Terminating Service for 8Chan(new.blog.cloudflare.com)
new.blog.cloudflare.com
Terminating Service for 8Chan
https://new.blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/
1,458 comments
You may be thinking of the "CDA 230" nonsense that will not die, where people claim that companies can't moderate their customers because they'd be liable for what they post.
The opposite is true. CDA 230 makes it clear that companies can moderate their content without becoming responsible for it.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t...
The opposite is true. CDA 230 makes it clear that companies can moderate their content without becoming responsible for it.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t...
I've never heard anyone claim that companies can't moderate content without becoming responsible for it. I've heard people say that if publishers show themselves to be capable of censoring, then the legal protections should be rescinded and they should decide if they are a platform or a publisher.
Are you sure you heard the argument correctly?
Are you sure you heard the argument correctly?
The techdirt article I linked cites examples of people doing exactly this.
> If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity
and
> If Facebook is going to behave like a media provider, picking and choosing what viewpoints to represent, then it’s hard to argue that the company should still have immunity from the legal constraints that old-media organizations live with.
This is all nonsense. Old-media organizations are protected by CDA 230 just like everyone else: they can host third party content like user comments without being liable for it.
Publishers being able to "censor" is the whole value proposition for having a publisher. You're paying for the NYT because it picks who to publish. Facebook has no special "platform" protections that anyone else doesn't get.
Many, many people seem to think that CDA 230 itself makes a distinction between "platforms" and "publishers". I even replied to someone here in this comment section:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610778
> If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity
and
> If Facebook is going to behave like a media provider, picking and choosing what viewpoints to represent, then it’s hard to argue that the company should still have immunity from the legal constraints that old-media organizations live with.
This is all nonsense. Old-media organizations are protected by CDA 230 just like everyone else: they can host third party content like user comments without being liable for it.
Publishers being able to "censor" is the whole value proposition for having a publisher. You're paying for the NYT because it picks who to publish. Facebook has no special "platform" protections that anyone else doesn't get.
Many, many people seem to think that CDA 230 itself makes a distinction between "platforms" and "publishers". I even replied to someone here in this comment section:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610778
The first one is fair - Vox got it wrong. That vox got it wrong should surprise no one, vox is lowest common denominator agenda driven garbage. \
The second one is asking "should they" - its asking a question not positing a fact.
Should they get immunity for what posted if its clear they have the capacity to censor at will? Why should they and not anyone else on the internet?
CDA makes a distinction between publisher and platform and the talk about this whole issue is that many people are saying that these companies can clearly police their content, and should be liable for it and not specially protected.
The second one is asking "should they" - its asking a question not positing a fact.
Should they get immunity for what posted if its clear they have the capacity to censor at will? Why should they and not anyone else on the internet?
CDA makes a distinction between publisher and platform and the talk about this whole issue is that many people are saying that these companies can clearly police their content, and should be liable for it and not specially protected.
The first one was Wired- not Vox- and the second one was claiming in the prior paragraph that "The platforms are immune from such suits under [CDA 230]. The law treats them as a neutral pass-through" which it doesn't. The law specifically says that platforms can moderate any content it deems objectionable.
Where does the CDA make a platform/publisher distinction? What is the definition of the difference, and where is it in the law?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
As Techdirt says, "This "publisher" v. "platform" concept is a totally artificial distinction that has no basis in the law.". Are they wrong?
Where does the CDA make a platform/publisher distinction? What is the definition of the difference, and where is it in the law?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
As Techdirt says, "This "publisher" v. "platform" concept is a totally artificial distinction that has no basis in the law.". Are they wrong?
They've kicked people off their service before for content based reasons (eg, Daily Stormer), so this changes nothing. In any case:
> I thought there was some sort of legal distinction if they were totally agnostic to what travels over their wires. Is that not the case?
Not as far as I'm aware, no. The closest thing I can think of is if they were discriminating based on people's membership in a protected class, eg, if they announced a strict "no female clients" policy. This is clearly vastly different.
From a PR point of view, yes, every time they kick someone off for being bad, the more their failing to kick someone off will be seen as an implicit endorsement. But again, that ship has sailed.
> I thought there was some sort of legal distinction if they were totally agnostic to what travels over their wires. Is that not the case?
Not as far as I'm aware, no. The closest thing I can think of is if they were discriminating based on people's membership in a protected class, eg, if they announced a strict "no female clients" policy. This is clearly vastly different.
From a PR point of view, yes, every time they kick someone off for being bad, the more their failing to kick someone off will be seen as an implicit endorsement. But again, that ship has sailed.
They've also removed sex worker websites (including a forum that was just sex workers talking to each other), but for some reason no one complains about it.
I believe you'll find that this was driven by SESTA/FOSTA, rather than being a discretionary choice by Cloudflare, and if you hang out in the right circles, it gets complained about a lot. (EFF, ACLU, Wikimedia, and many more opposed it.)
I think it's unconstitutional and the worst thing to happen to the internet in many years, as well as one of the worst things to happen to civil liberties (which is a pretty high bar!). Unfortunately, it passed senate 97 votes to 2, which suggests legislative fixes will not be coming soon.
I think it's unconstitutional and the worst thing to happen to the internet in many years, as well as one of the worst things to happen to civil liberties (which is a pretty high bar!). Unfortunately, it passed senate 97 votes to 2, which suggests legislative fixes will not be coming soon.
Congress recently added sex work as an exception to CDA 230 protections, and every provider scrambled to nuke everything remotely related.
That’s always the way. Censorship/moderation isn’t given a second thought when it’s just sex-related.
Interesting, never heard about that. Are there are other things too?
> "no female clients" policy
For the record, gender isn't a protected class in a place of public accommodation and it's why clubs in Las Vegas can charge Men more than Women.
For the record, gender isn't a protected class in a place of public accommodation and it's why clubs in Las Vegas can charge Men more than Women.
You would think but apparently that doesn't apply anymore. You can control the content and still get the protections of a common carrier.
I just know I'll remember that cloudflare could pull the pulg on my site if one of my users posts something they don't like. I don't think I can recommend their service to any of clients because of that.
I just know I'll remember that cloudflare could pull the pulg on my site if one of my users posts something they don't like. I don't think I can recommend their service to any of clients because of that.
[deleted]
On the one hand, I like the idea of a free, open, and distributed internet, where no one company or government has the power to control what is distributed or discussed. As the great John Gilmore said, more aspirationally than accurately even then: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
On the other hand, we don't live in that world, and I don't know how well it would work in practice if we did. In this world, corporations and governments have enormous power. Cloudflare has made it clear that it will use that power in a fairly limited and restrained way, but it will use it as it sees fit.
Given that, this seems like a reasonable exercise of that power, and that's about the best we can hope for.
On the other hand, we don't live in that world, and I don't know how well it would work in practice if we did. In this world, corporations and governments have enormous power. Cloudflare has made it clear that it will use that power in a fairly limited and restrained way, but it will use it as it sees fit.
Given that, this seems like a reasonable exercise of that power, and that's about the best we can hope for.
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
As if "The Net" is a perfect, neutral, self-supporting entity that behaves with mathematic predictability rather than a projection of the chaotic human society on which its existence depends.
There is a widespread habit among futurists and technologists, perhaps arising from an appreciation for semantic economy and the anonymizing instinct to downplay associations between oneself and one's assertions, to use the passive voice when concocting reductive maxims of this sort.
I believe many of the moral blind spots of technocratic thinking are connected to the peculiar tendency - revealed by this passive voice framing habit - to overlook or outright dismiss the role that human inputs play in the complex systems futurists propose as solutions to human problems.
As if "The Net" is a perfect, neutral, self-supporting entity that behaves with mathematic predictability rather than a projection of the chaotic human society on which its existence depends.
There is a widespread habit among futurists and technologists, perhaps arising from an appreciation for semantic economy and the anonymizing instinct to downplay associations between oneself and one's assertions, to use the passive voice when concocting reductive maxims of this sort.
I believe many of the moral blind spots of technocratic thinking are connected to the peculiar tendency - revealed by this passive voice framing habit - to overlook or outright dismiss the role that human inputs play in the complex systems futurists propose as solutions to human problems.
This is extra funny because in general anyone's internet access is trivially easy to take down with just a bunch of well sent and crafted routing control packets.
Internet was not designed in an adversarial model.
Internet was not designed in an adversarial model.
I don't think this statement is ignoring human input. It's extrapolating the result based on what we have observed about the interaction of the technology and the participating humans so far, viewing them as a single system. The passive voice is in recognition that an individual has almost no control over this system as a whole.
[deleted]
We lived in that world until media pushed mentally ill people to the front.
Look at the graphs reporting on racism and the surge of terror.
They basically revived nationalistic movements for clicks. Not wanting to reverse cause and effect but there is ample evide ce that the call for censorship massivle accelerated occurrences like shootings.
Look at the graphs reporting on racism and the surge of terror.
They basically revived nationalistic movements for clicks. Not wanting to reverse cause and effect but there is ample evide ce that the call for censorship massivle accelerated occurrences like shootings.
> Not wanting to reverse cause and effect but there is ample evide ce that the call for censorship massivle accelerated occurrences like shootings.
That is interesting, but just saying that it is so doesn't lend any credibility to the conclusion. If there is ample evidence, surely you should be able to present it?
That is interesting, but just saying that it is so doesn't lend any credibility to the conclusion. If there is ample evidence, surely you should be able to present it?
> Look at the graphs
http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
>Given that, this seems like a reasonable exercise of that power, and that's about the best we can hope for.
Maybe, this event may become the precedent for all future hosting providers of unpopular opinions and where denial of service attacks become used against these hosting providers. Losing protection from anti-ddos service(s) becomes a process to eliminate the unpopular opinions being expressed.
I think this is dangerous recourse and even if there are competitor services like cloudfare. There are limits in services available and state actors can understand this problem. Then make it impossible for unpopular opinions to be expressed by either orchestrating what's needed to get the anti-ddos services to resent their customers or by other means.
Me personally, I'm alright with 8chan being deleted from the internet but I don't think that will even solve the problem. People with poor quality of life will continue being radicalized and do these acts of revenge in their eyes against a system that made them live in pain (somehow unjust to their views). I think we just need to improve quality of life for people equally without leaving some people left behind because of whatever circumstances. Otherwise people feel the need to leave with sometimes a couple bangs.
Maybe, this event may become the precedent for all future hosting providers of unpopular opinions and where denial of service attacks become used against these hosting providers. Losing protection from anti-ddos service(s) becomes a process to eliminate the unpopular opinions being expressed.
I think this is dangerous recourse and even if there are competitor services like cloudfare. There are limits in services available and state actors can understand this problem. Then make it impossible for unpopular opinions to be expressed by either orchestrating what's needed to get the anti-ddos services to resent their customers or by other means.
Me personally, I'm alright with 8chan being deleted from the internet but I don't think that will even solve the problem. People with poor quality of life will continue being radicalized and do these acts of revenge in their eyes against a system that made them live in pain (somehow unjust to their views). I think we just need to improve quality of life for people equally without leaving some people left behind because of whatever circumstances. Otherwise people feel the need to leave with sometimes a couple bangs.
> Maybe, this event may become the precedent for all future hosting providers of unpopular opinions
Maybe it won't!
I feel like every time a controversial site gets shut down message boards are flooded with slippery slope arguments, but by and large I haven't seen it ever transpire.
Maybe it won't!
I feel like every time a controversial site gets shut down message boards are flooded with slippery slope arguments, but by and large I haven't seen it ever transpire.
I'd argue reddit is a decent example. They banned some very hateful subs, and then later started banning subs because they 'were not good for advertising' see r/waterniggas.
That's not a slippery slope, though. That's Reddit banning subs for two different reasons. I'd they banned subs for hateful content then changed the definition of "hateful content" to include things advertisers object to then it would be. But if they're publicly stating that they're doing it because of advertisers then it's not really related.
Any time reddit says they are removing something due to "hateful content", it's just PR speak for "we got some media/advertiser backlash for this content so we are removing it".
Reddit was notoriously infested with white supremacist subs, jailbait subs, pics of dead people subs, and more, and they were all brought up to the admins many times, and the admins never took any action on this hateful content until CNN et al started writing articles about it.
It's not entirely unlike this situation with Cloudflare, really. These companies talk a big game about their principles and morals, but at the end of the day the only principle they strictly adhere to is the principle of public backlash.
Reddit was notoriously infested with white supremacist subs, jailbait subs, pics of dead people subs, and more, and they were all brought up to the admins many times, and the admins never took any action on this hateful content until CNN et al started writing articles about it.
It's not entirely unlike this situation with Cloudflare, really. These companies talk a big game about their principles and morals, but at the end of the day the only principle they strictly adhere to is the principle of public backlash.
How are pictures of dead people "hateful"?
Should we ban all pro-abortion subreddits as well because they promote murder of unborn children?
Should we ban all pro-abortion subreddits as well because they promote murder of unborn children?
Recently, after Youtube responded to Steven Crowder's harassment of a gay reporter who works for Vox named Carlos Maza, a number of independent youtube personalities who comment on news mentioned they had their videos demonetized. This included people who are on the left. Here's an example and someone I follow[0]. It's not quite what you're talking about, but it's an example of how trying to moderate speech or chill it affects everyone who isn't already an established player (CNN,MSNBC,etc) regardless of their ideology.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX4dDh-EGyI
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX4dDh-EGyI
You’re right about the demonetization effects, but to clarify the Maza-Crowder tiff - Maza previously spent years mocking Crowder and making inappropriate sexual references involving himself and Crowder. Crowder responded inappropriately, thinking he could pull off a Don Rickles act. Still, nothing either of them have done opens them up to harassment charges.
I think the wider demonetization is part of a cynical attempt to sabotage non-publisher media generally, it’s not an accidental side effect. There’s a scorched earth campaign by certain activists at Vox, Media Matters, and even CNN to contact advertisers en masse and essentially threaten that they are considering naming the advertiser in a hit piece about objectionable content. They aren’t dumb - they know the fallout will affect independent journalists and media of all politics.
I think the wider demonetization is part of a cynical attempt to sabotage non-publisher media generally, it’s not an accidental side effect. There’s a scorched earth campaign by certain activists at Vox, Media Matters, and even CNN to contact advertisers en masse and essentially threaten that they are considering naming the advertiser in a hit piece about objectionable content. They aren’t dumb - they know the fallout will affect independent journalists and media of all politics.
Yours & my lifetime are limited.
How many controversial topics can we recall that we lived through and where they became accepted overtime? What medium was used at the time and was it the popular communication method for the time. I'm sure historically there was a similar fight with what mediums were available at the time. Burning books or just killing someone who speaks out.
The internet can be the only method nowadays where people with little finances can make a loud enough voice be heard and there are still unpopular views I'm worried won't ever get accepted if people are not being cautious about throwing away measures. That's why the slippery slope argument is worth me typing. Even if maybe it won't!
How many controversial topics can we recall that we lived through and where they became accepted overtime? What medium was used at the time and was it the popular communication method for the time. I'm sure historically there was a similar fight with what mediums were available at the time. Burning books or just killing someone who speaks out.
The internet can be the only method nowadays where people with little finances can make a loud enough voice be heard and there are still unpopular views I'm worried won't ever get accepted if people are not being cautious about throwing away measures. That's why the slippery slope argument is worth me typing. Even if maybe it won't!
It is disingenuous to describe white supremacy as "an unpopular opinion".
I think unpopular opinions from life experiences are what gravitates people to whatever categorization and or label is placed upon them.
Btw, the only reason I feel the needs to share my thoughts is because I have an unpopular opinion myself. Assisted death should become available for people that desire it. There are some sites I view that have resources for people that are ending their life and these sites suffer denial of service attacks. They started using cloudflare recently.
Btw, the only reason I feel the needs to share my thoughts is because I have an unpopular opinion myself. Assisted death should become available for people that desire it. There are some sites I view that have resources for people that are ending their life and these sites suffer denial of service attacks. They started using cloudflare recently.
This feels like a misunderstanding of the word freedom. Freedom in speech means that I can say what I want.
