Hacker News Reader

There will always be companies that care more about making a buck than anything else. For years spammers and malware authors have been able to find hosting without issue, and taking them down has been a serious pain in the ass. All these nazis need to do is rent a server in russia (where they've moved their name server) and they will be fine.

The idea that companies like Cloudflare should help support sites like this is nonsensical. The slippery slope argument is an awful fallacy and ignores the fact that we can't even get content most of the world agrees is bad (child porn, active malware exploits, spammers) offline.

>The idea that companies like Cloudflare should help support sites like this is nonsensical.

It is your framing of the idea that's nonsensical. Infrastructure companies should not need to police all their services. Heck, they shouldn't police their services. That is what real police and courts are for.

As an analogy, should AT&T monitor calls and terminate service for customers using racist slurs? Now, a lot of people would surely argue that such example is false equivalency, but it follows from the same line of reasoning and would have similar long-term consequences.

A modern, stable society needs stable infrastructure that does not bend and shift based on current events or social media campaigns. Even if in some cases it seems "fair". Because anyone with a bit of sense knows it will not be "fair" in all cases. Heck, in the current environment of extreme political polarization that much should be bloody obvious.

> As an analogy, should AT&T monitor calls and terminate service for customers using racist slurs? Now, a lot of people would surely argue that such example is false equivalency, but it follows from the same line of reasoning and would have similar long-term consequences.

Angry mobs aren't thinking about "long-term consequences." Unfortunately, the media loves angry mobs because it generates viewership and clicks.

AT&T had common carrier status which indemnifies them against what subscribers did but that came at the cost of a lot of government oversight on what they could do in return.

Lots of private companies wouldn't want that (and AT&T butted heads over it).

Personally I think Facebook is already over that line, when you have the eyeballs of about 1/7th of the planet you are already a potential threat that should have government level oversight, in a democracy, you control the eyeballs you control the politicians.

And Cloudflare say they handle 10% of internet traffic. They are a behemoth just like Facebook.

That's an awful analogy. No one is telling cloudflare to monitor things- what's happening is that people are reporting the issue to cloudflare directly. A better analogy would be AT&T shutting down an account that was using to threaten or harass people.

> Infrastructure companies should not need to police all their services. Heck, they shouldn't police their services. That is what real police and courts are for.

I'm agreed that they shouldn't need to, but not that they shouldn't at all. Making these sorts of companies on the hook for things their customers do would make it impossible to run a company like this at all.

But remember, companies are made up of people. Those people have values and, with those values, make moral judgments -- and it is entirely within their right to do so. In the majority of cases I would hope that most people would choose to be content-neutral, but I absolutely expect and support that some people will eventually hit a threshold where they cannot look the other way anymore. And, in general, I think that's _absolutely ok_.

> The slippery slope argument is an awful fallacy and ignores the fact that we can't even get content most of the world agrees is bad (child porn, active malware exploits, spammers) offline

So is false equivalence. Child porn, active malware exploits and spam that fails to comply with the CAN-SPAM act are all illegal. Hating people is not illegal, nor is it illegal to have a website that hates people.

I'm not suggesting that CloudFlare was or is under any obligation to assist Daily Stormer in getting views, but deplorable or not, there's nothing I know to have been illegal about it, unlike the other bad acts you are lumping it in with.

It's not a false equivalence because I wasn't trying to compare the two. My entire point was that the illegal content, and stuff that we all know is bad, is still online- anyone can access it with a small amount of effort (or not), and even though big companies are already blocking it and refuse to host it the content is still readily available.

If we can't even get that content offline, the idea that cloudflare refusing to host this website means this website won't be able to find hosting is absolutely absurd.

Reading this it sounds like you missed the intent of the post. Cloudflare would have not done this had there not been circumstances in which it was indicated that cloudflare supports the organization.

It isn't clear to me where/how they determined this organization was "secretly" claiming cloudflare supported them.

The organization was publicly claiming that cloudflare secretly supported them.

> Replace Google with an ISP, and all of a sudden, it seems everyone says the ISP shouldn't be able to do that.

Well, for starters, in a hypothetical scenario in which Google does this, Google is not making profit off of it, as ISPs probably would in every hypothetical not-netneutrality scenario which we thought of.

> If the web is supposed to be the future of communication, but can prevent you from voicing your opinions just because they're a "deplorable" or you don't agree with them, how is that argument valid? Can someone explain that to me?

