:-) They weren't leftists. Calling them so is like North Korea calling itself a "democratic republic". Leftism is always in opposition to authority, by definition. Leftism is cooperative, not coercive.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Leftism is cooperative, not coercive.
Which is why every large leftist movement resorts to violence to get and maintain power.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You're funny... Again, those people aren't "leftist". They are provocateurs. Leftists have no desire for authority, only to destroy it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Leftists have no desire for authority, only to destroy it.
You can't redistribute one person's productive output to other people or centrally manage an economy without authority. If a shameless capitalist wanted to set up shop in your ideal leftist space and start competing with the government-run factories to produce better products, you'd have to have authority to stop them. Leftists cannot bring any of their ideas to bear on other people without authority, and that authority is meaningless without the threat of force. When enough people don't like leftist's idea of the way everyone has to live under their systems, the leftists inevitably have to line people up and shoot them, build walls to trap them inside their paradise, or watch them starve. All of which has always happened when leftists actually get what they want. Leftists, by definition, can only create the environment they call for through the use of authority over other people. It's the very nature of that world view.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Well, since you got the biased moderators on your side, I'll have to post AC.
You are wrong. Under leftist cooperation, wealth, and other resource distribution is just not an issue, because nobody will try to keep others from acquiring them. Authority, on the other hand, exists to protect privilege of the most powerful by putting up fences and rationing access. It is the very antithesis of leftism.
Anyway, you're just reciting mass media bullshit. Maybe because you identify with it, and feel like you're on the right end of the *big stick*.
Yes, those things are all part of your personal self preservation. The needs of a civilized society differ greatly from the needs of an individual human, though; one of those needs is education; ergo openly educating others is a required activity for the functioning of a civilized society; ergo, to preserve itself, a civilized society must openly educate its population.
Or, put another way, do you want there to be fewer ignorant people in the world, or more? A civilized society can only survive with so many of them so, in order to preserve itself, society must eliminate them. Since we've set up our current society in such a way that they're no longer eliminated effectively by natural means, we must now immunize against them.
Put yet another way, did you not just attempt to educate me? You did. You provided information I already knew, as you missed my point and thought I needed that lesson, but you did just attempt to educate me. Are you really sure you disagree with what I'm saying? If so, why did you do that? Just some food for thought.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Hate speech is a emotionally charged phrase that means "I don't like what you are saying (for whatever reason)." The only solution for bad speech Is more speech. Private business like Cloudflare can do business with whoever they choose, but in the public forum, no government entity is should be allowed to suppress the 1st Amendment speech rights of a group. There is no recognition of "hate speech" in 1st Amendment case law, and the term is an attempt to squash free speech rights. Even the ACLU even has defended the American Nazi party and their right to demonstrate. I am reminded of an NPR story in the 80's where a team of 4 lawyers from the ACLU successfully defended the Nazi's right to march (in Skokie I think--could be wrong about location). The lawyers were all Jewish. They were being questioned about the wisdom of enabling a group that advocates their destruction to promote that message. They all said that while the Nazi message it is unfortunate (and vile), it was important that they were allowed to speak, because 1st Amendment rights are for everyone. Political balance changes, so suppression of 1st amendment is always a bad idea. You may feel justified in squashing someone's right to speak today, but in a few years, your opinion may be the one to be squashed, and precedent has been set. By you.