It does _not_ mean that a hosting company has to host it or that a CDN has to optimize it or that a search company has to rank it or that an ad-network has to monetize it. Each of those players is free to do what they think is best with their time, resources, etc.; which often includes thinking of what "the public" will think of them doing (or not doing) a thing.
Freedom does not mean that I have the "right" to be heard or the "right" to be amplified—either as much as the next person or at all.
The net, as in a network of computers, is quite close to free. Being a part of a society is not. Ted Kaczynski was not arrested for writing manifestos beyond the pale of normative capitalism from a self-built cabin in Montana. He was arrested for sending bombs. The moment one person freely decides to harmfully affect others, those others can do something about it.
It seems much of the hand-wringing about freedom—when we talk about the internet and corporations—is that extremist speech does not have access to the same megaphone, the same means of monetization (and therefore survival). And that…well that's what living in a society is all about.
Are there bad parts about tech as we see it today? Absolutely! But it hardly seems like the problem is "not enough shit is allowed on the internet." I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.
It does _not_ mean that a hosting company has to host it or that a CDN has to optimize it or that a search company has to rank it or that an ad-network has to monetize it. Each of those players is free to do what they think is best with their time, resources, etc.; which often includes thinking of what "the public" will think of them doing (or not doing) a thing.
Freedom does not mean that I have the "right" to be heard or the "right" to be amplified—either as much as the next person or at all.
The net, as in a network of computers, is quite close to free. Being a part of a society is not. Ted Kaczynski was not arrested for writing manifestos beyond the pale of normative capitalism from a self-built cabin in Montana. He was arrested for sending bombs. The moment one person freely decides to harmfully affect others, those others can do something about it.
It seems much of the hand-wringing about freedom—when we talk about the internet and corporations—is that extremist speech does not have access to the same megaphone, the same means of monetization (and therefore survival). And that…well that's what living in a society is all about.
Are there bad parts about tech as we see it today? Absolutely! But it hardly seems like the problem is "not enough shit is allowed on the internet." I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.
No one has the "right" to have their speech amplified by 3rd parties. However, I don't think Cloudflare is in the business of providing amplification, they are in the business of providing access, which I think is closer to censorship than restricting amplification.
Access means people who WANT this content can get it easily. If you're making it harder for people who voluntarily choose to view 8chan content, you're restricting access.
Amplification means getting content in front of new eyeballs that wouldn't have otherwise seen it. E.g. if Facebook determined that given this user's age, race, zip-code, and favorite TV shows they might be in interested in this racist-meme sharing group that one of their friends joined, and then surfaces that content, that's amplification.
Access means people who WANT this content can get it easily. If you're making it harder for people who voluntarily choose to view 8chan content, you're restricting access.
Amplification means getting content in front of new eyeballs that wouldn't have otherwise seen it. E.g. if Facebook determined that given this user's age, race, zip-code, and favorite TV shows they might be in interested in this racist-meme sharing group that one of their friends joined, and then surfaces that content, that's amplification.
> Amplification means getting content in front of new eyeballs that wouldn't have otherwise seen it.
Which a CDN does as well. If a user visits the site during peak demand and the site without a CDN can't handle it, the user doesn't get the site in front of their eyeballs. With a CDN, they might. Analogy also works during DDoS attacks. Both assume that the user doesn't have infinite memory and patience to keep trying (because that's a realistic assumption).
"Amplification" has be overloaded. You are talking about a viral marketing definition, whereas CDNs are a hardware+software force multiplier for performance.
Which a CDN does as well. If a user visits the site during peak demand and the site without a CDN can't handle it, the user doesn't get the site in front of their eyeballs. With a CDN, they might. Analogy also works during DDoS attacks. Both assume that the user doesn't have infinite memory and patience to keep trying (because that's a realistic assumption).
"Amplification" has be overloaded. You are talking about a viral marketing definition, whereas CDNs are a hardware+software force multiplier for performance.
Cloudflare can't block access to a website. They can protect their customers from DDOS attacks, and they happen to do it more cheaply and effectively than one could do alone. If they refuse to service a website and that website gets DDOSed off the internet, that is not cloudflare's fault.
Should that mean a power company can cut off your power because they don't like what you've said?
Should that mean the water company can cut your water off for criticizing them?
Should that mean that a bank can refuse to give you a loan, because you said something bad, even if your credit is more than acceptable?
-------------------------------
Remember this: its the extremist that the law is made around. And soon enough, the law will be wrapped around non-extremists and used as let another tool of influence and control. The worst part is that anyone who speaks against this sort of law is seen to be defending the extremists, and is seen as a despicable person - yet the criticizers never stop to think about the average Joe and Jane.
Should that mean the water company can cut your water off for criticizing them?
Should that mean that a bank can refuse to give you a loan, because you said something bad, even if your credit is more than acceptable?
-------------------------------
Remember this: its the extremist that the law is made around. And soon enough, the law will be wrapped around non-extremists and used as let another tool of influence and control. The worst part is that anyone who speaks against this sort of law is seen to be defending the extremists, and is seen as a despicable person - yet the criticizers never stop to think about the average Joe and Jane.
> Should that mean a power company can cut off your power because they don't like what you've said?
No. Because they are a public utility and that would be a violation of the first amendment.
> Should that mean that a bank can refuse to give you a loan, because you said something bad, even if your credit is more than acceptable?
Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you.
There are very simple rules at play here...
No. Because they are a public utility and that would be a violation of the first amendment.
> Should that mean that a bank can refuse to give you a loan, because you said something bad, even if your credit is more than acceptable?
Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you.
There are very simple rules at play here...
Have we all just completely forgotten the years of fighting for net neutrality? The very same net neutrality where we all have been arguing that sometimes even private companies shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily filter whatever they want?
If all of the major ISPs launch their own email competitor and then go on to block Google, would you be singing the same tune? "It's okay because AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter are private institutions and are not obligated to do business with Google"? What if it turns out that the AT&T CEO is a Trump supporter, and he decides that anyone who has AT&T as an ISP will no longer be able to access any news site other than Fox News? "It's okay because AT&T is a private company and has no obligation to do business with the Washington Post"?
The entire argument for net neutrality is based on the premise that sometimes even private companies become so big that they become very similar to 'public utilities' and it is absolutely in the public interest to force those companies to not arbitrarily filter whatever they feel like.
You can argue that Cloudflare, or a bank, or whoever doesn't fit this definition, but you can't both be for something like net neutrality while simultaneously spouting this argument that "private companies can do whatever they want". We have literally centuries of laws that specifically say that no, companies cannot do whatever they want just because they are private.
If all of the major ISPs launch their own email competitor and then go on to block Google, would you be singing the same tune? "It's okay because AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter are private institutions and are not obligated to do business with Google"? What if it turns out that the AT&T CEO is a Trump supporter, and he decides that anyone who has AT&T as an ISP will no longer be able to access any news site other than Fox News? "It's okay because AT&T is a private company and has no obligation to do business with the Washington Post"?
The entire argument for net neutrality is based on the premise that sometimes even private companies become so big that they become very similar to 'public utilities' and it is absolutely in the public interest to force those companies to not arbitrarily filter whatever they feel like.
You can argue that Cloudflare, or a bank, or whoever doesn't fit this definition, but you can't both be for something like net neutrality while simultaneously spouting this argument that "private companies can do whatever they want". We have literally centuries of laws that specifically say that no, companies cannot do whatever they want just because they are private.
You're mixing up net neutrality with freedom of speech issues. Net Neutrality seeks to regulate IP packet filtering and prevent transport providers from selling premium services ("fastlanes") to particular companies only. What content those companies deliver or (re-)transmit is not regulated by net neutrality at all.
I'm saying this not because I disagree with your position, but mainly because this confusion was dominating the debate in the US and was to some extent a deliberate strawman pushed by the opponents of net neutrality.
I'm saying this not because I disagree with your position, but mainly because this confusion was dominating the debate in the US and was to some extent a deliberate strawman pushed by the opponents of net neutrality.
Incorrect , net neutrality also required that ISPs not block.
A lot of pro net neutrality people didn’t really understand what they were arguing for, I think, since the same people will turn around and argue that ISPs should be able to censor content they don’t like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
“A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.“
A lot of pro net neutrality people didn’t really understand what they were arguing for, I think, since the same people will turn around and argue that ISPs should be able to censor content they don’t like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
“A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.“
Sure, blocking is throttling 100%.
The point remains that the OP mischaracterized net neutrality. What is important is that net neutrality only concerns transport of IP packets. Content providing companies and web site owners can moderate, block, or censor content as they like and as they deem fit. They have done so in the past under net neutrality, do so in countries with net neutrality laws, and are doing it now in the US without net neutrality.
The two issues are frequently mixed up, hence my comment.
On a side note, I've never heard anyone argue that ISPs should block content, that seems like a strawman to me, but I guess if you just search hard enough you can find someone on the Internet who argued for that nonsense.
> lawful content
Good point, that's compatible with restrictions of freedom of speech due to declaring certain kind of content illegal, and clearly illustrates that the two issues are different from each other. Yet people confuse them again and again, and additionally almost always base their arguments on a false dichotomy or on fallacious slippery slope arguments.
The point remains that the OP mischaracterized net neutrality. What is important is that net neutrality only concerns transport of IP packets. Content providing companies and web site owners can moderate, block, or censor content as they like and as they deem fit. They have done so in the past under net neutrality, do so in countries with net neutrality laws, and are doing it now in the US without net neutrality.
The two issues are frequently mixed up, hence my comment.
On a side note, I've never heard anyone argue that ISPs should block content, that seems like a strawman to me, but I guess if you just search hard enough you can find someone on the Internet who argued for that nonsense.
> lawful content
Good point, that's compatible with restrictions of freedom of speech due to declaring certain kind of content illegal, and clearly illustrates that the two issues are different from each other. Yet people confuse them again and again, and additionally almost always base their arguments on a false dichotomy or on fallacious slippery slope arguments.
8chan is lawful content. Vile, hateful content, but completely lawful. They comply with DMCA and moderate to remove illegal material. If they didn’t, the FBI could already have had them pulled offline just like they do to ISIS websites.
The logical end to deplatforming is arguing that ISPs should be able to block or decline customers based on the content they are hosting. Otherwise a customer can buy business-class internet and host their immoral content themselves on a server farm in their home, which takes away the whole point of deplatforming which is to make the content no longer available on the internet.
The logical end to deplatforming is arguing that ISPs should be able to block or decline customers based on the content they are hosting. Otherwise a customer can buy business-class internet and host their immoral content themselves on a server farm in their home, which takes away the whole point of deplatforming which is to make the content no longer available on the internet.
> The logical end to deplatforming is arguing that ISPs should be able to block or decline customers based on the content they are hosting.
Not at all. That's an obvious strawman.
You're mischaracterizing what's going on there. If I run a company, it is my right not to make business with radical hate groups and terrorists. They will be someone else's problem then.
That's exactly the reason that Cloudflare has given, not some nebulous talk about "deplatforming".
> which is to make the content no longer available on the internet
LOL. That is decidedly not the purpose of deplatforming, as the word "de-platforming" readily suggests.
> the FBI could already have had them pulled offline just like they do to ISIS websites
It is obvious to me as an outside observer that the FBI applies justice selectively. Domestic terrorism is underrated. Of course, 8chan could be raided and closed for the same reasons as ISIS websites are raided and closed. The laws are there and 8chan could easily be considered aiding and fostering domestic terrorism. The laws are just not applied in this case.
It's also kind of 'reasonable' not to apply them as harshly, since US judges and juries suffer from the same bias. They are unlikely to judge of some deranged gun nut that he was planning or aiding a terrorist attack. They are highly likely to judge of some deranged ISIS sympathizer that he was planning or aiding a terrorist attack. Police authorities make the call on what to pursue and what not to pursue based on the prospects of a successful trial.
Not at all. That's an obvious strawman.
You're mischaracterizing what's going on there. If I run a company, it is my right not to make business with radical hate groups and terrorists. They will be someone else's problem then.
That's exactly the reason that Cloudflare has given, not some nebulous talk about "deplatforming".
> which is to make the content no longer available on the internet
LOL. That is decidedly not the purpose of deplatforming, as the word "de-platforming" readily suggests.
> the FBI could already have had them pulled offline just like they do to ISIS websites
It is obvious to me as an outside observer that the FBI applies justice selectively. Domestic terrorism is underrated. Of course, 8chan could be raided and closed for the same reasons as ISIS websites are raided and closed. The laws are there and 8chan could easily be considered aiding and fostering domestic terrorism. The laws are just not applied in this case.
It's also kind of 'reasonable' not to apply them as harshly, since US judges and juries suffer from the same bias. They are unlikely to judge of some deranged gun nut that he was planning or aiding a terrorist attack. They are highly likely to judge of some deranged ISIS sympathizer that he was planning or aiding a terrorist attack. Police authorities make the call on what to pursue and what not to pursue based on the prospects of a successful trial.
>If I run a company, it is my right not to make business with radical hate groups and terrorists. They will be someone else's problem then.
This type of thing is possibly one of the hardest ethical issues to tackle. On the one hand, I don't support racists and fascists at all. But on the other hand, I recognize the potential damage in carving out these exceptions in free speech. As social mores change, the ideas of "acceptable" free speech may change, and we need to be cognizant of the ways that these exceptions could be abused long term. Otherwise, we're just setting up future generations for a collapse of the concept of freedom of speech.
I think the answer to solving hate and bigotry goes much, much deeper than preventing people from speaking their hateful and bigoted views. All that's going to do is sweep the problem under the rug, and eventually that problem will come back out some orders of magnitude worse. Perhaps we could do things like make it illegal to teach kids hate and bigotry? But then you've got the entirety of America mad at you because you're "telling people how to raise their kids". Mere advocacy against bullying and hate doesn't really seem to be working.
I think we'll see better gains in this area when we stop trying to find the first thing we can to "blame" these mass shooting on, and arguing endlessly about what that cause is (guns, video games, unrestricted freedom of speech, etc). We need to dig deep. I think if we understood more on the topic of mental health, we'd have a better chance at understanding these situations.
This type of thing is possibly one of the hardest ethical issues to tackle. On the one hand, I don't support racists and fascists at all. But on the other hand, I recognize the potential damage in carving out these exceptions in free speech. As social mores change, the ideas of "acceptable" free speech may change, and we need to be cognizant of the ways that these exceptions could be abused long term. Otherwise, we're just setting up future generations for a collapse of the concept of freedom of speech.
I think the answer to solving hate and bigotry goes much, much deeper than preventing people from speaking their hateful and bigoted views. All that's going to do is sweep the problem under the rug, and eventually that problem will come back out some orders of magnitude worse. Perhaps we could do things like make it illegal to teach kids hate and bigotry? But then you've got the entirety of America mad at you because you're "telling people how to raise their kids". Mere advocacy against bullying and hate doesn't really seem to be working.
I think we'll see better gains in this area when we stop trying to find the first thing we can to "blame" these mass shooting on, and arguing endlessly about what that cause is (guns, video games, unrestricted freedom of speech, etc). We need to dig deep. I think if we understood more on the topic of mental health, we'd have a better chance at understanding these situations.
> On a side note, I've never heard anyone argue that ISPs should block content, that seems like a strawman to me, but I guess if you just search hard enough you can find someone on the Internet who argued for that nonsense.
Well, it's been going on for years in the Netherlands, where the Pirate Bay, almost all of its proxies, and a couple of non-TPB torrent sites are being blocked at the ISP level. It used to be a relatively simple to circumvent DNS block (the ISPs didn't really want to, either), but they've gotten better at it and now if it's blocked, the site is either gone, unless a specific proxy for it exist (or you use a VPN).
To tie it back to the US again, the reason this happened is because of a Dutch lobbying group (Brein) that is funded by and works directly for the gigantic US content industry and rightholders (there are maybe a few Dutch artists attached to them , but they are a mere drop in budget).
Well, it's been going on for years in the Netherlands, where the Pirate Bay, almost all of its proxies, and a couple of non-TPB torrent sites are being blocked at the ISP level. It used to be a relatively simple to circumvent DNS block (the ISPs didn't really want to, either), but they've gotten better at it and now if it's blocked, the site is either gone, unless a specific proxy for it exist (or you use a VPN).
