Can any free speech absolutists explain to me the legitimate public interest that is served by allowing terrorist breeding grounds like 8chan to continue to operate?
I think laws should be fair and consistent. Censorship is inconsistent with freedom and justice. Additionally, the interpretation of messages is subjective.
If laws are inconsistent and arbitrary (and consequently, unfair), then you might as well throw moral principles out the window altogether and become a fascist, a white supremacist, etc.
The only way to have a just society, in my opinion, is when freedom of the individual is the base of all laws, and those laws are logical and consistent with each other.
Yes. The Individual.
Well, what about the rights of the 29 individuals that were randomly murdered, plus the scores of others wounded this past weekend? What about their justice?
I'm sure it's fun for you to treat all of this as some sort of abstract thought experiment, but the reality is that people are dying senselessly and violently for no reason other than we as a society won't make difficult decisions in the name of "principle".
edit: And to be clear, I fully support a private company's refusal to do further business with 8chan as much as their contract allows. But I tire of these arguments about how somebody died, so we have to do something, and ignoring all further reasoning.
That's not always true - many people die as the innocent victims in DUI collisions. If there were more people dying innocently from alcohol, would you support shutting down bars that had been used by people who drove drunk, because other individuals lost their freedom?
You're insinuating that if freedom of speech laws in the US were less principled, those people wouldn't have died. But maybe if news outlets didn't report on mass shootings those people wouldn't have died too, should we prohibit news outlets from reporting these things?
It's not the fault of free speech that some mentally unstable person killed people, the same way it's not the fault of the journalists that report these tragedies.
Assumes facts not in evidence
Thousands of people every year are randomly murdered for no good reason. Many actually never get closed, meaning no one actually goes to jail or gets punished for their murder. These people actually don't receive justice, but obviously we can't live in a perfect society.
You're oversimplifying a complex issue to accuse others of being heartless. It's the lazy moralizing of tyranny.
What irked me is that CloudFlare was the one who makes the decision to do censorship.
It's not really a due process. No one argue for the defendant's side. It would seem better coming from US court through a due process or something like two lawyers arguing for both sides and etc.
I dislike the rationale of "CloudFlare is a private company. They can do whatever they want" ... like wut?
Also, if what those people do is illegal, should we arrest them, instead of merely banning the site?
This is the same thing with Trump's speech on Twitter. People yelling at Twitter to ban Trump because what Trump said is very very bad. If it's so bad, he should be arrested, not simply banned from Twitter.
------------
Edit: to address the main concern in my replies.
So, we think the speech is so bad that CloudFlare should ban it. But it is not bad enough to be banned by every CDN. That sounds contradictory.
For me, the speech is bad and it should be banned by every CDN. But government should make the judgement on the speech through a due process, ban it, and arrest someone if there's illegal activity involved.
One point is that the decision process is rather secretive. Who argued for? Who argued against? What were their supporting arguments and etc.? Doing censorship through court would be better.
If you have a different position, could you explain why censorship coming from CloudFlare is better than censorchip coming from US government?
I can engage a different CDN provider. I can't (easily) engage a different government.
I don't think 100% of the CDN providers in the entire world will do the moral and ethical thing, and I recognize that the First Amendment would (should) handily prevent legislation requiring that they do.
At best, it seems inconsistent that we are okay with other CDN providers not doing moral and ethical things. (Since we are okay with the speech being hosted elsewhere).
This is literally the exact opposite intention of the 2nd amendment.
> If you have a different position, could you explain why censorship coming from CloudFlare is better than censorchip coming from US government?
Cloudflare isn't an entity supported (e.g. paid) by the general populace. CF not hosting their site isn't censoring their content, they are just actively choosing not to do business with them. People on 8chan can certainly say the same exact thing on any other medium (pen/paper, facebook, etc) and no one is stopping them from doing so.
1. You think the speech is not wrong. Then, cloudflare taking of an okay speech is pretty strange.
2. You think the speech is wrong. Then, why are you okay with the speech being on a different CDN? Shouldn't it be banned everywhere?
2. You can think the speech is wrong, and that CDNs shouldn't host it, while having concerns about the US government getting involved in censorship in direct violation of the First Amendment.
That's why I'd rather see an open process of making such judgement.
Also, let's not kid ourselves. US does censor certain kinds of speeches.
Which ones? Please elaborate.
That there are minor exceptions to the First Amendment doesn’t mean we should throw it all out.
- the speech is bad
- Cloudflare's action is ethical.
- Other CDNs are also ethical for not banning it.
- Government shouldn't ban it even though the speech is bad.
- You are okay with the speech being hosted elsewhere.
We aren't talking about a grey area here. We are talking about promoting mass-shooting. Every sane person, including you and me, agrees the speech is extremely bad.
