Hacker News Reader

> What irked me is that CloudFlare was the one who makes the decision to do censorship.

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.

> I dislike the rationale of "CloudFlare is a private company. They can do whatever they want" ... like wut?

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)?

Yes, they do. But that's not the world we should strive for.

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".

Wait, you'd be more comfortable if the censorship came from the government?

Yes, compared to a censorship coming from companies.

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?

> 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.

There's some sort of contradiction here that: you think the speech is bad that CloudFlare should ban it. But not bad enough to be banned from every CDN.

I think Cloudflare kicking them off their service is the moral and ethical thing to do.

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.

> 100% of the CDN providers in the entire world

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).

“It will happen” and “we are okay with it” are not the same thing.

One is censorship and the other isn't. One need not carry a brief for Cloudflare to recognize that, protected categories aside, like any business they have the right to refuse service to anyone. 8chan falling into no protected categories, and there in any case being no shortage of other network service providers, you need first to establish that Cloudflare has acted wrongly, and your arguments thus far fall somewhat short of compelling agreement on that score.

> Yes, compared to a censorship coming from companies.

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.

That's why it's weird.

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?

1. The speech is wrong.

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.

I'd say every CDN decides to not host it is effectively similar to US government bans it.

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.

> US does censor certain kinds of speeches.

Which ones? Please elaborate.

Here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-...

The chances of every CDN in the world jumping on the bandwagon is vanishingly small. The Daily Stormer managed to find hosting. Even child porn manages it. That doesn’t mean Cloudflare has to be the one to do it.

That there are minor exceptions to the First Amendment doesn’t mean we should throw it all out.

Ok, so your position is:

- 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?

> Other CDNs are also ethical for not banning it.

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.)

It's still absurd to me.

> 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.

The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements for due process and such.

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.

> The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements for due process and such.

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.

> Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power.

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.

> Ok, I'll try again. Corporations can actively censor you. The government is more restricted in what speech it can stomp on.

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.

> "we should therefore break the First Amendment and let government censor"

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.

Your argument here is that something which does not legally constitute censorship would be better replaced by something which does.

The US constitution does not have a monopoly on the definition of "censorship". Just because government censorship is the only kind it talks about doesn't mean the word doesn't extend to censorship imposed by other entities.

> What irked me is that CloudFlare was the one who makes the decision to do censorship.

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.