To tie it back to the US again, the reason this happened is because of a Dutch lobbying group (Brein) that is funded by and works directly for the gigantic US content industry and rightholders (there are maybe a few Dutch artists attached to them , but they are a mere drop in budget).
>shall not block lawful content
Incitement to specific violence and planning thereof, against specific individuals, is not lawful content.
Incitement to specific violence and planning thereof, against specific individuals, is not lawful content.
Net neutrality is deeply entangled with freedom of speech issues. In fact one of the ISP's main arguments against it is that it violates their 1st amendment rights.
ISPs use the public's right of way and air wave spectrum licenses, so I don't think they're good examples.
An example right of way agreement between a municipality and Cable company: https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086
Summary of right of law statutes in different states:
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/rowtable.p...
>but you can't both be for something like net neutrality while simultaneously spouting this argument that "private companies can do whatever they want".
One can definitely pick and choose what you want to support, all those laws did exactly the same. Charities are 'picked and chosen' not to pay taxes, even though they are basically private companies. I don't see a contradiction between supporting net neutrality and supporting Cloudflare's decision.
>We have literally centuries of laws that specifically say that no, companies cannot do whatever they want just because they are private
We have literally centuries of law stating that 'Neo-Nazi White Supremacists' isn't a protected class, hence can be refused service.
If and when this is abused by companies causing real problems which society thinks is unacceptable, new laws will be passed restricting discriminating against neo-Nazis.
Maybe write to your local congressman and senator asking them to pass a law forcing Cloudflare to serve neo-Nazis.
An example right of way agreement between a municipality and Cable company: https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086
Summary of right of law statutes in different states:
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/rowtable.p...
>but you can't both be for something like net neutrality while simultaneously spouting this argument that "private companies can do whatever they want".
One can definitely pick and choose what you want to support, all those laws did exactly the same. Charities are 'picked and chosen' not to pay taxes, even though they are basically private companies. I don't see a contradiction between supporting net neutrality and supporting Cloudflare's decision.
>We have literally centuries of laws that specifically say that no, companies cannot do whatever they want just because they are private
We have literally centuries of law stating that 'Neo-Nazi White Supremacists' isn't a protected class, hence can be refused service.
If and when this is abused by companies causing real problems which society thinks is unacceptable, new laws will be passed restricting discriminating against neo-Nazis.
Maybe write to your local congressman and senator asking them to pass a law forcing Cloudflare to serve neo-Nazis.
>ISPs use the public's right of way and air wave spectrum licenses, so I don't think they're good examples.
And Cloudflare's business is similarly dependent on these very same rights of way and spectrums. So why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions?
Hint: it's because the argument for net neutrality has nothing to do with the ISP's usage of ROW or public spectrum, and everything to do with the effect that it would have on society if ISPs were allowed to arbitrarily filter whatever they want.
What's funny about this is that I actually don't need to make this argument, because Cloudflare's CEO Matthew Prince has already made it for me. The entire blog post that he wrote [1] when Daily Stormer was taken off CF is one big explanation of why companies like Cloudflare having the ability to arbitrarily filter sites is bad. That didn't seem to stop him, I guess.
> Due Process requires that decisions be public and not arbitrary. It's why we've always said that our policy is to follow the guidance of the law in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Law enforcement, legislators, and courts have the political legitimacy and predictability to make decisions on what content should be restricted. Companies should not.
1: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
And Cloudflare's business is similarly dependent on these very same rights of way and spectrums. So why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions?
Hint: it's because the argument for net neutrality has nothing to do with the ISP's usage of ROW or public spectrum, and everything to do with the effect that it would have on society if ISPs were allowed to arbitrarily filter whatever they want.
What's funny about this is that I actually don't need to make this argument, because Cloudflare's CEO Matthew Prince has already made it for me. The entire blog post that he wrote [1] when Daily Stormer was taken off CF is one big explanation of why companies like Cloudflare having the ability to arbitrarily filter sites is bad. That didn't seem to stop him, I guess.
> Due Process requires that decisions be public and not arbitrary. It's why we've always said that our policy is to follow the guidance of the law in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Law enforcement, legislators, and courts have the political legitimacy and predictability to make decisions on what content should be restricted. Companies should not.
1: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
>And Cloudflare's business is similarly dependent on these very same rights of way and spectrums. So why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions?
Did Cloudflare sign a document like this one?
https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086
Then 8chan should sue them in court and win.
Why didn't Daily Stormer sue them?
Did Cloudflare sign a document like this one?
https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086
Then 8chan should sue them in court and win.
Why didn't Daily Stormer sue them?
> Then 8chan should sue them in court and win.
In order for them to win, you'll have to ignore the fact that when they created a CloudFlare account, they agreed that CloudFlare had the right to terminate such services for any or no reason.
In order for them to win, you'll have to ignore the fact that when they created a CloudFlare account, they agreed that CloudFlare had the right to terminate such services for any or no reason.
However, this was a problem when Visa and Paypal cut off donations to Wikileaks. It was actually quite hard for them for a while to get donations in, even though there were plenty of people willing to donate.
Certain banks and their services (e.g. wire transfer), as well as payment providers should be treated like public utilities, especially when they have quasi-monopolies. The same for ISPs in areas in which there is only one or two, and other large companies with quasi-monopolies like Google, Apple and Microsoft. I don't think this applies to companies like Reddit or Cloudflare, though, for which there are easy and widely used substitutes.
Certain banks and their services (e.g. wire transfer), as well as payment providers should be treated like public utilities, especially when they have quasi-monopolies. The same for ISPs in areas in which there is only one or two, and other large companies with quasi-monopolies like Google, Apple and Microsoft. I don't think this applies to companies like Reddit or Cloudflare, though, for which there are easy and widely used substitutes.
Are there easy and widely used substitutes for Cloudflare's DDoS protection?
Because a big reason why I think this is bad is because I thought there are in fact no realistic alternatives to Cloudflare's protection.
If there are alternatives, then I am also in the camp of "okay they can decide who to do business with or not".
But I was under the impression that, if you are a controversial website, at a certain size (not even that big, depending on your enemies) you are likely to draw DDoS attacks of a severity that only Cloudflare can realistically protect against. The DDoS attacks being relatively cheap for whoever orders them.
Because a big reason why I think this is bad is because I thought there are in fact no realistic alternatives to Cloudflare's protection.
If there are alternatives, then I am also in the camp of "okay they can decide who to do business with or not".
But I was under the impression that, if you are a controversial website, at a certain size (not even that big, depending on your enemies) you are likely to draw DDoS attacks of a severity that only Cloudflare can realistically protect against. The DDoS attacks being relatively cheap for whoever orders them.
> No. Because they are a public utility and that would be a violation of the first amendment.
> Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you.
That's some pretty strong dissonance there. Here in Indiana, the utilities AND banks are all private entities. And there's no actual state or federal law that would prevent a utility from cutting utilities for "being and speaking of white nationalism". I chose my examples carefully - all are much more regulated than some Walmart or Target or Amazon.
My larger discussion was that over very corporate autonomy. Who made them arbiters of what language was acceptable? Why should infrastructure companies be decision makers of what is said online? Years ago, we restricted the phone companies from doing that very thing - and they wanted dearly to forbid classes of speech. Yet somehow when it's "on the interwebz" we throw those ideas and rules out, all so that someone can make a bigger pile of dollars.
Don't forget, cloudflare is a US company. There's absolutely 0 reason why they can't be considered an infrastructure company and subject to common carrier rules as well. Or the counter-offer is they can be responsible for speech over their network. I doubt they'd like that either. After all, they're still hosting piles of stressers and ddos merchants.
> Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you.
That's some pretty strong dissonance there. Here in Indiana, the utilities AND banks are all private entities. And there's no actual state or federal law that would prevent a utility from cutting utilities for "being and speaking of white nationalism". I chose my examples carefully - all are much more regulated than some Walmart or Target or Amazon.
My larger discussion was that over very corporate autonomy. Who made them arbiters of what language was acceptable? Why should infrastructure companies be decision makers of what is said online? Years ago, we restricted the phone companies from doing that very thing - and they wanted dearly to forbid classes of speech. Yet somehow when it's "on the interwebz" we throw those ideas and rules out, all so that someone can make a bigger pile of dollars.
Don't forget, cloudflare is a US company. There's absolutely 0 reason why they can't be considered an infrastructure company and subject to common carrier rules as well. Or the counter-offer is they can be responsible for speech over their network. I doubt they'd like that either. After all, they're still hosting piles of stressers and ddos merchants.
> Here in Indiana, the utilities AND banks are all private entities.
It's likely there's one (or at most, a small handful) of each utility enjoying a state-supported monopoly, even if it's technically run by a private company. The same is not true for banks - I can sign up for one of hundreds of nationwide or online banks even if all the local ones decide I'm an ass.
It's likely there's one (or at most, a small handful) of each utility enjoying a state-supported monopoly, even if it's technically run by a private company. The same is not true for banks - I can sign up for one of hundreds of nationwide or online banks even if all the local ones decide I'm an ass.
>That's some pretty strong dissonance there. Here in Indiana, the utilities AND banks are all private entities. And there's no actual state or federal law that would prevent a utility from cutting utilities for "being and speaking of white nationalism". I chose my examples carefully - all are much more regulated than some Walmart or Target or Amazon.
I don't see a dissonance. If and when banks and utilities start cutting off neo-Nazis, the public and politicians may find that unpalatable and pass laws restricting it. Or may not. The fact that isn't happening right now means no unnecessary laws are required.
If and when society and politicians feel that Cloudflare shouldn't be able to not serve 8chan, it will pass a law doing so. Call your congressman and senator.
>Years ago, we restricted the phone companies from doing that very thing - and they wanted dearly to forbid classes of speech
Sounds interesting, got any references to read?
I don't see a dissonance. If and when banks and utilities start cutting off neo-Nazis, the public and politicians may find that unpalatable and pass laws restricting it. Or may not. The fact that isn't happening right now means no unnecessary laws are required.
If and when society and politicians feel that Cloudflare shouldn't be able to not serve 8chan, it will pass a law doing so. Call your congressman and senator.
>Years ago, we restricted the phone companies from doing that very thing - and they wanted dearly to forbid classes of speech
Sounds interesting, got any references to read?
[deleted]
RaceWon(1)
Your hypos fall well short of the level of actions undertaken by the two sites which have been terminated by CloudFlare, which advocated for, championed, and celebrated violent actions against innocent and blameless third parties, including children.
Your argument fails to credibly address the situation at hand.
Your argument fails to credibly address the situation at hand.
I might add: violent and deadly.
Cloudflare didn't and can't "cut off” 8chan. They can stop providing CDN distribution and bandwidth services to 8chan. As it happens, 8chan's web host _did_ cut off 8chan, so you should be directing your rants at them.
Power and water companies operate as public utilities for a reason. Cloudflare is not a public utility, nor should they be.
Banks can absolutely decide not to do business you, for any reason that's not explicitly forbidden (protected classes, etc.)
Banks can absolutely decide not to do business you, for any reason that's not explicitly forbidden (protected classes, etc.)
When you use the tired, old "businesses can refuse to serve anybody they want" argument, understand that you are using the same arguments used in the past to refuse business to various races, creeds, orientations etc. that are now protected classes. That really ought to make you queasy and perhaps you should contemplate why.
By the way, some states are now recognizing that political affiliation needs to be a protected class as well: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff.... It may not be in keeping with modern progressive thought but is certainly in the spirit of classical liberalism as well as an important first step in depolarizing the country.
By the way, some states are now recognizing that political affiliation needs to be a protected class as well: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff.... It may not be in keeping with modern progressive thought but is certainly in the spirit of classical liberalism as well as an important first step in depolarizing the country.
A black person cannot stop being black, nor is there any reason they should.
A person who believes black people should be killed or kicked out of the U.S. can always change their mind, and they should.
Advocating bigotry or violence is not a political affiliation nor is it a protected class.
A person who believes black people should be killed or kicked out of the U.S. can always change their mind, and they should.
Advocating bigotry or violence is not a political affiliation nor is it a protected class.
Historically, some of the most discriminated people have been people of a different religion. In principle you can "stop believing in your religion" as easily as you can stop believing that immigrants are destroying your country.
In practice, nobody cares to protect bigots and a lot of people want to protect gays, immigrants, women, etc. It is troubling that we only protect certain classes of people since maybe the next group that comes along after the current group of bigots will actually deserve protection but the arguments we built to allow the lack of protection for bigots will be used to deny protection to that group.
In practice, nobody cares to protect bigots and a lot of people want to protect gays, immigrants, women, etc. It is troubling that we only protect certain classes of people since maybe the next group that comes along after the current group of bigots will actually deserve protection but the arguments we built to allow the lack of protection for bigots will be used to deny protection to that group.
The end goal of bigotry is to distort legal structures to eliminate equality and preferentially harm certain people, often because of attributes they can't change, like their ethnicity or where they were born. If you're worried about protecting people of the future, you should be opposing bigotry.
Bigotry has cloaked itself in the mantle of victim and you've totally fallen for it.
Bigotry has cloaked itself in the mantle of victim and you've totally fallen for it.
Those same arguments were used against freedom of religion. English Catholics were popish spies who would try to blow up parliament and overthrow the government, etc. Therefore, they needed to be persecuted as heretics to protect the common good.
Roman Christians refused to worship the emperor, destabilizing the social order, and therefore needed to be thrown to the lions to protect society.
Atheists couldn’t be trusted because they didn’t believe in hell, and therefore would act immorally, and so should be banned from positions of power (this is actually in a couple of US state constitutions!)
(And of course, the same arguments were used in reverse later on as different groups got power)
I won’t shed any tears for 8chan who are a bunch of immoral scum, but I know these same arguments will be deployed to censor religious minorities and others in the future. Hopefully they are less appealing targets.
Roman Christians refused to worship the emperor, destabilizing the social order, and therefore needed to be thrown to the lions to protect society.
Atheists couldn’t be trusted because they didn’t believe in hell, and therefore would act immorally, and so should be banned from positions of power (this is actually in a couple of US state constitutions!)
(And of course, the same arguments were used in reverse later on as different groups got power)
I won’t shed any tears for 8chan who are a bunch of immoral scum, but I know these same arguments will be deployed to censor religious minorities and others in the future. Hopefully they are less appealing targets.
Except these were lies.
These people are real, and actually causing harm. Or do you argue that it is not the case?
These people are real, and actually causing harm. Or do you argue that it is not the case?
Were they lies? Guy fawkes was real. The pope actually did excommunicate Elizabeth and sponsor several invasions/rebellions by the French and Irish.
The western Roman Empire fell apart a hundred years after Christianity became the state religion. Some historians blame tensions among christian schisms in Egypt/the Middle East for the byzantine empire losing those regions to the Arab invasion.
(All I’m saying with the above is that the justifications seemed plausible and reasonable to the educated people of the time. Read Pliny’s letter to Trajan seeking counsel for what to do about Christians, for example)
The western Roman Empire fell apart a hundred years after Christianity became the state religion. Some historians blame tensions among christian schisms in Egypt/the Middle East for the byzantine empire losing those regions to the Arab invasion.
(All I’m saying with the above is that the justifications seemed plausible and reasonable to the educated people of the time. Read Pliny’s letter to Trajan seeking counsel for what to do about Christians, for example)
It is a failing of the ego to think that one has foreseen all possible abuses of a policy going forward.
I think the answer is more speech, not less. Any exception you carve out will be abused in the future, based on the history of humankind and the behavior of governing entities throughout.
Take these exceptions to freedom of speech, add to them a codified framework for equity (which some are pushing for), and you're laying the groundwork for a society like that seen in Harrison Bergeron.
I think the answer is more speech, not less. Any exception you carve out will be abused in the future, based on the history of humankind and the behavior of governing entities throughout.
Take these exceptions to freedom of speech, add to them a codified framework for equity (which some are pushing for), and you're laying the groundwork for a society like that seen in Harrison Bergeron.
[deleted]
You're far too quick to paint me with the brush of "enemy" simply because I can understand why sensible people are worried. That I tangentially refer to 8chan as bigots should have been enough to tip you off. Maybe you should allow a little color into your world of black and white.
