Besides the politics, this was a very stupid move by Cloudflare. Cloudflare set up a limit to what they allow or not so now they will have to fight where that limit is. It can become death by a thousand papercuts. It'll start from the most controversial ones like child stuff and revenge porn. Then will keep moving, scandal by scandal.
Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant (e.g. nazis/terrorists), but who decides what belongs in that category is a huge problem that shouldn't be in the hands of a private tech company.
See how Google/YouTube/Twitter did mass bans and ended up including people like Jordan Peterson.
Cloudflare set up a limit to what they allow or not so now they will have to fight where that limit is. It can become death by a thousand papercuts.
Twitter also enforces its policies very selectively, and seems to be getting away with it so far, but they are walking a tightrope. E.g. now violating the ToS is OK if it's "newsworthy" etc. Or how "Kill all X" will get you banned for some values of X but not others.
The Jordan Peterson point is a good one. His point has been for quite a while that if you're a young man, and you're unhappy with your life, the way to fix that is to work on fixing your life, not joining some far-right movement.
Google really worked at cross-purposes with its own agenda there.
It is naive to think this battle wasn't going to eventually come to Cloudfare or the Internet as a whole. The US has some of the most extreme laws on allowing free speech and there is still plenty of stuff that we don't allow. Humanity has decided there are just some things that shouldn't be said or shared. Child porn is the most obvious example. Once you go from 100% free speech in which anyone can say anything to disallowing a single thing, you have to start defending where that line is. I don't think that is bad. I also think it may be a dangerous thing for the technolibertarians in our community to continue pushing for 100% free speech as if it is an ideal state because it doesn't account for how negative speech can silence the speech and infringe on the rights of others.
It is worth remembering that DS had claimed that Cloudflare's management secretly supported DS ideas/worldview/etc. There was a reputation problem brewing for them, so they decided to drop one customer to keep a lot of others.
Yes, before we know it, Cloudflare will also get in trouble for "facilitating fake news" or "not doing something about it."
The internet is trending towards becoming a cluster of walled gardens. Whether or not that will make a "better internet" than the one we have/had, it remains to be seen, but I'm inclining towards believing it won't. It could make it better for some things, but I think it could make it much worse for other things (freedom of speech, defending controversial ideas like gay marriage, or national security whistleblowers, etc).
> Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant (e.g. nazis/terrorists)
No. They are precisely who we should tolerate. That's what free speech rights exist to protect.
We shouldn't tolerate violence, but we should tolerate speech.
> See how Google/YouTube/Twitter did mass bans and ended up including people like Jordan Peterson.
But according to the left, peterson is an intolerant person.
This is why we have principles and rights. The first thing everyone used to learn in a philosophy class was that if the neo-nazis don't have free speech, then nobody has free speech.
You can disagree with neo-nazis. That's your right. But if their speech is curtailed, then nobody has speech because speech no longer is a right, it's a privilege that depends on the whims of the offended.
Regardless of the political causes in question, it's nice to see that the CEO is being held accountable. And he seems to be a responsible person, judging by the concern he expressed over his own actions.
It's easy to say that we should take every opportunity we can to fight Nazis. It's much harder to explain why we really should stop and think before trying to enact vigilante justice. This is one of the reasons why; vigilante justice is hard to enforce equally and fairly, and raises the question of how impartial and fair the vigilante is.
>It's easy to say that we should take every opportunity we can to fight Nazis.
We fought the Nazis in 1941-1945. These guys aren't Nazis, they're angry, misguided white people trying to look tough. Why is this an important distinction? If we as a society are going to upend core values and norms, we need to have a damn good reason.
If I were a cynic (which I sometimes am), I would say this guy was trying to ride a political wave and it is now biting him (and us) in the ass. DCMA takedown without a warrant is bad for everybody. It sounds like there is a decent chance he just squandered that to score a political point that no one will remember 6 months from now.
Politics and business don't mix, regardless of how much of a "slam dunk" it seems.
This doesn't seem to be the CEO being held accountable, seems to be another group who wants to razzle-dazzle the court by taking his words out of context.
Booting Daily Stormer has definitely caused problems in their case, but let's be real here:
1) DS hasn't in fact been kicked off the Internet.
2) There's a huge difference between being a _possible_ copyright infringer and a _declared_ Nazi.
3) DS hasn't engaged in the kind of identity-cloaking whack-a-mole so beloved of copyright infringers.
I'm sure any competent lawyer could add another 20 points off the top of their head. In short, yeah it complicates the case, but the fat lady hasn't even cleared her throat.
This isn't that haunting. It's just another iteration of well-funded standard lawyer games. CEO foresaw this kind of stuff before he undertook the action.
If you're looking for a sympathetic plaintiff, Nazis aren't a good place to hang your hat.
This is one of those unintended consequences that highlight the value of good legal representation.
CEO shuts down website lickity split, but then claims in court he can't stop a piracy site.
I've had this happen before at work where legal has told me "if you ask that question it will come back to bite us since if something bad comes up, it will show we knew nefarious behavior was happening. Better to not ask at all."
Where were these "free speech" activists when ISIS recruiters' online accounts were shut down? It's different when the lives endangered by violence-inciting speech include your own.
Germany learned a lesson on violent speech after the Holocaust, but many in the US keep their heads in the sand despite the violent oppression of blacks and gays in recent history. I blame it on the religion of Libertarianism, which promotes the nonsensical belief that the invisible hand is benevolent.