You can't shut them down. They can always host their website from the .onion domain, without Cloudflare, and handle all the traffic they want. You can shut down their domains (see: Pirate Bay), you can shut down their CDN provider (see: this example), you can shut down anything you want, but you still won't be able to shut them down completely. Even if you do, their history is on both archive.is and Wayback.

What you can do is distance yourself and do everything to make it complicated to spread their ideas. And that's what these companies are doing. By making conscious decisions, they're refusing to provide a service to a certain website. That is completely legal to do, with very few exceptions (listed here: http://www.phrc.pa.gov/File-A-Complaint/Types-of-Complaints/...).

> Also, by not hosting Daily Stormer, you simply push them further down. One of the big reasons Trump won was because people felt like they weren't allowed to voice their opinions easily.

I completely agree with you in this section.

> I get the whole "companies can choose not to host whatever they want" argument, but in order to do anything on the internet, you have to interact with companies.

If I switch what you said around a little bit:

"I get the whole 'people can choose to interact with whoever they want' argument, but in order to do anything, you have to interact with people."

So you're saying I have to interact with Nazis? I have no choice? Hardly.

People run these companies, and they're free to do business with whom they choose. Some ideologies are beyond the pale, and refusing to tolerate them is a perfectly reasonable choice.

A few business decide not to provide goods and services to black people -- not great but there are other options.

Every business decides to stop doing business with black people we have a real problem.

If you think Nazism, a racist, hateful ideology opposed to the existence of many groups of people, is equivalent to being black in America, we have nothing to discuss.

To add to this, race is a protected class [1]. We carefully and conservatively enumerate the classes a business holding itself out to the public may not discriminate based on. Political ideology is not a protected class almost anywhere in America.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

Of course, but you're ignoring that protected class status is usually granted when discrimination be so pervasive that it is a burden its recipients.

If it becomes commonplace to discriminate against people based on their political ideology then we may very well see the 'political party' protection broadened.

There are two discussions encapsulated in your comment. One, should political ideology be a protected class? And two, if so, how would you delineate protected "political ideology," something inherently more difficult to observe than ethnicity or sex, from unprotected views?

> How would you delineate 'protected ideology'?

The same way we deal with sexuality as a protected class, which is to say poorly but better than nothing.

> Should political ideology be a protected class?

I think it should, I wouldn't have said it was necessary in years past but it really seems like we're heading down a road where people are going to have to signal the 'right' political values in order to get hired.

I don't. I'm trying to explain that there are limits to 'private businesses can choose not to do businesses with anyone' with a historical example.

In small doses businesses can refuse service to classes of people, but when the discrimination is so commonplace that it becomes a burden to those being discriminated against then you may see the creation of a new protected class (or realistically the broadening of an existing one) to make sure they aren't starved or unable to find employment.

The way I look at it is, assuming you don't hold a monopoly on a particular service, you can choose not to do business with certain people, for whatever (legal) reason.

However, it cuts both ways: your other customers also have the option to boycott you and encourage other people to do the same.

And if every business decides to stop doing business with certain people, then either a) those people really need to rethink what they want to do, because maybe everyone else thinks they're reprehensible, or b) we actually do have a case of a civil rights violation in a new way that we haven't considered making a law for.

Every business deciding not to serve black people would be a case of (b) (though retrograde, as we already have laws around that), and refusing to provide service to hate groups is, IMO, clearly (a).

> So you're saying I have to interact with Nazis? I have no choice? Hardly.

That depends. Who are you? Is there a code of ethics that would compel you to interact with someone? Is it damaging to society if there isn't?

What code of ethics doesn't have an exception for Nazis?

Most of the more serious ones, I'd imagine. A hospital can't refuse someone because of their political beliefs. A public school can't refuse to teach their children.

This is an argument over which companies should be designated as "common carriers". If ISPs are common carriers, they can't shut you off just because they don't like what you're hosting. The argument I hear is often that ISPs should be classified as common carriers. The difference between an ISP and a search engine is material. The search engine is, by its very nature, interpreting and ranking content. The ISP is what gets you online so you can use search engines or host pages.

The root of the problem is really the botnets. If it weren't for the DDOS attacks anyone could put a server online cheaply and communicate with their relatively small and fringe audience. But because we are incapable of enforcing laws against DDOS attacks you need to be a big a player to stay online.

"Also, by not hosting Daily Stormer, you simply push them further down. One of the big reasons Trump won was because people felt like they weren't allowed to voice their opinions easily. There were people, basically closeted Trump supporters, who said they didn't like Trump, but secretly did. Pushing people down because they're "deplorables" simply reinforces their opinions."