I suppose you don't find historical things like McCarthyism very worrying, given how easily you are to think your principle of discriminating by choice separates what you judge to be good from what you judge to be bad. But do you really trust every imaginable leader with such a power?
I suppose you don't find historical things like McCarthyism very worrying, given how easily you are to think your principle of discriminating by choice separates what you judge to be good from what you judge to be bad. But do you really trust every imaginable leader with such a power?
This is what I worry about. As social mores change, we must resist efforts to carve out exceptions to fundamental rights, in order to prevent those exceptions from being wrongly used against people in a harmful way. I think the Founders understood this on some level, even if they couldn't know what the political and social landscape would look like today.
That doesn’t change the fact that the CRA restricted freedom of association. Still, the better argument for legislating platform neutrality is that those platforms enjoy special legal status based on the notion that they can’t be held responsible for user-generated content. If you can spare resources to purge content that offends your political sensibilities, then you are making a choice not to remove content that is, e.g., defamatory, infringes on copyright, etc.
[deleted]
Beautifully summed up by this XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/
So does that count for all the Brianna Wu's and Anita Sarkeesian's as well? All the outroar and backlash to the was called harassment and transphobia.
So you're willing to give unchecked control of online discourse to a private corporation?
The power is not unchecked.
It can be checked through lawsuit -- 8chan could conceivably sue Cloudflare under numerous doctrines, starting with breach of promise / breach of contract.
Another service provider could step up, as was the case with Daily Stormer, and is extensively commented upon in Prince's commentary, and provide services.
Regulatory or legal procedures could be established to specifically address this situation or provide redress.
Public outcry, market sanctions, or labour actions might be taken against providers who exercise such power in manners which are seen as morally reprehensible. For similar examples, see Google employees over Dragonfly or Edleman's emplyee backlash over a contract with a border-wall services company.
The question to be asked, the question we all have to ask, is whether or not individuals, groups, companies, or inchoate movements which are themselves dedicated to abolition or denial of civil order and rule of law are themselves deserving of its full protections in pursuing those ends. And a considerable case can be made for "no".
It can be checked through lawsuit -- 8chan could conceivably sue Cloudflare under numerous doctrines, starting with breach of promise / breach of contract.
Another service provider could step up, as was the case with Daily Stormer, and is extensively commented upon in Prince's commentary, and provide services.
Regulatory or legal procedures could be established to specifically address this situation or provide redress.
Public outcry, market sanctions, or labour actions might be taken against providers who exercise such power in manners which are seen as morally reprehensible. For similar examples, see Google employees over Dragonfly or Edleman's emplyee backlash over a contract with a border-wall services company.
The question to be asked, the question we all have to ask, is whether or not individuals, groups, companies, or inchoate movements which are themselves dedicated to abolition or denial of civil order and rule of law are themselves deserving of its full protections in pursuing those ends. And a considerable case can be made for "no".
It's not unchecked- they are free to move to a different service. Why should Cloudflare be forced to keep all customers no matter what? That infringes on their rights as a private business to run their business as they see fit. There is no "freedom of platform" where your right to a platform is being infringed. You have no right to a platform.
Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people (no matter who does it)? Why is it so important that there are no exceptions to freedom of speech?
Seriously, I just don’t get how the purity of the concept of freedom of speech can be so important that it beats common sense.
"Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people"
Oh, so you are in favor of shutting down all army related sites? Well, many pacifist would probably agree ..
Oh, so you are in favor of shutting down all army related sites? Well, many pacifist would probably agree ..
Since there are no army related sites which encourage people to kill other people I'm not in favor of that and you are free to convince me otherwise by providing a link. But, if they were doing this I would be in favor of shutting them down, yes.
Army is all about how to kill other people. Not hypothetically, very real. Every day.
And governemnts openly advertise for it. On websites, (even in schools). And private enthusiasts maintain forums where army people discuss about the current wars and how to better kill the current enemy. Etc. Etc.
And governemnts openly advertise for it. On websites, (even in schools). And private enthusiasts maintain forums where army people discuss about the current wars and how to better kill the current enemy. Etc. Etc.
> Army is all about how to kill other people.
Not necessarily. The purpose of armies is to win wars. If it was possible to win wars without killing people they wouldn't kill people. In fact they are trying to minimize collateral damage. It's different with white supremacists. They have a direct interest in killing people. There is no collateral damage for them, which is also why they do mass shootings and the army usually doesn't.
Not necessarily. The purpose of armies is to win wars. If it was possible to win wars without killing people they wouldn't kill people. In fact they are trying to minimize collateral damage. It's different with white supremacists. They have a direct interest in killing people. There is no collateral damage for them, which is also why they do mass shootings and the army usually doesn't.
Most of the latter are interested in expelling those they don't consider their own, violence to most of them is just a means to an end, otherwise "go back" or "send them back" would not have been their rallying cry.
Some really do want to kill people, but then again would you deny that the army or even the police doesn't get their fair share of these people?
Some really do want to kill people, but then again would you deny that the army or even the police doesn't get their fair share of these people?
I guess we already made the experiment what would happen if white supremacists would lead a country, so we can already tell that it's likely that "sending them back" isn't going to cut it, if "they" refuse to leave.
I think the vast majority of bigots are low-level blowhards who don't even understand their own viewpoints. Only a small percentage of those actually cause direct harm to others.
I don't know the answer, but I know that indiscriminate restrictions on freedom of speech aren't the answer.
It saddens me that this paraphrased prose I'm about to write even has to exist.
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Nazi.
Then they came for the racists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a racist.
Then they came for the bigots, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a bigot.
Then they came for the rich, and I did not speak out— Because I was not rich.
Then they came for the religious, and I did not speak out— Because I was not religious.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
I don't know the answer, but I know that indiscriminate restrictions on freedom of speech aren't the answer.
It saddens me that this paraphrased prose I'm about to write even has to exist.
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Nazi.
Then they came for the racists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a racist.
Then they came for the bigots, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a bigot.
Then they came for the rich, and I did not speak out— Because I was not rich.
Then they came for the religious, and I did not speak out— Because I was not religious.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Have you an example in history when a lack of censorship posed a problem?
I don't, so I value it very much. There were attrocities in my countries in the name of common sense on the other hand.
Even if intuitive, censorship isn't an answer to anything.
I don't, so I value it very much. There were attrocities in my countries in the name of common sense on the other hand.
Even if intuitive, censorship isn't an answer to anything.
I don’t consider deleting calls for violence towards minorities censorship. And I do think that history has shown too many times that propaganda is a powerful tool, that needs to be restricted. I mean you are free to doubt common sense, but I think doubting common sense is always the first step of becoming fanatic. What would be the country you are talking about? The way I could imagine for someone to commit atrocities out of common sense would be if he has a gun pointed to his head.
We are not talking propaganda here, these are individual actors. Some just like to provoke a reaction, some have these believes and I have seen people turning their back on these platforms innumerable times.
Regardless of the reason people visit these places, the moment they get external pressure, their believes get vindicated. We see a large surge in issues with these communities since we got on our little censorship trip. It is just plainly the wrong move to make.
There have been Nazis on the internet since shortly after its inception. But random people going out and shooting crowds in this frequency is a new phenomenon.
Historically censorship has always been applied for the right reasons of course.
Regardless of the reason people visit these places, the moment they get external pressure, their believes get vindicated. We see a large surge in issues with these communities since we got on our little censorship trip. It is just plainly the wrong move to make.
There have been Nazis on the internet since shortly after its inception. But random people going out and shooting crowds in this frequency is a new phenomenon.
Historically censorship has always been applied for the right reasons of course.
This historical comparison just isn't fair since at no point in human history the possibilities of communication were anywhere close to what they are now.
>>>Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people (no matter who does it)?
That's a fairly simple metric. So you're saying we can finally shut down Twitter?
https://youtu.be/n2Gu7NqsCfg
That's a fairly simple metric. So you're saying we can finally shut down Twitter?
https://youtu.be/n2Gu7NqsCfg
Freedom of speech is not without exceptions. You can't yell, "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire for example.
Everyone here wants that perfect idealistic and pure world, unfortunately that's now the world we are given. Problem is many here want to just treat the world we have as the idealistic model world as if there is no difference.
Everyone here wants that perfect idealistic and pure world, unfortunately that's now the world we are given. Problem is many here want to just treat the world we have as the idealistic model world as if there is no difference.
As opposed to...what, exactly?
A government funded Reddit?
Which government would fund it? How would it be run?
A government funded Reddit?
Which government would fund it? How would it be run?
The government could fund educational programs to teach people to think critically about the content they see on the internet, then they wouldn't have to censor it.
The government already provides 12 years of (somewhat) compulsory education.
Critical thinking skills still seem to be a rarity.
Critical thinking skills still seem to be a rarity.
That is perhaps not a bad idea.
If not government funded, a non-profit, like c-span.
If not government funded, a non-profit, like c-span.
> So you're willing to give unchecked control of online discourse to a private corporation
You clearly are okay with it because you are posting on a forum with unchecked, active moderation.
You clearly are okay with it because you are posting on a forum with unchecked, active moderation.
But the power that Cloudflare has, is being one of the only services to offer protection against modern DoS attacks. If you're a somewhat controversial site (be it right extremist or LGBTQ or sex worker forum) you are going to be suffering these attacks. And then Cloudflare is your only option, or suffer being DoS-ed off line constantly.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Cloudflare is the only serious option against heavy modern DoS attacks, right?
Cause if you can go somewhere else, then sure Cloudflare do it's thing. But if you can't ... then that is way too much power for a random company to hold the gate over any kind of controversial group, anywhere on the political, cultural or global spectrum. Because we really needed another US corporation with runaway power, that'll balance things.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Cloudflare is the only serious option against heavy modern DoS attacks, right?
Cause if you can go somewhere else, then sure Cloudflare do it's thing. But if you can't ... then that is way too much power for a random company to hold the gate over any kind of controversial group, anywhere on the political, cultural or global spectrum. Because we really needed another US corporation with runaway power, that'll balance things.
Cloudflare is committing itself to do as they are told by the governments, in the spirit of upholding the law [0] on govts' behalf (despite under no obligation to do so), if they deem fit.
Whether this makes them reasonable, time will tell. Full marks to Cloudflare for so eloquently addressing this and covering themselves with as much grace as they could muster. If one reads between the lines, censorship is coming. This isn't different from what jgrahamc said a few months back in the news [1].
Signals a new era for Cloudflare, going from protector to arbitrator [2], for better or for worse.
[0] for instance, it was and still is a crime to be a minority in some countries.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774347
[2] Not an expert, but it'd be nice if they allowed 30 to 90 day time period before termination, rather than doing it overnight?
Whether this makes them reasonable, time will tell. Full marks to Cloudflare for so eloquently addressing this and covering themselves with as much grace as they could muster. If one reads between the lines, censorship is coming. This isn't different from what jgrahamc said a few months back in the news [1].
Signals a new era for Cloudflare, going from protector to arbitrator [2], for better or for worse.
[0] for instance, it was and still is a crime to be a minority in some countries.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774347
[2] Not an expert, but it'd be nice if they allowed 30 to 90 day time period before termination, rather than doing it overnight?
> Signals a new era for Cloudflare, going from protector to arbitrator
They kicked off The Daily Stormer 2 years ago. I'm not sure anything changed today.
They kicked off The Daily Stormer 2 years ago. I'm not sure anything changed today.
> still is a crime to be a minority in some countries.
Do you have examples in mind?
I have no doubt that this is the case, but I can't think of any examples.
Do you have examples in mind?
I have no doubt that this is the case, but I can't think of any examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Saudi_Arabia and in spirit, persecution is a world wide phenomenon.
"the speed with which tech cos change after a bad PR cycle seems like solid proof that none of this is abt principles but abt trying to keep from making hard choices as long as possible. earlier today they argued that keeping 8chan within its network is a “moral obligation”"
https://twitter.com/cwarzel/status/1158193462459506693
https://twitter.com/cwarzel/status/1158193462459506693
This always has been and always will be about publicity. 8ch started getting mentioned on national television, and there started to be questions directed at cloudflare. Reddit used to happily host discriminatory, violent communities, and only banned them once people started paying attention and companies became afraid to advertise on reddit because of its perceived connections to hate by the public. The message to hate communities is to lay low and not get noticed by the media.
Speech cannot be violent.
To the downvoters: speech cannot be violent, by definition. Using your own private definition of a word—in this case, violence—without making an explicit disclaimer is inherently deceitful.
To the downvoters: speech cannot be violent, by definition. Using your own private definition of a word—in this case, violence—without making an explicit disclaimer is inherently deceitful.
Buy a dictionary. Volence doesn't have to use physical force.
Violence does refer to direct physical harm. There's a subset of people, predominantly in the social sciences, that is trying to redefine violence to include things like "economic violence" and "social violence" (e.g. breaking up with an SO you don't like, or not being friends with someone anymore). This is not the average person's understanding of the word, and personally I feel that it drastically washes down the meaning of violence.
If these things constitute violence then lots of violence is completely legal. In fact, you commit violence probably every day when you decide who to be friends with and who not to be friends with, who gets hired, etc.
If these things constitute violence then lots of violence is completely legal. In fact, you commit violence probably every day when you decide who to be friends with and who not to be friends with, who gets hired, etc.
It explicitly does. But it doesent always even infer harm. I can swing my arms violently, and not hurt anyone.
Having checked one, I found this: "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy"
Would you care to offer a different definition?
Would you care to offer a different definition?
Where did CloudFlare make or where was CloudFlare quoted as making the “moral obligation” argument? That just looks like a random tweet to me.
Edit: Looks like CEO comment to the Guardian earlier today
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/04/mass-shoo...
Edit: Looks like CEO comment to the Guardian earlier today
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/04/mass-shoo...
Cloudflare in the past was a staunch defender of free speech when people tried to get them to take down a website that was an outlet for pro-ISIS propaganda (I think the quote from the CEO was "A website is speech. It is not a bomb").
When they stopped hosting the neo-Nazi website they mentioned in the link, they made a big deal about how it was a one-off decision and they'll never again again stop serving a website because of its content. Clearly they've changed their minds about that.
When they stopped hosting the neo-Nazi website they mentioned in the link, they made a big deal about how it was a one-off decision and they'll never again again stop serving a website because of its content. Clearly they've changed their minds about that.
That they abandoned those principles due to PR pressure does not mean it was not about principles. I dislike such motivated, deceitful arguments.
You're arguing that their abandonment of their principles, was due to principles.
Not even close. I am arguing that they have principles, but compromised on them due to too high a cost.
What kind of tortured logic do you need to employ where one can only claim to have principles if they hold on to them no matter the cost?
What kind of tortured logic do you need to employ where one can only claim to have principles if they hold on to them no matter the cost?
When I was younger I thought I was a few speech absolutist. Then I went to where was free speech was absolute and saw what was discussed. Now I favor moderation.
> Then I went to where was free speech was absolute and saw what was discussed.
That suffers from a selection effect. Since not many sites prioritize free speech and only allow things within some narrower region of the overton window to be discussed it follows that the more extreme positions get pushed to sites that allow more.
If, hypothetically, every site were tolerant then you wouldn't have that association.
Also note that even 8chan is still moderated, each sub-board has its own rules and there also are global rules. What it really enables is a diversity of rules, set by each sub-community. What people seem to want is for sub-communities not to be allowed to exist even though they're not illegal. And that seems pretty dangerous.
That suffers from a selection effect. Since not many sites prioritize free speech and only allow things within some narrower region of the overton window to be discussed it follows that the more extreme positions get pushed to sites that allow more.
If, hypothetically, every site were tolerant then you wouldn't have that association.
Also note that even 8chan is still moderated, each sub-board has its own rules and there also are global rules. What it really enables is a diversity of rules, set by each sub-community. What people seem to want is for sub-communities not to be allowed to exist even though they're not illegal. And that seems pretty dangerous.
I disagree: Free speech absolutism will still involve community sorting.
In the long-term, without moderation and community standards, the bad drives out the good. If you work in a place with an absolute asshole, and nothing is being done to deal with this person, you're more likely to quietly leave for greener pastures. Meanwhile other assholes might find a kindred spirit, and join up. Repeat these interactions for a while, and you're left with a community of assholes and a toxic culture.