Wouldn't you want it to be banned everywhere?
This is the main point I'm trying to drive. We are somehow oddly satisfied that the speech is banned on CloudFlare.
Shouldn't we try to get this specific speech banned everywhere?
No, this is where you're missing the point.
There will be some CDNs who do not make the ethical choice. That's a fact of life.
I am uncomfortable with government intervention that makes the ethical choice the legally required choice in this case, as I'm wary of fucking with the First Amendment. (It's also somewhat a fool's errand, as you can host a CDN outside of US jurisdiction if you really want.)
> There will be some CDNs who do not make the ethical choice. That's a fact of life.
- We want everyone to ban it (because that's the ethical way). But government banning it is not okay.
- Government enforcing the ban is not okay. But CloudFlare enforcing it is okay.
I don't think CloudFlare (or any company) is equipped to make this kind of judgement. The process would be secretive and biased.
Government is much better equipped, and the process would be more open.
That's why I would be more comfortable with government taking the lead on this kind of judgement.
I guess we're just gonna agree to disagree on this one.
> you can host a CDN outside of US jurisdiction if you really want.
I'd say outside of US is really out of the scope here. We don't really have much power to enforce anything outside US.
If we're gonna expand our scope to outside of US, there will many many more horrendous things to discuss. And the discussion would never end.
By contrast, none of the corporations that host the sites you use daily have any such restrictions. If Google wants to delist your website, that's too bad for you. If AWS no longer wants to host it, you have no recourse. If Comcast decides to block you, there's nothing you can do.
Do you want the corporations that control everything you see on the internet to be more neutral? That will require oversite by the government (probably the FCC specifically).
If you want to be really cynical, you could say the government is controlled by corporate money... but then what does it matter?
IMO, blind cynicism isn't helping anyone, and the government is at least ostensibly supposed to do what's in the interest of the nation, and has some limits about what it can and cannot censor. I'd rather that, than an amoral corporation motivated only by money.
Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power.
> By contrast, none of the corporations that host the sites you use daily have any such restrictions. If Google wants to delist your website, that's too bad for you. If AWS no longer wants to host it, you have no recourse. If Comcast decides to block you, there's nothing you can do.
Sure there is - you go elsewhere. Just like 8chan will, just like the Daily Stormer did.
Ok, I'll try again. Corporations can actively censor you. The government is more restricted in what speech it can stomp on.
> Sure there is - you go elsewhere.
How do you "go elsewhere" when Comcast refuses to allow customers to see your website?
How do you "go elsewhere" when google delists you?
If 8ch gets hosted in a foreign country after being delisted from google and refused by US hosts, that's censorship. That's an infringement on freedom of speech.
If you're ok with that freedom of speech, then you are saying that it's ok for corporations to censor. That's a coherent stance... but one with which I vehemently disagree. I don't want ANYONE to have the power to censor, but with multinational mega-corps controlling the vast majority of the internet, that's simply not possible.
Considering the fact that internet providers and online services control the vast majority of the content I consume, I'd much rather have some regulation that limits what these companies can do.
And I'll try again. Responding to "corporations can censor you" by saying "we should therefore break the First Amendment and let government censor" is bizarre if you're pro-free speech.
I get "neither should be able to censor" as a position, even if I disagree with it. I don't get "I value free speech and thus want the government to be the speech arbiter" at all.
> How do you "go elsewhere" when Comcast refuses to allow customers to see your website?
Hang on, we're talking about CDNs. Not ISPs. Where I live, there's only one real choice for broadband ISPs, and I'd argue they should be largely treated as a utility in that scenario.
> How do you "go elsewhere" when google delists you?
Bing?
> If 8ch gets hosted in a foreign country after being delisted from google and refused by US hosts, that's censorship. That's an infringement on freedom of speech.
So's me telling my kids to be quiet and eat their dinner. It's thankfully 100% legal.
I never said any such thing. Please don't misrepresent my comments.
> we're talking about CDNs. Not ISPs.
I'm actively discussing both. Legislation regulating who can censor what must necessarily start with ISPs before we can even think about regulating edge providers.
> Bing?
You can't move to bing, because you're not the one searching for your website.
> So's me telling my kids to be quiet and eat their dinner. It's thankfully 100% legal.
I'm saying it shouldn't be legal for corporations to suppress speech in this way.
Doesn't CloudFlare have the same free speech rights to express their own views towards hate speech (i.e., by not providing service to white supremacists)?
In your opinion, would it be better for a government to make this kind of judgement than a company?
Do you think the speech should be banned everywhere? Or should it be banned only on CloudFlare? Or you don't have your judgement on this specific speech?
That's why it's weird that people are cheering Cloudflare for making the right decision. Then, put forward an argument that "well, the speech can be on another platform".