I supported Trump(though didn't vote since I live in a deep blue state) and don't really agree with cloudflares decision, but I wouldn't use Trump supporters and "deplorables" as an argument for the Daily Stormer. It's one thing to be against immigration... heck it's one thing to be racist... but what the Daily Stormer engages in is dehumanization(and normalizes it). There's little on there that isn't said elsewhere more tactfully.

The larger point about trying to censor people out of having opinions instead of ignoring or condemning them is valid. This has raised their profile far beyond simply ignoring or condemning them and treating them like any other repulsive website (of which there are PLENTY that Google/GoDaddy/Cloudflare now "officially endorse").

Serious question: where's the line?

The government shouldn't be censoring.

I don't allow white nationalists into my house.

At what point does "I" represent something too big for me to no longer have the moral privilege to refuse to collaborate with white nationalists?

Maybe when you get in the business of providing speech as a service. For example, imagine you went into the wedding cake business, and someone came in and wanted you to make a gay wedding cake (note: not a wedding cake for gay people, but a wedding cake that normalized gay marriage). Now imagine you're a very old-school traditionalist about that sort of thing. Should you be compelled to make that cake with two women on the top?

Given that the Supreme Court has already decided that "wedding cake makers" are part of critical speech infrastructure, I think that Cloudflare, a service that hosts ISIS, pirates, and others, should be subject to the same restrictions as wedding cake makers.

> Given that the Supreme Court has already decided that "wedding cake makers" are part of critical speech infrastructure

They have? Source? And what's "critical speech infrastructure"?

> A baker refused to make a cake for a gay couple due to religious beliefs. Supreme Court will rule on the case in fall

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religio...

> And what's "critical speech infrastructure"?

That's the joke. If the government can force a cake baker to make a cake for a gay couple, why not force (excuse me, regulate) internet companies to provide services to those they don't want to provide service for? Surely, if your sexual orientation is a protected class as a consumer, your first amendment rights are moreso protected.

"No federal law requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their sexual orientation, but 21 states have “public accommodations” laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians.

In 2012, he said he politely declined to make a wedding cake for Charles Craig and David Mullins, who had planned to marry in Massachusetts but then have a reception in their home state of Colorado. They lodged a complaint with the state civil rights commission.

The commission ruled that Phillips’ refusal to make the wedding cake violated the provision in the state’s anti-discrimination law that says businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The panel ordered him to provide wedding cakes on an equal basis for same-sex couples.

Phillips appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he deserved a religious exemption based on the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. His lawyers say he refused to comply with the commission ruling while his appeal proceeded."

> If the government can force a cake baker to make a cake for a gay couple, why not force (excuse me, regulate) internet companies to provide services to those they don't want to provide service for?

The government absolutely could, but there is currently no law banning discrimination of service against racists or ideology in general.

The notion of protected classes with regards to private (not government) discrimination is not defined in the Constitution, but rather federal and state law. The Civil Rights Act defines race, religion, and sex as a protected class. If you want the government to prevent private companies from refusing to serve racists, you'd need a federal law passed, so I guess call your local congressman.

On the flip side of that you can only run your cake making business because you benefit from access to a stable monetary system (hah, I live in the UK), a safe and civil society and an educated populace with money to buy over priced sugar.

Given that does society not have a right to say that "If you want to earn money providing a service then you should do so by providing that service equally to all people who aren't breaking the law"?

Not saying which side I fall, I'm not sure but I think the question is interesting.

Far to often we focus on our rights and forget that other people have rights and that society has a duty to us and we have a duty to society.

Heeeeell no!

The wedding cake case didn't have anything to do with free speech, and a lot to do with discrimination: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate....

Do not conflate a bunch of causes just because you feel they are related. It doesn't do your argument any favors.

> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakes...

They have not decided anything, other than to agree to hear the case:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakes...

Wow, thanks. I still think it's an interesting case, because the people celebrating GoDaddy/Google/Cloudflare's decision largely seem to be against the right of the cake makers to refuse to make a gay wedding cake. "Wooo go GoDaddy! Hey wait a minute cake bakers!" This inconsistency is really concerning, because it betrays a simple tribalism instead of principles. I understand there are principled reasons to be for one and against the other, but that's not what I've been seeing lately. Mostly lots of celebration that corporations are censoring the speech they disapprove of.