In the long-term, without moderation and community standards, the bad drives out the good. If you work in a place with an absolute asshole, and nothing is being done to deal with this person, you're more likely to quietly leave for greener pastures. Meanwhile other assholes might find a kindred spirit, and join up. Repeat these interactions for a while, and you're left with a community of assholes and a toxic culture.
What you describe is just communities forming. And that's exactly what the board or subreddit model already does.
These sub-communities that people want to censor, do they have any redeeming value?
Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a precedent for some hypothetical future censorship of something worthwhile?
Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a precedent for some hypothetical future censorship of something worthwhile?
> These sub-communities that people want to censor, do they have any redeeming value?
The usual example would be cartoon child pornography. Some want to see it wiped off the face of earth, others argue it provides an outlet for pedophiles.
> Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a precedent for some hypothetical future censorship of something worthwhile?
Maybe that too, but it's more about that they are not illegal, which means the judicial system has not found that they shouldn't exist and no attempt has been made to bring about such a decision. If its not the judicial system, who should be the arbiter of communities that are allowed to exist? Do we want facebook, google and cloudflare to be community-shepherds?
The usual example would be cartoon child pornography. Some want to see it wiped off the face of earth, others argue it provides an outlet for pedophiles.
> Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a precedent for some hypothetical future censorship of something worthwhile?
Maybe that too, but it's more about that they are not illegal, which means the judicial system has not found that they shouldn't exist and no attempt has been made to bring about such a decision. If its not the judicial system, who should be the arbiter of communities that are allowed to exist? Do we want facebook, google and cloudflare to be community-shepherds?
> the judicial system has not found that they shouldn't exist and no attempt has been made to bring about such a decision.
I would argue this isn't necessarily true. "I know it when I see it" -- the famous quote in a SCOTUS decision on pornography/indecency is interpreted to give local communities the ability to determine what is decent/legal. In other words, there is no one court/legal standard; it varies based on regional local standards.
I would argue this isn't necessarily true. "I know it when I see it" -- the famous quote in a SCOTUS decision on pornography/indecency is interpreted to give local communities the ability to determine what is decent/legal. In other words, there is no one court/legal standard; it varies based on regional local standards.
They can host their own if it's legal, can't they? So sure, kick them off if they're disruptive and hateful. They don't deserve a megaphone.
Not when internet infrastructure refuses to host them. Yeah, you could build your own servers, ISP, DNS provider, CDN, and DDoS protection... but that's way beyond the capability of most groups.
If, hypothetically, every site were tolerant then you wouldn't have that association.
Sure, you'd just have extreme content widely distributed, but it would still cluster within sites. Birds of a feather flock together, as the saying goes.
Sure, you'd just have extreme content widely distributed, but it would still cluster within sites. Birds of a feather flock together, as the saying goes.
>When I was younger I thought I was a few speech absolutist. Then I went to where was free speech was absolute and saw what was discussed. Now I favor moderation.
How do you determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad"? I feel like there is no absolute way to determine this. (I am being genuine in asking, I want to know what caused this change and how you see "free speech")
All speech is good in my opinion. Some actions are bad. 8chan is supporting these actions, they've crossed the line.
How do you determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad"? I feel like there is no absolute way to determine this. (I am being genuine in asking, I want to know what caused this change and how you see "free speech")
All speech is good in my opinion. Some actions are bad. 8chan is supporting these actions, they've crossed the line.
> How do you determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad"?
Ultimately the courts determine which speech is "good" or "bad" by interpreting the law, but all property owners can determine what speech is permitted on their property (like what cloudflare is doing).
I accept some limits on free speech. I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause (yelling fire in a crowded theater). I think conspiracy is a crime. I think threats are a crime. I support the idea of copyright laws even if I think our current system is bad.
From an internet freedom standpoint I think this signals we have an over dependence on cloudflare, not that we have a free speech problem.
Ultimately the courts determine which speech is "good" or "bad" by interpreting the law, but all property owners can determine what speech is permitted on their property (like what cloudflare is doing).
I accept some limits on free speech. I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause (yelling fire in a crowded theater). I think conspiracy is a crime. I think threats are a crime. I support the idea of copyright laws even if I think our current system is bad.
From an internet freedom standpoint I think this signals we have an over dependence on cloudflare, not that we have a free speech problem.
> I think this signals we have an over dependence on cloudflare, not that we have a free speech problem.
I agree. I dislike the idea of large systems. Being able to throw their weight around is a symptom of the problem.
I agree. I dislike the idea of large systems. Being able to throw their weight around is a symptom of the problem.
> I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause (yelling fire in a crowded theater)
I would argue this isn't speech any more than saying a phrase to Alexa that causes an API to be called which then detonates a bomb is speech.
I define speech as expression of ideas. Basically, say I maintain a blog. Should there be limits on which ideas I'm allowed to express on that blog? Should I be thrown in jail if I express a "bad" idea?
I would argue this isn't speech any more than saying a phrase to Alexa that causes an API to be called which then detonates a bomb is speech.
I define speech as expression of ideas. Basically, say I maintain a blog. Should there be limits on which ideas I'm allowed to express on that blog? Should I be thrown in jail if I express a "bad" idea?
>Basically, say I maintain a blog. Should there be limits on which ideas I'm allowed to express on that blog? Should I be thrown in jail if I express a "bad" idea?
Aren't Al Quaeda and ISIS websites shutdown all the time? If ISIS was using 8chan to spread Jihadi propaganda that ended up leading to killing on US soil, they'd be shut down quick. But since the extremists belong to a political side, it's called free speech. When Twitter/FB/YT/Reddit remove such speech, it's spun as political bias.
Aren't Al Quaeda and ISIS websites shutdown all the time? If ISIS was using 8chan to spread Jihadi propaganda that ended up leading to killing on US soil, they'd be shut down quick. But since the extremists belong to a political side, it's called free speech. When Twitter/FB/YT/Reddit remove such speech, it's spun as political bias.
> Aren't Al Quaeda and ISIS websites shutdown all the time
Ironically for your argument, Cloudflare hasn't really shutdown any alleged ISIS sites. This was even noted in their first blog when shutting down the Daily Stormer.
Ironically for your argument, Cloudflare hasn't really shutdown any alleged ISIS sites. This was even noted in their first blog when shutting down the Daily Stormer.
> Should I be thrown in jail if I express a "bad" idea?
If, say, you're aware that your readers have a tendency towards "exuberance" when it comes to dogpiling / harassing / doxing / etc. people you call out on your blog and your "bad" idea expresses a wish that someone has a very bad time of things, yeah, you should definitely be looking at consequences (perhaps not jail-level, mind) for that idea.
(cf people like Gervais on Twitter who have a consequence-free dogpile mob ready to relentlessly harass anyone criticising them. Or POTUS, in the current instance.)
If, say, you're aware that your readers have a tendency towards "exuberance" when it comes to dogpiling / harassing / doxing / etc. people you call out on your blog and your "bad" idea expresses a wish that someone has a very bad time of things, yeah, you should definitely be looking at consequences (perhaps not jail-level, mind) for that idea.
(cf people like Gervais on Twitter who have a consequence-free dogpile mob ready to relentlessly harass anyone criticising them. Or POTUS, in the current instance.)
>From an internet freedom standpoint I think this signals we have an over dependence on cloudflare, not that we have a free speech problem.
Both can be true.
Both can be true.
I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause[.] I think threats are a crime.
Does that extend to US presidential candidates? The Democrats and Republicans both have quite a history of that. (And I am certain that if I bothered I could dig up hundreds of other examples)
Free speech curtailment never works out well no matter the motivations. It is just another control used by the powerful to advance their own interests.
Yes Cloudflare has the right as a private company to do what they want etc, etc. The argument is not narrowly about staying within legal bounds, but what _ought_ to be.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=902894...
Does that extend to US presidential candidates? The Democrats and Republicans both have quite a history of that. (And I am certain that if I bothered I could dig up hundreds of other examples)
Free speech curtailment never works out well no matter the motivations. It is just another control used by the powerful to advance their own interests.
Yes Cloudflare has the right as a private company to do what they want etc, etc. The argument is not narrowly about staying within legal bounds, but what _ought_ to be.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=902894...
>How do you determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad"?
Speech becomes bad when it infringes on the rights of another group or individual. Where that specific line is drawn does vary, but the underlying principle is the same and one that seemingly everyone agrees with. The US happens to be near the absolute extreme to where this line is drawn.
Whether you think hate speech infringes on the rights of the targeted group is up for debate. People don't have an inherent right to not be offended (which is why I am against the few western countries that still have blasphemy laws). However, hate speech on sites like 8chan does often lead to speech that incites violence. There can be no debate that people have a right to safety. Speech that incites violence infringes on that right.
Speech becomes bad when it infringes on the rights of another group or individual. Where that specific line is drawn does vary, but the underlying principle is the same and one that seemingly everyone agrees with. The US happens to be near the absolute extreme to where this line is drawn.
Whether you think hate speech infringes on the rights of the targeted group is up for debate. People don't have an inherent right to not be offended (which is why I am against the few western countries that still have blasphemy laws). However, hate speech on sites like 8chan does often lead to speech that incites violence. There can be no debate that people have a right to safety. Speech that incites violence infringes on that right.
> However, hate speech on sites like 8chan does often lead to speech that incites violence.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
> All speech is good in my opinion. Some actions are bad. 8chan is supporting these actions, they've crossed the line.
It looks like you've just made a determination of what you consider is bad speech.
It looks like you've just made a determination of what you consider is bad speech.
Hah. I had to re-read your post + delete my original reply rejecting that.
You got me. ;) I guess I am not as absolutionist as I thought.
You got me. ;) I guess I am not as absolutionist as I thought.
I was also more of a free speech absolutist when I was younger. Now I’m more on the fence and I struggle to objectively define what is "good" and "bad" speech.
A good definition for good I've come across is:
"Anything which should be done, if done as it should, to the extent to which it should, in the place where it should, at the time when it should, and in view of the end for which it should, is called good."
Kind of explains why the distinction between good and bad remains a grey area for some.
"Anything which should be done, if done as it should, to the extent to which it should, in the place where it should, at the time when it should, and in view of the end for which it should, is called good."
Kind of explains why the distinction between good and bad remains a grey area for some.
But the idea of 'good' is there smuggled in and already present inside that word 'should', it seems to me.
p.s. Defining 'good' has been a problem for philosophy, see e.g. discussion of Moore's naturalistic fallacy[0]---a problem in trying to define good in terms of something else. Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape has been the most useful book for me on understanding ethics and what good means.
[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalistic-fallacy Not sure if that's the best link for the topic, but it's a start.
p.s. Defining 'good' has been a problem for philosophy, see e.g. discussion of Moore's naturalistic fallacy[0]---a problem in trying to define good in terms of something else. Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape has been the most useful book for me on understanding ethics and what good means.
[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalistic-fallacy Not sure if that's the best link for the topic, but it's a start.
[deleted]
I also feel that there is no absolute way to determine what is good speech and what is bad speech, yet I also realize that the distinction exists.
Sometimes, there are clear markers. Supporting or promoting acts of violence is a poor fit for civil societies. The same can be said for other forms of harm. Yet I also view the use of speech to suppress speech as being a danger to civil societies since the intent is to discourage discourse.
Other cases are more ambiguous, mostly because I would like to live in a fairy tale world where facts and reason will win the day. This is land where others can say things that I find reprehensible and vice versa so that we can eventually arrive upon the truth. The freedom of speech is necessary in this case because we all have our preconceived notions, some of which will ultimately prove to be wrong. If the preconceived notions of individuals and societies are not challenged, it will be nearly impossible to arrive upon the truth.
The thing is that we don't live in that fairy tale world. The words of some people have more weight. That may be due to social status, connections, wealth, or other factors. Other people intentionally convey falsehoods in order to manipulate outcomes to reflect their motivations. People are also more likely to be swayed by emotion than reason, or to manipulate emotions to override reason.
Where does that leave us? I really don't know. Perhaps the freedom of speech should be regarded as an aspiration rather than as an absolute.
Sometimes, there are clear markers. Supporting or promoting acts of violence is a poor fit for civil societies. The same can be said for other forms of harm. Yet I also view the use of speech to suppress speech as being a danger to civil societies since the intent is to discourage discourse.
Other cases are more ambiguous, mostly because I would like to live in a fairy tale world where facts and reason will win the day. This is land where others can say things that I find reprehensible and vice versa so that we can eventually arrive upon the truth. The freedom of speech is necessary in this case because we all have our preconceived notions, some of which will ultimately prove to be wrong. If the preconceived notions of individuals and societies are not challenged, it will be nearly impossible to arrive upon the truth.
The thing is that we don't live in that fairy tale world. The words of some people have more weight. That may be due to social status, connections, wealth, or other factors. Other people intentionally convey falsehoods in order to manipulate outcomes to reflect their motivations. People are also more likely to be swayed by emotion than reason, or to manipulate emotions to override reason.
Where does that leave us? I really don't know. Perhaps the freedom of speech should be regarded as an aspiration rather than as an absolute.
You're correct that there's no absolute way to determine what speech is good and bad. We can only muddle through, making value judgments. Some will be right, and some will be wrong, and hopefully we'll learn from the times we screw up.
I'd rather people have the courage to take a moral/ethical stance than to just not care about anything and ignore the negative impacts technology can have on society. If Cloudflare is wrong in this instance, or in any future instance, hopefully there will be enough backlash that they'll learn and walk it back. If they fail at learning, then we have to resort to government regulation, and hope that our governments are up to the task of doing the right thing.
At the end of the day, it's just people making decisions, all the way from the top, down to the bottom. We're all flawed and do the wrong thing sometimes, but my (perhaps naive) hope is that we're slowly converging on more right than wrong.
I'd rather people have the courage to take a moral/ethical stance than to just not care about anything and ignore the negative impacts technology can have on society. If Cloudflare is wrong in this instance, or in any future instance, hopefully there will be enough backlash that they'll learn and walk it back. If they fail at learning, then we have to resort to government regulation, and hope that our governments are up to the task of doing the right thing.
At the end of the day, it's just people making decisions, all the way from the top, down to the bottom. We're all flawed and do the wrong thing sometimes, but my (perhaps naive) hope is that we're slowly converging on more right than wrong.
>8chan is supporting these actions
You don’t know anything about the chans if you think 8chan collectively supports shootings.
You don’t know anything about the chans if you think 8chan collectively supports shootings.
I don’t think they are referring to the people on it collectively. The site owners are implicitly supporting it by not moderating that type of content.
That seems like "if you're not with us you're against us" reasoning to me, it excludes the middle ground. Not banning something is not the same as endorsement.
Yes. Reasonable people "exclude the middle ground" on support for domestic terrorism.
You're in favour of censorship. Moderation is keeping discussion civil and on-topic, which interestingly enough mostly happens by itself in 'absolute free speech' spaces.
What you support is the selective suppression of ideas that you don't like. Don't call it moderation. Call it by its name. Censorship.
Cloudflare isn't 'moderating' 8chan. It's deplatforming it and enacting censorship.
What you support is the selective suppression of ideas that you don't like. Don't call it moderation. Call it by its name. Censorship.
Cloudflare isn't 'moderating' 8chan. It's deplatforming it and enacting censorship.
"Absolute free speech" is like anarchism. I've yet to meet someone who fully practices them both yet they will preach it and condemn others with their self-righteous hypocrisy. Would you want me to come up to your kid and cuss him out for no reason? Your mom? I wouldn't even have to use foul language to bother them. Any number of reasons I could really annoy you or your loved ones with free speech and in some cases really make them fear for their life, legal or not, especially if I was famous and had an internet army to "play" with them.
Free speech is the equivalent of "utopia". It doesn't exist because even the most ardent endorsers have shown kinks in their armor where they don't want people to use it against them at certain times and certain ways. You argue against the selective suppression of ideas yet you may reply to me and tell me this idea needs suppressed. Most people already see the kinks of hypocrisy in it and have long realized it, like all other freedoms, are best used moderately so as not to infringe on the freedoms of others.