I'm not sure what makes you think cloudfront is "censoring" anyone; 8chan no longer is using cloudflare's (likely) free service, so they need to reconfigure their DNS and go about their day.
A good majority of the internet does not use cloudflare; free or paid.
It's their property, and they have an absolute right to decide how their property is to be used. The right to freedom of association is the most fundamental human right there is.
So here is a formula for you to use in case you want to send us back to the dark ages:
> Can any free speech absolutists explain to me the legitimate public interest that is served by allowing terrorist breeding grounds like _INSERT ANY OF THE PRODUCTS FROM THE LIST ABOVE_to continue to operate?
It's the ability to chip away at free speech. First 8chan, then something else that's bad, then something slightly intolerant, then what? Is it really worth censoring when something else will pop up to take it's place? Monitor and move on.
It is illegal to be an accessory to murder. It is illegal to incite riots. I still haven't heard a good reason why forums that are havens for users openly and explicitly encouraging terroristic acts should not bear any responsibility, beyond lazy slippery slope arguments.
What’s hypothetical is that banning 8ch will do anything about that.
> Furthermore, the First Amendment was designed by the founders as a way to protect citizens who criticized the government. I find it unbelievable that they themselves would support extending those protections towards people who would seek to explicitly provoke mass, random violence.
Another thing that’s hypothetical.
> I still haven't heard a good reason why forums that are havens for users openly and explicitly encouraging terroristic acts should not bear any responsibility, beyond lazy slippery slope arguments.
Considering you’re just dismissing the presented argument as a fallacy, it’s surprising that your own argument contains so little substance. Or is it?
[Edit: Why would you down-vote? That's the legitimate interest on the other side of the balance. It's not an opinion on the merit of shutting down 8chan. In this case, the benefit in permitting this speech may be grossly outweighed by the benefit of stopping it, but the benefit in allowing 8chan to continue to exist is non-zero. In its most nefarious use, subjective elimination of speech to subvert the speech's goal is commonly known as "censorship".]
Take encryption. It is used for some of the most vile evil content that exists on the internet. But I support encryption because I know that any limits on it will soon be corrupted by those in power to use for reasons far less just than ending the aforementioned content. Thus I see enabling encryption as an end to itself regardless of how it is used because I see any society that does differently as inferior.
I understand that some people see things that way. And I'm saying that it's an insufficient, naïve, and (in our zeitgeist) actually unethical position.
Government isn't separate from society, it is composed of society, and the voice with which a society enacts its will.
If government is corrupt, the solution is to fix government, not strip government of its necessary and ethical power.
Yet around the world this solution has largely failed, especially as private entities with enough political power (and money, as these are often interchangeable) have learned how to exploit flaws in human psychology to for their advantage. Until we fix these issues the best option is to minimize the possible harm caused by minimizing the instances where we fine violence an acceptable option.
That's a cynic's worldview and it's one that I totally reject. Take your pessimism to a hole in the ground and wither yourself away there. Let those of us invested in the progress and future of humanity get on with our work.
Your rejection doesn't change the reality of how the word operates today.
>Take your pessimism to a hole in the ground and wither yourself away there.
Why? So others can continue to double down on failed policies that end up costing others?
>Let those of us invested in the progress and future of humanity get on with our work.
You see yourself as some benevolent being moving humanity forward but reject any criticism of the costs of your actions. You even immediately judge those who disagree with you as standing against humans, a tactic to dehumanize opposition instead of engaging with it. It is a dangerous mindset that has led to the deaths of tens of millions.
Why not take a lesson from nature that shows that a single entity that tries to do it all is far less likely to survive the future that many separate entities that each find their niche?
I reject specifically your criticism, the criticism of cynics. I (obviously) don't agree with your characterization of which policies are "failed policies that end up costing others" or "how the world operates". Humans are of nature but also possess the ethical and rational systems to rise above it. We're not bound by our natural impulses; on the contrary, our gifts oblige us to be better than them.
Bluntly, I have no interest in living in a tribe with my Dunbar's number of tribespeople, organizing my thoughts and our policies under some presupposed limits of ambition. My ambition is boundless. So I say again, if you want to close ranks and subvert broad collective action and live in fear (or as you would say, some kind of steely-eyed realism) go dig a hole and do it well away from me. I've no interest in that moribund nihilism.
However, the practical side of this is pretty clear.. hate speech is hate speech. It's not a debate. The people who are for being racist/bigots are wrong- plain and simple. So removing their forum of speech is OK in my book.
Still even after saying that- it's never that simple.. I think collectively the US does not want to turn into what parts of even europe has in which you can literally get in trouble just for saying things. And trying to "ban" even the clearest of wrong views is one step closer to getting somewhere we don't want to be.