Personally, I worry about ingroup vs. outgroup tribalism, whatever the ingroup or the outgroup is. Specifically, I very sincerely worry about its effect on the political landscape. I understand that this is not an issue of government action, but given how many responses of "They're nazis, fuck 'em" (paraphrased) I see, I honestly doubt it would matter significantly if it were in fact the government shutting the site down vs. a private entity.

To head off the obvious criticism: Yes, I understand the distinct difference between first amendment protections vis a vis the government versus the absence of those protections when dealing with other individuals and companies.

That said, I'm not a Nazi, nor am I a neo-Nazi, nor am I in any way sympathetic to their causes, but up to the point that their words specifically incite violence, I'll defend their rights to speak them.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

- H. L. Mencken

beyond the fact that the wedding cake hasn't been decided, the point of that case isn't about free speech but about protected classes.

You don't want to let (for example) landlords to deny lending to people because they're gay, black, etc. Not as much of a free speech thing as a 14th ammendment thing

> I don't allow white nationalists into my house.

That reminds me a joke that someone made during a family meeting. It was something along the lines of "What? You are going to marry a COMMUNIST?" and "I don't want loyalists in my house!", both of which are outdated concepts nowadays.

While you are free to refuse entry to your house to anyone that you want, it doesn't change the fact that refusing access to someone who would otherwise be allowed in just for their political beliefs is a jerk thing to do.

Agreed in this specific case: Daily Stormer is a hate group that promotes horrible things, and there probably isn't a better solution than to just forcibly shut them down.

But I think the poster has a point in the general sense: shutting people up through force rarely changes their way of thinking, and that can come back to bite you later on.

In practice the web can't prevent you from voicing your opinion. Even the worst of criminals manage to chat on the dark web. Companies can choose not to promote it though - Google has no obligation to put nasty stuff high in their search and the NYT has no obligation to put it on their front page. I'm not sure there's a problem there.

> I get the whole "companies can choose not to host whatever they want" argument, but in order to do anything on the internet, you have to interact with companies.

Gee, it almost seems like there ought to be some set of laws or regulations which apply to companies providing what is effectively a public utility!

If there's a real free market, then people are going to find someone willing to host anything for money. The real problem is when the law prevents companies from hosting them.

"I will disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it."

>'If I want to run my own website, I need an IP address at the minimum, and ISPs are free to cut off my internet service if they don't like what I'm hosting.'

That's why the distributed web exists, things like Freenet ( https://freenetproject.org/) Beaker ( https://beakerbrowser.com/ ) and MaidSafe ( https://maidsafe.net/ ) and tons more exist.

I don't support Nazis, but people should have free speech, even if it's hate speech. Incidents like this will make people realise that in reality a handful of companies 'control' the Internet, and when a company like Cloudflare that positioned itself as a champion of 'free speech' does a 180 like this (no matter how seemingly justified) it's going to push people to alternatives.

> and ISPs are free to cut off my internet service if they don't like what I'm hosting

The solution for this kind of thing would be using something like tor or i2p. However, if these companies start banning these services as well that would be a problem.

> but can prevent you from voicing your opinions just because they're a "deplorable" or you don't agree with them

If we're gonna talk about Nazis, let's talk about Nazis.

> I get the whole "companies can choose not to host whatever they want" argument

Are you sure? Because it doesn't sound like you do.

No one who supports Trump or Daily Stormer are likely not applying nearly as much inductive reasoning to their decisions as you are in this comment.

According to Blind, at least 40% of Silicon Valley workers support what Trump said regarding this incident. Probably less than 1% support the ideas of Neo-nazis or the Daily Stormer. You're making a false assumption and dehumanizing those who disagree with you.

> According to Blind

Do you see the problem with that sampling method? Blind is a pretty self-selecting audience, and I wouldn't say it represents the average tech industry at all.

It's the best data available until people start offering up, in real life, their true opinions on sensitive issues in Silicon Valley, which I'm sure will happen any day now.

Yeah, why isn't every tech worker as open on their opinions as James Danmore?

› if Google doesn't like a website, it can derank it

If Google actually does that, they're asking for an anti-trust suit.

Google does this all the time, has been sued a few times, and has yet to lose.

No, they're not.

Kinderstart v. Google for one of many examples.

That case had to do with whether page rank itself is anticompetitive. Their page wasn't arbitrary "deranked", the company just didn't like the algorithm. As the judge noted, Kinderstart failed to even identify the market Google was competing with them in. I was responding to the assertions that Google removes pages from their search results without reason or method.