Free speech is the equivalent of "utopia". It doesn't exist because even the most ardent endorsers have shown kinks in their armor where they don't want people to use it against them at certain times and certain ways. You argue against the selective suppression of ideas yet you may reply to me and tell me this idea needs suppressed. Most people already see the kinks of hypocrisy in it and have long realized it, like all other freedoms, are best used moderately so as not to infringe on the freedoms of others.
Free speech is a hard requirement for democracy, and a hard requirement of free speech is accepting the freedom of speech you find objectionable. Your nation was founded upon this principle as a cornerstone, and yet you have regressed back to ochlocracy. It wasn't even 100 years ago that any discussions of LGBT welfare were censored the same way by people with the same mindset.
> Would you want me to come up to your kid and cuss him out for no reason? Your mom?
We're talking about an online discussion group that discusses things that some, including myself, find objectionable. We're talking about whether such groups should be allowed to exist, and by extension whether those ideas should be allowed to exist. You're talking about harassment with an example that doesn't even intersect freedom of speech. Terrible strawman.
When I emigrated from the former Soviet Union, freedom of speech was one of the bigger changes in everyday life. It was also something that people were proud of and supported. They understood that it's what allows democracy to function, they understood that by definition it means supporting objectionable speech. Now I'm watching the tide turn and the same people actually supporting censorship in their own nations.
I always thought the censorship and thought-policing started with the oppressive government in the Soviet Union, I didn't believe that people initially welcomed it. But here we are, the cycle is repeating again.
> Would you want me to come up to your kid and cuss him out for no reason? Your mom?
We're talking about an online discussion group that discusses things that some, including myself, find objectionable. We're talking about whether such groups should be allowed to exist, and by extension whether those ideas should be allowed to exist. You're talking about harassment with an example that doesn't even intersect freedom of speech. Terrible strawman.
When I emigrated from the former Soviet Union, freedom of speech was one of the bigger changes in everyday life. It was also something that people were proud of and supported. They understood that it's what allows democracy to function, they understood that by definition it means supporting objectionable speech. Now I'm watching the tide turn and the same people actually supporting censorship in their own nations.
I always thought the censorship and thought-policing started with the oppressive government in the Soviet Union, I didn't believe that people initially welcomed it. But here we are, the cycle is repeating again.
We're not talking about a government shutting down 8chan. We're talking about one (of many) providers being unwilling to rebroadcast 8chan's content. (Rebroadcast, not host. Their hosting provider is still hosting them.)
I understand people's dislike for any kind of censorship, because it's immensely difficult (impossible, perhaps) to trust the people doing the censoring to be free of bias and to always do the right thing. And I agree with that!
But let's not pretend that all ideas are equal and great. That's just a flat-out falsehood. Some ideas don't deserve to see the light of day. And sure, it's difficult to trust any group to make that judgment. But doing nothing isn't a great option, either.
Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see a government making things like 8chan illegal. But I also don't want to see a government requiring that companies like Cloudflare rebroadcast 8chan's content against their will.
I understand people's dislike for any kind of censorship, because it's immensely difficult (impossible, perhaps) to trust the people doing the censoring to be free of bias and to always do the right thing. And I agree with that!
But let's not pretend that all ideas are equal and great. That's just a flat-out falsehood. Some ideas don't deserve to see the light of day. And sure, it's difficult to trust any group to make that judgment. But doing nothing isn't a great option, either.
Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see a government making things like 8chan illegal. But I also don't want to see a government requiring that companies like Cloudflare rebroadcast 8chan's content against their will.
That's a separate discussion. How big does a corporation have to get before the government must intervene? Imagine there was only Cloudflare and nothing else. Should they still be allowed to arbitrarily de-platform ideas and individuals?
Should Visa and Mastercard be allowed to arbitrarily de-platform a business and therefore guarantee it can't operate?
Cloudflare et al are particularly heinous because they'll claim to be a dumb common carrier to protect themselves from legal action for re-hosting illegal material, and then turn around and cherry-pick exactly the kind of content they want to re-host. Can't have it both ways.
Should Visa and Mastercard be allowed to arbitrarily de-platform a business and therefore guarantee it can't operate?
Cloudflare et al are particularly heinous because they'll claim to be a dumb common carrier to protect themselves from legal action for re-hosting illegal material, and then turn around and cherry-pick exactly the kind of content they want to re-host. Can't have it both ways.
Most democracies have limits on freedom of speech. Do you think Germany is not a democracy for disallowing some references to Nazism? Do you think Finland is not a democracy since we can and have fined persons for "inciting against groups of people"? Let alone for slander and such.
We are talking about legal speech which is being de-platformed because it's unpopular. And not just a particular kind of speech, but the entire platform on which speech in general takes place.
If it were prohibited speech or if the platform was illegal, this article would not exist and neither would this discussion.
A pretty distinct contrast to the prohibited speech in your examples.
If it were prohibited speech or if the platform was illegal, this article would not exist and neither would this discussion.
A pretty distinct contrast to the prohibited speech in your examples.
It's only legal in some countries. There are plenty of places where incitement to violence is a crime ...
Then I guess the president of the united states[1], the president of the philippines[2], the president of china[3], and all respective news corporations that broadcast their direct calls to violence should be de-platformed as well, if we're being impartial. Right?
And since we're being impartial, we should just ban entire television channels because they have broadcast these direct calls to violence. Just like 8chan is being de-platformed for a handful of posts that were submitted by users. Right?
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-vi...
[2] https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/19/philippines-duterte-inci...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/hong-kong-prot...
Perhaps let's talk about the fact that the individual that precipitated this action also shared his views on twitter and facebook. And they were not removed until he became a figure of media attention. He also used facebook livestream. Time to de-platform those too, yes?
And since we're being impartial, we should just ban entire television channels because they have broadcast these direct calls to violence. Just like 8chan is being de-platformed for a handful of posts that were submitted by users. Right?
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-vi...
[2] https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/19/philippines-duterte-inci...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/hong-kong-prot...
Perhaps let's talk about the fact that the individual that precipitated this action also shared his views on twitter and facebook. And they were not removed until he became a figure of media attention. He also used facebook livestream. Time to de-platform those too, yes?
I'd be happy with the leaders of those countries being told to sit in a corner and shut up until they could stop encouraging violence.
That wasn't my point though, and I'm pretty sure you know that.
That wasn't my point though, and I'm pretty sure you know that.
> Moderation is keeping discussion civil and on-topic, which interestingly enough mostly happens by itself in 'absolute free speech' spaces.
The entire topic of this post -- 8chan -- is a fine counterexample to your idea there.
The entire topic of this post -- 8chan -- is a fine counterexample to your idea there.
Ever actually visited 8chan? Most of the boards there keep threads on-topic and at higher snr, than, say, reddit.
Moderation is the process of keeping a board functional and snr high.
Censorship is the process of suppressing certain types of content from the board. In this case legal content.
You can have high quality discussions on less-moderated boards, e.g. any of 4chan's interest boards. And you can have low-quality discussions on highly moderated boards, e.g. all of Reddit default subs.
Moderation is the process of keeping a board functional and snr high.
Censorship is the process of suppressing certain types of content from the board. In this case legal content.
You can have high quality discussions on less-moderated boards, e.g. any of 4chan's interest boards. And you can have low-quality discussions on highly moderated boards, e.g. all of Reddit default subs.
You supported free speech until you came into contact with groups that freely spoke about things you disagreed with, and now you are against free speech? This line of thought is incongruent, you could be a democrat attending republican rallies, a white supremacist attending an LGBT conference, or a POC attending a KKK rally and this sentiment would apply anywhere.
And at the end of day that's fine, because that opinion is protected under free speech
And at the end of day that's fine, because that opinion is protected under free speech
Of course, the only bad speech is speech you personally dislike?
I feel that an easy rule to apply is that speech about hurting or even killing others is unambiguously bad speech
Everything else is up for debate. But this single exception I hope every human being can agree on.
Everything else is up for debate. But this single exception I hope every human being can agree on.
Can every human being agree that military recruitment ads are unambiguously bad speech?
How about you go and campaign to ban major news networks from reporting on successful drone strikes and bombing raids in Iraq/Syria /other such places.
Of course it will be true on its face that "bad speech" will be disliked by the people claiming it is bad.
This phrase suggests that ALL speech that non-absolutists dislike will be categorized as harmful enough to society to be disallowed. That is a view nobody I've ever met holds.
I am not a free speech absolutist. I believe 99.9999% of speech I dislike, even speech I dislike intensely and believe is harmful to society, should still be allowed by society. That I think 0.00001% crosses a line where its harm outweighs the benefit of an zero-tolerance, non-negotiable absolute freedom of speech.
Throwing off a facile "oh, you'll just ban speech you don't like" is just jingoism. It's no different than saying people who favour less immigration are Nazis, or people who favour universal health care are communists.
It avoids thinking by name-calling.
This phrase suggests that ALL speech that non-absolutists dislike will be categorized as harmful enough to society to be disallowed. That is a view nobody I've ever met holds.
I am not a free speech absolutist. I believe 99.9999% of speech I dislike, even speech I dislike intensely and believe is harmful to society, should still be allowed by society. That I think 0.00001% crosses a line where its harm outweighs the benefit of an zero-tolerance, non-negotiable absolute freedom of speech.
Throwing off a facile "oh, you'll just ban speech you don't like" is just jingoism. It's no different than saying people who favour less immigration are Nazis, or people who favour universal health care are communists.
It avoids thinking by name-calling.
OK, so what is the "0.00001%" speech that justifies prison sentence ?
Ordering someone to shoot you? Aka "clear and imminent threat" ?
Ordering someone to shoot you? Aka "clear and imminent threat" ?
CloudFlare is not a notice board. They are practically a utility. PG&E aren’t a government, and they can’t cut off your electricity because you’re an extremist.
What about ISPs? Should Cox, Comcast, Frontier, etc be liable for what flows through their pipes? Media companies say yes, but what do you do when your ISP says “bye” because you visit 4chan? Go to another ISP? In most areas of the US, you can’t
What about ISPs? Should Cox, Comcast, Frontier, etc be liable for what flows through their pipes? Media companies say yes, but what do you do when your ISP says “bye” because you visit 4chan? Go to another ISP? In most areas of the US, you can’t
Cloudflare is a CDN. 8chan has free choice to pick another. It's not a common carrier or a public service in any way. It's just big, which isn't the same thing.
A CDN isn't necessary for a large website to keep running either.
It's necessary to protect against DDOS attacks. The CDN has privileged positioning in the network -- close to the consumer ISPs -- and can block incoming DDOS attacks directly before the traffic flows deeper.
8chan can build their own if none are willing to host them. though some ISPs might refuse to peer with them.
and then do you suggest 8chan to start making their own ISPs around the nation in areas where there are no ISPs that will peer?
As an aside, the owner of 8chan already hosts 8chan with his own ISP.
no, but "high traffic forums" are not a "protected class" when it comes to equality.
Not legally, nor morally.
Morally we can argue that there's virtue (or a lot of global positive utility if we use an utilitarian framework) in making sure that there's an open marketplace for ideas, and every idea has opportunity to be "priced". But there's also virtue in keeping that place healthy, sane and constructive. Hate speech, manifestos, slur memes, and other kinds of low-effort content seems to be rather unhealthy for the place.
While at the same time doing a proper academic study on intelligence, brains, genetics, education, socioeconomic status, social mobility, and group dynamics at large is healthy. Context, style, framing is important. Blurting out that "blacks" have lower IQ in some measure might even be true, but that's not really an idea for that marketplace. Connecting the dots, uncovering the causes, the dynamics (noticing that the main driver is not some inherent genetic/cultural inferiority, but simple socioeconomic status due to historical path dependence) - and raising awareness and offering solutions is healthy.
Yes, of course, it's upon us to make a value judgement about what's a virtue, what's healthy. And no wonder some people think that even adopting the Golden Rule (do only what you want others to do, see also Rawl's reflective equilibrium) just means we have to "purge the weak" and that "civilizations are destined to clash". Of course we can't do much with that, other than trying to persuade them AND trying to minimize these voices so they remain a weak but vocal minority. (Hence our choice of idea policing is not just because we happen to think equality and pacifism are virtuous, but because our survival, way of life and so might depend on it.) [And in that way, yes cultures are destined to clash, and we ought to think a pacifist-equalist is the one that should win - nothing to do about it, another value judgement to make.]
Not legally, nor morally.
Morally we can argue that there's virtue (or a lot of global positive utility if we use an utilitarian framework) in making sure that there's an open marketplace for ideas, and every idea has opportunity to be "priced". But there's also virtue in keeping that place healthy, sane and constructive. Hate speech, manifestos, slur memes, and other kinds of low-effort content seems to be rather unhealthy for the place.
While at the same time doing a proper academic study on intelligence, brains, genetics, education, socioeconomic status, social mobility, and group dynamics at large is healthy. Context, style, framing is important. Blurting out that "blacks" have lower IQ in some measure might even be true, but that's not really an idea for that marketplace. Connecting the dots, uncovering the causes, the dynamics (noticing that the main driver is not some inherent genetic/cultural inferiority, but simple socioeconomic status due to historical path dependence) - and raising awareness and offering solutions is healthy.
Yes, of course, it's upon us to make a value judgement about what's a virtue, what's healthy. And no wonder some people think that even adopting the Golden Rule (do only what you want others to do, see also Rawl's reflective equilibrium) just means we have to "purge the weak" and that "civilizations are destined to clash". Of course we can't do much with that, other than trying to persuade them AND trying to minimize these voices so they remain a weak but vocal minority. (Hence our choice of idea policing is not just because we happen to think equality and pacifism are virtuous, but because our survival, way of life and so might depend on it.) [And in that way, yes cultures are destined to clash, and we ought to think a pacifist-equalist is the one that should win - nothing to do about it, another value judgement to make.]
decent peering is neither a right nor a requirement for a website.
A utility is typically a natural monopoly providing some sort of essential service. Cloudflare is neither.
What happens if all other providers refuse you as well on same basis? What if Comcast refuse you to provide any internet service because they don't like your views on net neutrality?
In my personal opinion, the size of "all others" matters.
If you have a monopolistic ISP that refuses to provide service to you because they don't like your content, and they're your only option, then that's a problem.
If you have multiple tens of CDN providers and they all don't want to carry your content, then perhaps you should really take a look at your content and have a hard think about why it isn't wanted.
And regardless, a CDN isn't necessary to host a website. A CDN certainly makes it easier to achieve lower-latency global reach, and is useful in helping you weather certain types of attacks on your infrastructure, but they're by no means required. And there are other ways to achieve those goals.
If you have a monopolistic ISP that refuses to provide service to you because they don't like your content, and they're your only option, then that's a problem.
If you have multiple tens of CDN providers and they all don't want to carry your content, then perhaps you should really take a look at your content and have a hard think about why it isn't wanted.
And regardless, a CDN isn't necessary to host a website. A CDN certainly makes it easier to achieve lower-latency global reach, and is useful in helping you weather certain types of attacks on your infrastructure, but they're by no means required. And there are other ways to achieve those goals.
Exactly, with similarity being a second important thing. For example, maybe you’re lucky enough to have three ISPs to choose from, but they’re all big American companies with nearly identical corporate cultures, and odds are good that if one of them kicks you off, the others will too.
Hosting a site, on the other hand, has a multitude of very different providers to choose from. Even if you manage to get banned from every hosting provider in the US, ship a server to a colo in Kyrgyzstan or whatever, and keep right on going.
Hosting a site, on the other hand, has a multitude of very different providers to choose from. Even if you manage to get banned from every hosting provider in the US, ship a server to a colo in Kyrgyzstan or whatever, and keep right on going.
Cloudflare isn’t an ISP so “all other providers” doesn’t make sense, and Comcast isn’t a competitor.
I guess then you'd have to reflect on the kind of content you're promoting if the entire internet hates you for it.
Telecom companies like AT&T aren't providing "essential service". Being able to call/text someone is not a "essential service". Yet they are not supposed to ban people because they are merely the carrier.
> Telecom companies like AT&T aren't providing "essential service".
...according to Title II, yes, they absolutely are.
https://newnetworks.com/titleii/
...according to Title II, yes, they absolutely are.
https://newnetworks.com/titleii/
The FCC just ruled that Internet service is not a Title II service.
It's not Internet service that's essential: it's phone service - the ability to make emergency phone calls.