> “By his own admissions, Mr. Prince’s decision to terminate certain users’ accounts was ‘arbitrary,’ the result of him waking up ‘in a bad mood,’ and a decision he made unilaterally as ‘CEO of a major Internet infrastructure corporation’
I'm actually amazed that's from the press release they put out.
Props to Cloudflare for evicting DS and dealing with subsequent bullshit. Some people might think it's a bad move, I'll just say I'm glad you guys acted.
I really like the fact he said I'm being a dick and it's a dick move but it still was at the end of the day a dick move.
Cred for saying it, it's better than most companies but still he kowtowed on such a important decision, freedom of speech and will the Valley uphold it and failed. Little sympathy really should be given. Just cred for calling it.
“I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet,”
He should be FIRED by the board. Decisions on what speech to ban should be decided by an ethics committee not by a guy that awoke up on the wrong side of the bed. Because such decisions have consequences, major ones.
edit: "Ban" was supposed to be keep off their network...and I understand the difference between state and private actions. State can't but private companies can.
[+] [-] alecco|8 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant (e.g. nazis/terrorists), but who decides what belongs in that category is a huge problem that shouldn't be in the hands of a private tech company.
See how Google/YouTube/Twitter did mass bans and ended up including people like Jordan Peterson.
[+] [-] gaius|8 years ago|reply
Twitter also enforces its policies very selectively, and seems to be getting away with it so far, but they are walking a tightrope. E.g. now violating the ToS is OK if it's "newsworthy" etc. Or how "Kill all X" will get you banned for some values of X but not others.
[+] [-] R_haterade|8 years ago|reply
Google really worked at cross-purposes with its own agenda there.
[+] [-] slg|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] betterunix2|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Feniks|8 years ago|reply
Free speech is all fine and dandy until somebody says something you don't agree with.
Happens every single time.
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
The internet is trending towards becoming a cluster of walled gardens. Whether or not that will make a "better internet" than the one we have/had, it remains to be seen, but I'm inclining towards believing it won't. It could make it better for some things, but I think it could make it much worse for other things (freedom of speech, defending controversial ideas like gay marriage, or national security whistleblowers, etc).
[+] [-] marindez|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eighthnate|8 years ago|reply
No. They are precisely who we should tolerate. That's what free speech rights exist to protect.
We shouldn't tolerate violence, but we should tolerate speech.
> See how Google/YouTube/Twitter did mass bans and ended up including people like Jordan Peterson.
But according to the left, peterson is an intolerant person.
This is why we have principles and rights. The first thing everyone used to learn in a philosophy class was that if the neo-nazis don't have free speech, then nobody has free speech.
You can disagree with neo-nazis. That's your right. But if their speech is curtailed, then nobody has speech because speech no longer is a right, it's a privilege that depends on the whims of the offended.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jwineinger|8 years ago|reply
Doesn't this make us intolerant by definition?
[+] [-] hacking_again|8 years ago|reply
slippery slope
[+] [-] dawnbreez|8 years ago|reply
It's easy to say that we should take every opportunity we can to fight Nazis. It's much harder to explain why we really should stop and think before trying to enact vigilante justice. This is one of the reasons why; vigilante justice is hard to enforce equally and fairly, and raises the question of how impartial and fair the vigilante is.
[+] [-] Clubber|8 years ago|reply
We fought the Nazis in 1941-1945. These guys aren't Nazis, they're angry, misguided white people trying to look tough. Why is this an important distinction? If we as a society are going to upend core values and norms, we need to have a damn good reason.
If I were a cynic (which I sometimes am), I would say this guy was trying to ride a political wave and it is now biting him (and us) in the ass. DCMA takedown without a warrant is bad for everybody. It sounds like there is a decent chance he just squandered that to score a political point that no one will remember 6 months from now.
Politics and business don't mix, regardless of how much of a "slam dunk" it seems.
[+] [-] icebraining|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gragas|8 years ago|reply
That seems to be the meme of the decade. Do you think all republicans are Nazis too? You're living in a bubble. Think for yourself.
[+] [-] moomin|8 years ago|reply
I'm sure any competent lawyer could add another 20 points off the top of their head. In short, yeah it complicates the case, but the fat lady hasn't even cleared her throat.
[+] [-] kevmo|8 years ago|reply
If you're looking for a sympathetic plaintiff, Nazis aren't a good place to hang your hat.
[+] [-] refurb|8 years ago|reply
CEO shuts down website lickity split, but then claims in court he can't stop a piracy site.
I've had this happen before at work where legal has told me "if you ask that question it will come back to bite us since if something bad comes up, it will show we knew nefarious behavior was happening. Better to not ask at all."
[+] [-] lern_too_spel|8 years ago|reply
Germany learned a lesson on violent speech after the Holocaust, but many in the US keep their heads in the sand despite the violent oppression of blacks and gays in recent history. I blame it on the religion of Libertarianism, which promotes the nonsensical belief that the invisible hand is benevolent.
[+] [-] nebabyte|8 years ago|reply
I'm actually amazed that's from the press release they put out.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032956
[+] [-] baby|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aaron695|8 years ago|reply
Cred for saying it, it's better than most companies but still he kowtowed on such a important decision, freedom of speech and will the Valley uphold it and failed. Little sympathy really should be given. Just cred for calling it.
[+] [-] tryingagainbro|8 years ago|reply
He should be FIRED by the board. Decisions on what speech to ban should be decided by an ethics committee not by a guy that awoke up on the wrong side of the bed. Because such decisions have consequences, major ones.
edit: "Ban" was supposed to be keep off their network...and I understand the difference between state and private actions. State can't but private companies can.
[+] [-] eugeniub|8 years ago|reply