Being able to call people is pretty essential in the modern world. That’s why these laws exist and why governments have put so much effort into making these services available to everyone.
The phone company is required to serve you even if they disagree with you not because of some high-minded ideas about free speech, but because it’s considered really important for people to have phone service.
The phone company is required to serve you even if they disagree with you not because of some high-minded ideas about free speech, but because it’s considered really important for people to have phone service.
> They are practically a utility.
LOL. They are not.
LOL. They are not.
They kinda are. DDoS protection is only viable at massive scale, but is table stakes for any website with content that someone out there might find objectionable.
E-mail isn't even a utility.
Please educate yourself on the law here. Most everyone in tech wants the internet to be a utility, but it's not. An individual internet company's product offering is definitely not a utility.
Please educate yourself on the law here. Most everyone in tech wants the internet to be a utility, but it's not. An individual internet company's product offering is definitely not a utility.
There are plenty of other companies out there that provide DDoS protection. If they can't find even one that will host them, perhaps they might want to consider the possibility that their content is reprehensible and there's a reason no one wants to do business with them.
If Cloudflare was the only game in town (or close to it), I might be more sympathetic to this argument, but... they're not. Not even close.
If Cloudflare was the only game in town (or close to it), I might be more sympathetic to this argument, but... they're not. Not even close.
Many other providers provide DDoS protection. Just not for free. Let them go to OVH, Azure, etc....
lol.
There are lots of providers with massive DDoS protection capacity specializing in hosting illegal or otherwise questionable content, they just charge more than cloudflare.
Botnet C&Cs, cybercrime forums and card shops all need hosting and face massive attacks. Somehow I never hear the operators of those complaining.
There are lots of providers with massive DDoS protection capacity specializing in hosting illegal or otherwise questionable content, they just charge more than cloudflare.
Botnet C&Cs, cybercrime forums and card shops all need hosting and face massive attacks. Somehow I never hear the operators of those complaining.
They mainly use cloudflare. There have been a lot of discussions over it and also criticism.
but DDoS protection is not speech - it more lets one shout in a loud room - as people keep reminding us you have a right to your speech, but no right to be heard
Then when would they become one?
I dunno, when you need cloud storage to live.
In the same way you need water, power, gas, and these days communication (ISP, etc). But hosting your files is not crucial to your survival I don't believe.
You don't need ISP to be able to live. Also CloudFlare is NOT hosting them. They were the CDN, content delivery network. They are the messenger which carries the message. They shouldn't be deciding whose message they want to carry. They are forgetting the "don't shoot the messenger" saying.
And all that is addressed in the article. Specifically the paragraph that starts with "We do not take this decision lightly"
The point is that what 8chan is doing is egregious enough for them to step in and cease doing business with them. This isn't a slippery slope kind of thing.
The point is that what 8chan is doing is egregious enough for them to step in and cease doing business with them. This isn't a slippery slope kind of thing.
They literally said that they would not kick someone off their platform anymore after they did it to The Daily Storm. Then they did to 8chan because enough people threw a hissy fit
Nope, they said "We've taken measures to ensure that they cannot sign up for Cloudflare's services ever again."
There are two connected but distinct problems this thread touches on, freedom of speech and the actual utility nature of modern internet companies. Both are problems here and of course, the internet companies don't want to face either. Although the Cloudfare case is a bit different since it isn't quite a monopoly, yet.
ggggtez(1)
That pseudointellectual appeal to "rule of law" was painful to read. If a website really engages in illegal activities, then the FBI gets a court order, raids its servers and that's the end of it.
What really happened: Cloudfare came under PR fire from the Washington Post, made a quick cost/benefit analysis and dropped 8Chan.
What really happened: Cloudfare came under PR fire from the Washington Post, made a quick cost/benefit analysis and dropped 8Chan.
[deleted]
Tor's onion service will always there to provide hosting to the less popular ideas. The censorship-resistant network is there. Make sure to give it some love.
Last time I checked, people were discussing how to murder, exchanging nazi manifestos and conspiracy theories. I was looking for anarchist discussions but I actually ended up having these on reddit.
Don't get fooled by the current positioning of IT firms, it only depends on a fistful of people who will transmit their power to their biological offspring, no matter how fucked up they are.
Last time I checked, people were discussing how to murder, exchanging nazi manifestos and conspiracy theories. I was looking for anarchist discussions but I actually ended up having these on reddit.
Don't get fooled by the current positioning of IT firms, it only depends on a fistful of people who will transmit their power to their biological offspring, no matter how fucked up they are.
The shooters in Poway, Christchurch and El Paso didn't post their screeds via Tor, and weren't radicalized on onion sites. They went to 8chan, because that was more easily understood, widely accessed, and had a larger community. It's the community that matters here, not the technology.
The issue isn't whether or not it's possible for two nutjobs to converse in some way, obviously they can. It's whether or not there is a group of nutjobs all feeding on each others' nutjobbery to the point where someone gets radicalized into dangerous behavior.
The issue isn't whether or not it's possible for two nutjobs to converse in some way, obviously they can. It's whether or not there is a group of nutjobs all feeding on each others' nutjobbery to the point where someone gets radicalized into dangerous behavior.
[deleted]
Those communities will just be driven underground, more than likely, to Tor sites and be much harder to track. At least once 4Chan and 8Chan are pushed out.
> Those communities will just be driven underground
So what? Those communities existed underground for decades and have only recently been pushed back into the mainstream. Being underground means it has less visibility to the mainstream and is thus less likely to influence people.
So what? Those communities existed underground for decades and have only recently been pushed back into the mainstream. Being underground means it has less visibility to the mainstream and is thus less likely to influence people.
Theyre being pushed into the mainstream with an agenda to censor and shut them down. The goal isn't to give them less visibility, its to target and attack them. You have a 180 on the cause-effect here.
I made no comment with regard to cause and effect. The GP is stipulating that "those communities will just be driven underground", I am responding to that statement by stating that this is ok.
You said:
> Being underground means it has less visibility to the mainstream and is thus less likely to influence people.
But you have this backwards, the point of being pushed into the mainstream is to create crises by which to attack these platforms/sites.
They weren't made mainstream by the underground, they were made mainstream by news orgs looking to attack any venue or message their political opponents have as racist/murderous/etc.
They won't be driven underground to not influence people because the point is to make them boogie men for political points. This shooter used 8chan, therefore. He also used twitter and facebook and whatever else, but that isn't good for attacking people on their politics using the bodies of dead innocent people.
These communities were already underground and the news orgs didn't like it. Now there's a spotlight on them and you don't like it. The idea is to create an untenable position for those sites.
> Being underground means it has less visibility to the mainstream and is thus less likely to influence people.
But you have this backwards, the point of being pushed into the mainstream is to create crises by which to attack these platforms/sites.
They weren't made mainstream by the underground, they were made mainstream by news orgs looking to attack any venue or message their political opponents have as racist/murderous/etc.
They won't be driven underground to not influence people because the point is to make them boogie men for political points. This shooter used 8chan, therefore. He also used twitter and facebook and whatever else, but that isn't good for attacking people on their politics using the bodies of dead innocent people.
These communities were already underground and the news orgs didn't like it. Now there's a spotlight on them and you don't like it. The idea is to create an untenable position for those sites.
> they were made mainstream by news orgs looking to attack any venue or message their political opponents have as racist/murderous/etc
I don't get it. The shooter was, in fact, racist and murderous, as was the toxic community on 8chan he was radicalized in.
You're saying these people were only racist and murderous because the "news orgs" called them racist and murderous? They were actually racist and murderous! What should the "news orgs" say?
I don't get it. The shooter was, in fact, racist and murderous, as was the toxic community on 8chan he was radicalized in.
You're saying these people were only racist and murderous because the "news orgs" called them racist and murderous? They were actually racist and murderous! What should the "news orgs" say?
They were pushed out of Reddit and 4chan already, and they didn't go to Tor. That seems somewhat pessimistic. Garden variety nutjobs aren't technical geniuses, they aren't going to head for "underground" sites, they'll just go silent for lack of a community.
Again, serious, professional white nationalist terrorists or whatever will always have clandestine means of communication. But potentially violent nutjobs are only likely to become violent when they get egged on by other nutjobs, and by reducing the size of the nutjob community we reduce the threat.
Again, serious, professional white nationalist terrorists or whatever will always have clandestine means of communication. But potentially violent nutjobs are only likely to become violent when they get egged on by other nutjobs, and by reducing the size of the nutjob community we reduce the threat.
Well no one is clearly tracking these people now when they post out in the open on *chan, so I'm not sure whether this is really such a problem.
Plenty of people are tracking the chans; 8chan's /k/ occasionally had a thread about feds using screenshots from various chans. I'd bet my shoes that a great deal of Open Source Intelligence types float around on /k/ and other politically oriented boards as a way of scoping up occasional gold nuggets and taking the temperature of things.
Someone is watching, but it's like panning gold from a river, except the gold is "Actionable Intelligence" and the river is high-pressure sewer main -- lots and lots of shit but little actual gold. High effort, but little yield.
Someone is watching, but it's like panning gold from a river, except the gold is "Actionable Intelligence" and the river is high-pressure sewer main -- lots and lots of shit but little actual gold. High effort, but little yield.
Bellingcat most certainly watches 8chan:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2019/08/04/the-el-p...
It's pretty obvious that they are, it's hard to track something that's anonymous. It's not like the 80s/90s when these people would congregate in groups and go to parties, etc. This is a new ball game. You also have to consider that *Channers often "shitpost" and 99% of threats aren't even legitimate.
If so what's the point in trying if you're going to expend a large amount of effort for relatively little gains. It would surely be better to accept that such forums will always exist but at least make it more difficult for people to accidentally stumble across this stuff.
> I actually ended up having these on reddit
I am actually quite surprised how complicit the media is in not reporting what goes on Reddit. It's the one place on the "mainstream" internet I run into where you can see calls for political assassinations in default subs, sub-reddits devoted to theft, ethno-nationalism, terrorism, and all sorts of content that makes 4chan seem tame in comparison.
Then there is the huge cross-polination of moderators with radical ideas, who just happen to moderate radical sub-reddits and some prominent default/mainstream sub-reddits.
If advertisers only paid attention. If journalists only cared.
I am actually quite surprised how complicit the media is in not reporting what goes on Reddit. It's the one place on the "mainstream" internet I run into where you can see calls for political assassinations in default subs, sub-reddits devoted to theft, ethno-nationalism, terrorism, and all sorts of content that makes 4chan seem tame in comparison.
Then there is the huge cross-polination of moderators with radical ideas, who just happen to moderate radical sub-reddits and some prominent default/mainstream sub-reddits.
If advertisers only paid attention. If journalists only cared.
Reddit is an independent subsidiary of Condé Nast's parent company, Advance Publications. They are a large part of what is commonly referred to as "the media."
Just sayin.
Conde Nast sold the company back to the founders years ago. Reddit is now once again a VC-backed "startup".
Advance Publications, a Conde Nast umbrella, are majority shareholders:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit
https://www.advance.com
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit
https://www.advance.com
If reported, Reddit (the company) will usually moderate or shut down subs like those. Recent example being what they just did with /r/T_D.
It took them _years_ to touch r/t_d despite many reports to the admins about abusive behavior running rampant. In true Reddit form, they only did something after the mainstream forced them to react. (Same problem they had with other questionable groups, like r/shoplifting, got banned after media attention.)
True, but it's a lot of work with no reward for the reporters.
How much work is it? You don't just click "report"? Or send a screenshot of such a forum? (I do not know)
And what kind of reward do you expect?
And what kind of reward do you expect?
I'm talking about the work to investigate and monitor a forum, gather evidence, and recruit a crowd of people to report it with. I don't know how responsive Reddit is at evaluating any individual report, i don't spend a lot of time on that platform.
I get the impression that Reddit only shuts down right wing leaning Reddits. I hear that there is plenty of calls for violence on left leaning ones such as late stage capitalism.
This is false, and perpetuating this falsehood without any direct knowledge ("I hear...") is shameful and unhelpful.
Its not false. I see plenty of calls to violence from the left on reddit. Some of it is overt, like calling for summary execution of conservatives and religious officials in the same vein as in many communist revolts. Much of the time it's slightly more subtle, like calling for violence against "Nazis" while simultaneously calling large segments of their political opponents "Nazis".
Just browse a left leaning subreddit like LateStageCapitalism or even just /r/politics and you'll see calls to violence from the left.
Just browse a left leaning subreddit like LateStageCapitalism or even just /r/politics and you'll see calls to violence from the left.
I actually now went to LateStageCapitalism and spent 10? 15? minutes reading topics and comment.
I found nothing of the things you mention.
(But it was interesting to go there and read.)
I found nothing of the things you mention.
(But it was interesting to go there and read.)
I could say the same about the Donald, but I don't doubt that there is worse stuff than what I read.
It looks like two weeks ago they added a sticky post telling users to stop making calls to violence: https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/cfs3dx... I guess Reddit finally told them to clean up their act.
This sticky was definitely needed. I've seen among other things, a commenter telling people whose family was killed by the Castro regime that their family deserved to be killed, and others calling for the summary killing of anyone in the top 1% of income.
Look at some of the highest upvoted posts of the year: https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/9lhjar...
Lots of deleted comments. Several root level comments with hundreds of upvotes. LSC cleaning up it's act is pretty recent.
This sticky was definitely needed. I've seen among other things, a commenter telling people whose family was killed by the Castro regime that their family deserved to be killed, and others calling for the summary killing of anyone in the top 1% of income.
Look at some of the highest upvoted posts of the year: https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/9lhjar...
Lots of deleted comments. Several root level comments with hundreds of upvotes. LSC cleaning up it's act is pretty recent.
> and others calling for the summary killing of anyone in the top 1% of income.
It only takes $32,000 a year to be in the top 1% worldwide according to a couple or articles I read. I bet a lot of the people saying that fall into the 1%.
It appears from your down votes that HN doesn't like evidence.
It only takes $32,000 a year to be in the top 1% worldwide according to a couple or articles I read. I bet a lot of the people saying that fall into the 1%.
It appears from your down votes that HN doesn't like evidence.
Some famously banned subreddits:
/r/incels
/r/fatpeoplehate
/r/jailbait
/r/pizzagate
/r/beatingwomen
/r/watchpeopledie
/r/thefappening
/r/ni----s
How many of those would you consider right wing?
/r/incels
/r/fatpeoplehate
/r/jailbait
/r/pizzagate
/r/beatingwomen
/r/watchpeopledie
/r/thefappening
/r/ni----s
How many of those would you consider right wing?
Ok, I meant in a political context, you have deliberately cherry picked non political subs to make your point. Though i guess Pizzagate would probably class as right-wing as it was a conspiracy against Hilary, no?
> you have deliberately cherry picked non political subs to make your point
If I'm cherry picking then please offer up some examples of "right-wing" subs that have been banned to compare with my list.
If I'm cherry picking then please offer up some examples of "right-wing" subs that have been banned to compare with my list.
Journalists do care but it's hard to get those stories the attention they deserve. To the general public a lot of these discussions seem like a tempest in a teacup, much as many people dismissed climate change and other problematic issues because they seemed too abstract.
What's missing is the v3 version of tor2web. Currently only v2 is supported. If v3 was supported, people on the clear internet would see more of those sites as well.
This isn't about silencing the bad actors, it's about muffling them enough that they don't contaminate daily discourse. Fine: let them be on onion boards. We know de-platforming works.
You think the situation improved in recent years? Seriously? That aside, I happily muffle the discourse of anyone in favor of deplatforming, since I have seen that used against completely innocent people from some cliques that think they own the place. But don't mind me.
Good reasoning in the article. Acknowledges that refusing them service won't take the site offline but makes a good argument for doing so.
"They are no longer Cloudflare's problem, but they remain the Internet's problem."
These sites are breeding grounds for extremism, more and more I feel this free for all on the internet probably hasn't been a net positive.
"They are no longer Cloudflare's problem, but they remain the Internet's problem."
These sites are breeding grounds for extremism, more and more I feel this free for all on the internet probably hasn't been a net positive.
Free speech is a cultural value. It sometimes manifests itself in the form of codified laws like the first amendment to the US Constitution. However, free speech is not limited to the USA.
The idea behind free speech is that people are allowed to put forward new ideas ( especially ideas about how to organize society, what is good and moral etc ) so that people can consider and accept or reject them. The idea is that no entity has a monopoly on truth and if you want to propagate your ideas, make your arguments persuasive and refute your opponents' arguments.
Free speech is ultimately a bet on human capacity for reason and goodness. The idea is that good ideas should win adherents and bubble to the top while bad ideas sink to the bottom as they lose followers.
Sometimes, governments are the most powerful enemy of free speech while sometimes other entities can be.
I am not saying free speech is a good thing, but there is no "exclusive to government" limiting principle to free speech.
The idea behind free speech is that people are allowed to put forward new ideas ( especially ideas about how to organize society, what is good and moral etc ) so that people can consider and accept or reject them. The idea is that no entity has a monopoly on truth and if you want to propagate your ideas, make your arguments persuasive and refute your opponents' arguments.
Free speech is ultimately a bet on human capacity for reason and goodness. The idea is that good ideas should win adherents and bubble to the top while bad ideas sink to the bottom as they lose followers.
Sometimes, governments are the most powerful enemy of free speech while sometimes other entities can be.
I am not saying free speech is a good thing, but there is no "exclusive to government" limiting principle to free speech.
Free speech is also a technological (or lack thereof) outcome. In 1700s, if you had a misguided evil thought, your chance of realizing full effect was still low because your thought must travel through multiple hops, each hop evaluating your idea and possibly terminating the propagation with some probability. So in societies without technological advancements, bad ideas and their damaging effects can stay contained in small groups. But what if technology can directly inject any bad ideas to entire population all at once instantly? Is free speech still viable or do we need new philosophical principals on human communication?
The often left unsaid basis of free speech is that each member of the audience is capable of rationality evaluating the argument, willing to invest in fact checking and is educated on background material. When these conditions are not satisfied, there will be members of audience who will make suboptimal choices based on misinformation with some probability. When scale of audience becomes large, even small probability can uproot sane society.
All these are very interesting questions and honestly I don't think anyone has answers.
The often left unsaid basis of free speech is that each member of the audience is capable of rationality evaluating the argument, willing to invest in fact checking and is educated on background material. When these conditions are not satisfied, there will be members of audience who will make suboptimal choices based on misinformation with some probability. When scale of audience becomes large, even small probability can uproot sane society.
All these are very interesting questions and honestly I don't think anyone has answers.
Good ideas were also suppressed under those conditions. Look at Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and Socrates.
Allowing all ideas a fertile ground to grow and gain followers is important.
Allowing individuals with a small social reach (e.g. live in a small, conservative, remote town) to access a wide range of ideas is important.
Allowing all ideas a fertile ground to grow and gain followers is important.
Allowing individuals with a small social reach (e.g. live in a small, conservative, remote town) to access a wide range of ideas is important.
Yes, there would be false positives and false negatives. The problem is that false positive can kill people while false negatives often causes just short term inconvenience.
Just wanting to clarify -- are you likening the shooter's manifesto to the works of Socrates?
I'm not on the side of the shooters. Violence is extremely rarely the right option and I'm not aware of any mass shooting cases that were even close to "justified."
One thing I learned by watching US culture warfare in recent years, is any value have a limit to it. If it has been codified or been treated as absolute and untouchable, then it becomes its own weakness.
So does free speech. Certain speech that are known to cause violent result/response from its audience should be dealt with carefully. In which case, if 8chan has popularized itself as the platform to announce when and where to kill innocent people, and broadcast such message to its susceptible audience to follow, then to me it feels like indifference or dysfunction of a community to have it slip through under the umbrella of 'free speech'.
When you know you are ill, just take medication, not just set in vain to wait for your immune system to ultimately cure yourself.
So does free speech. Certain speech that are known to cause violent result/response from its audience should be dealt with carefully. In which case, if 8chan has popularized itself as the platform to announce when and where to kill innocent people, and broadcast such message to its susceptible audience to follow, then to me it feels like indifference or dysfunction of a community to have it slip through under the umbrella of 'free speech'.
When you know you are ill, just take medication, not just set in vain to wait for your immune system to ultimately cure yourself.
>Certain speech that are known to cause violent result/response from its audience should be dealt with carefully.
Which speech is that, exactly? Do you have a list of all the problem topics we need to ban?
Which speech is that, exactly? Do you have a list of all the problem topics we need to ban?
Free speech also includes the freedom not to support speech you disagree with.
Neutrality is not support
Rebroadcasting the message across the internet is supporting it.
If a message and its opposing message has equal access to the platform for rebroadcast, the platform is not supporting any particular message.
Rebroadcasting a message, regardless of whether or not the opposite message has equal access, is still tacit support for that message, or at least a lack of desire to get involved.
Cloudflare has decided that, for the most part, they won't get involved, but that there are some things that do actually cross the line (a line they are perfectly free to define for themselves), and they refuse to rebroadcast.
If you don't like that, don't support CF with your business. Otherwise, I'm not sure what horse you have in this race.
Cloudflare has decided that, for the most part, they won't get involved, but that there are some things that do actually cross the line (a line they are perfectly free to define for themselves), and they refuse to rebroadcast.
If you don't like that, don't support CF with your business. Otherwise, I'm not sure what horse you have in this race.
> or at least a lack of desire to get involved
This sounds like the very definition of neutrality. Neutrality in a dispute is about not getting involved.
Neutrality is the store owner who chooses to ignore two customers who are loudly arguing about something. He will sell his wares to either customer, but he doesn't want to alienate either one by stepping in. Maybe one of the customers is obviously at fault, but as a neutral party he stays out of it.
It sounds like what you are implying is that there is no such thing as neutrality, either in this specific case or more broadly. Or you could be saying that neutrality itself is "wrong" in some sense, that's a philosophical argument and you could try to make a convincing argument. But if you accept the existence of neutrality as a concept, claiming that a clearly neutral party is not actually neutral because they are acting neutrally is a hard sell.
This sounds like the very definition of neutrality. Neutrality in a dispute is about not getting involved.
Neutrality is the store owner who chooses to ignore two customers who are loudly arguing about something. He will sell his wares to either customer, but he doesn't want to alienate either one by stepping in. Maybe one of the customers is obviously at fault, but as a neutral party he stays out of it.
It sounds like what you are implying is that there is no such thing as neutrality, either in this specific case or more broadly. Or you could be saying that neutrality itself is "wrong" in some sense, that's a philosophical argument and you could try to make a convincing argument. But if you accept the existence of neutrality as a concept, claiming that a clearly neutral party is not actually neutral because they are acting neutrally is a hard sell.
[deleted]
I am arguing that if you believe in free speech, it must be admitted that that it is deeply immoral for them to get involved. It is up to their users to define what does and does not cross the line and respond with counter-arguments.
It's not immoral. Belief in free speech includes the freedom to choose which speech you want to support with your private resources. If anything, it's immoral to force private citizens to carry messages they disagree with. If the owners of CF are ideologically opposed to the ideas that 8chan represent, they should not be forced to be a vehicle for those ideas. Of course, booting people from the platform is bad for businesses, so it is wise for them to be as neutral as possible, but they have no moral obligation to support ideas they view as reprehensible. In fact, complicating normal business operations to take a stand against reprehensible ideologies is the moral thing to do.
Even private property rights have limits: a factory owner cannot pollute a water supply for personal profit. If you believe in free speech it can be argued that it should not be OK for a company like Cloudflare to pollute public discourse by injecting the biases of its leaders into it. They should not be allowed to ban certain types of speech by fiat.
> Even private property rights have limits: a factory owner cannot pollute a water supply for personal profit
That's not a limitation on property rights. A farmer polluting the water supply is an example of the farmer damaging a shared resource that does not belong to him.
> Cloudflare to pollute public discourse by injecting the biases of its leaders into it.
This has nothing to do with "public discourse". CF is a privately owned business refusing to provide a service to a privately owned website. CF is not obligated to do business with them for any reason, and frankly, it's pretty reasonable for a company to want to have nothing to do with a website where domestic terrorism is regarded as funny at best and actually put into action at worst.
That's not a limitation on property rights. A farmer polluting the water supply is an example of the farmer damaging a shared resource that does not belong to him.
> Cloudflare to pollute public discourse by injecting the biases of its leaders into it.
This has nothing to do with "public discourse". CF is a privately owned business refusing to provide a service to a privately owned website. CF is not obligated to do business with them for any reason, and frankly, it's pretty reasonable for a company to want to have nothing to do with a website where domestic terrorism is regarded as funny at best and actually put into action at worst.
I am saying that public forums like the Internet is a kind of shared resource. It is the new town square.
I don't accept your town-square analogy, but even if it were apt, not everyone is welcome in the town square. If you're endorsing visions of racist violence and supporting those who actually act out racist violence then you'll be removed from the public square.
"[...]The idea is that good ideas should win adherents and bubble to the top while bad ideas sink to the bottom as they lose followers.[...]"
OK, but what if the good ideas sink to the bottom and the bad ideas bubble to the top, and people die? Because someone found the psychological triggers and the technical means to turn around the expected functionality of the good idea?
We all get the nice, philosophical, humanistic idea of free speech. But in the moment, it doesn't work so well. When something doesn't work so well, we have to fix it. So, what is the fix, in your opinion?
OK, but what if the good ideas sink to the bottom and the bad ideas bubble to the top, and people die? Because someone found the psychological triggers and the technical means to turn around the expected functionality of the good idea?
We all get the nice, philosophical, humanistic idea of free speech. But in the moment, it doesn't work so well. When something doesn't work so well, we have to fix it. So, what is the fix, in your opinion?
This is the same argument cake shops make against taking order from gay people. I do believe that so-called manifesto is mind-numbingly dumb, fact-free and it is dangerous in the sense it will inspire more violence against innocent people. But that precisely what makes it a good test case for asking some fundamental questions. Can commercial businesses with deep reach, pricing power and critical function deny services based on their ideology and beliefs? The legal answer is yes and that only looks troublesome when you think of how tables could turn in future. As someone has mentioned what if Comcast started permanently black listed you if you visited a website that didn't aligned with their ideology? What if airlines refused to fly you because you said something on Twitter that didn't aligned with their beliefs?
Taking orders from gay people and hosting services for sites which support far-right terrorism aren't exactly the same though. We can be against suppressing gay people and for suppressing far-right terrorism even if the means by which the suppression happens is similar.
and what about the the communities for queers and autistics on 8ch that will be lost in order to cater to your particular sense of indignation while in effect doing virtually nothing to limit the ability of psychopathic losers to kill large numbers of people?
as an aside assigning any credibility to the motives of crazy person with no value for human life makes no more sense in the case of mass killings than it does to treat those of ted bundy or john wayne gacy or mark david chapman as credible.
What about those communities? I'm sure they can stay on 8chan, or find somewhere else?
I'd not say the recent far-right terrorism is just from some individual psychopaths with no value for human life. There's a ton of far-right/alt-right ideas out there, on platforms like 8chan, which actively demonizes certain groups of people. It's not like these shootings are just crazy people who just want to kill people at random; they want to kill the people they see as the "enemy".
I'd not say the recent far-right terrorism is just from some individual psychopaths with no value for human life. There's a ton of far-right/alt-right ideas out there, on platforms like 8chan, which actively demonizes certain groups of people. It's not like these shootings are just crazy people who just want to kill people at random; they want to kill the people they see as the "enemy".
>What about those communities? I'm sure they can stay on 8chan, or find somewhere else?
Then what’s different about extremist communities?
Then what’s different about extremist communities?
I don't understand what you mean. Presumably, they will also either continue using 8chan or find somewhere else?
Exactly.
You're saying that as if you have made a point, but I still don't understand what you mean. Could you explain what your actual point is?
Well, if far right terrorists can just stay or find another place, then how is Cloudflare’s action suppressing them? You seem to be defending their action but at the same time implying it has no effect.
> doing virtually nothing to limit the ability of psychopathic losers to kill large numbers of people
Deplatforming 8chan isn't about limiting the ability of these people to kill large numbers (that would require effective gun control) - it's about removing a source of provocation, radicalisation, cheering, etc. for them both before and after.
Deplatforming 8chan isn't about limiting the ability of these people to kill large numbers (that would require effective gun control) - it's about removing a source of provocation, radicalisation, cheering, etc. for them both before and after.
A message board is not a source of any of those things. 8chan does not have a super-god who removes comments they don't like, there is no inherent leaning in the structure of the website. Any platform is liable to this kind of behavior, so what exactly does this achieve? If it isn't Cloudflare, it's self-hosted. If it isn't 8chan, it's Twitter, it's Facebook. There is no shortage of places where radicals could go to let their beliefs fester. What about removing hosting for 8chan resolves anything that you've mentioned?
They are. Taking infrastructure away from gay people to buy coffee is exactly the same thing as taking infrastructure away from random people on the internet. The only circumstance in which either of these should be tolerated is when there is a direct threat to US national security (imminent terrorism) or a crime has been committed. Neither of these has happened.
There's very much a threat of terrorism. If 8chan was an ISIS forum with the same content as now I'm sure people would be singing a very different tune.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/how-can...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/how-can...
It's a good thing then, that it isn't an ISIS forum.
Further, your definition of terrorism eludes me. What gives you the impression that 8chan conducts, facilitates and organizes terror?
Further, your definition of terrorism eludes me. What gives you the impression that 8chan conducts, facilitates and organizes terror?
But don't you see how the lines blue very quickly? It's not always as clear where morality lies as when some lunatic posts terroristic threats. Arbitrary value judgements must be made when enforcing censorship so censorship always leads to conflict between groups that disagree on what should be censored.
That's why the best course of action is to not censor at all and allow the system to work itself out.
That's why the best course of action is to not censor at all and allow the system to work itself out.
What system are you talking about if not the system where people and companies can choose who they wish to associate with?
I should clarify, I'm not advocating complete freedom in this regard. We don't want a society where it's hard to be a gay person because lots of companies deny service to homosexuals. However, we also can't claim that every company should always have to serve everyone. There is certainly some nuance and ambiguity here, but not hosting services for groups which support far-right terror seems to be fairly reasonable.
I should clarify, I'm not advocating complete freedom in this regard. We don't want a society where it's hard to be a gay person because lots of companies deny service to homosexuals. However, we also can't claim that every company should always have to serve everyone. There is certainly some nuance and ambiguity here, but not hosting services for groups which support far-right terror seems to be fairly reasonable.
I'll be very clear about what I want. I want companies that facilitate speech to be forced to tolerate all legal speech on their platforms. It's that simple.
In the 1700's, when we were having the debate over speech protected from government interference, someone could have easily said "yes well if you don't like the government's policies you should go to another country!"
The existence of alternatives is irrelevant to the fact that freedom of speech is sacred and forums for speech - public or private - must never infringe upon its freedom.
In the 1700's, when we were having the debate over speech protected from government interference, someone could have easily said "yes well if you don't like the government's policies you should go to another country!"
The existence of alternatives is irrelevant to the fact that freedom of speech is sacred and forums for speech - public or private - must never infringe upon its freedom.
I’m afraid the basis on which your argument is made is shaky. The First Amendment was not rooted in concerns about the government controlling speech in general. It was rooted in concerns about criminal liability for contra-government speech as reflected in the seditious libel laws in England that had been in place since the 1500s. Like, you could go to jail for criticizing the government.
If you study our jurisprudence you’ll find that no free speech cases were decided by the Supreme Court despite plenty of common law surrounding speech such as civil libel, commercial regulations, etc. for nearly 150 years (!) until the early 1900s. Debs v U.S. (1919) was the first case and it was about - surprise, surprise - an anti-war speech.
If you study our jurisprudence you’ll find that no free speech cases were decided by the Supreme Court despite plenty of common law surrounding speech such as civil libel, commercial regulations, etc. for nearly 150 years (!) until the early 1900s. Debs v U.S. (1919) was the first case and it was about - surprise, surprise - an anti-war speech.
> I want companies that facilitate speech to be forced to tolerate all legal speech on their platforms. It's that simple.
I don't think it's that simple. Taken at face value, you want it to be illegal for someone (say, a game publisher) to have a discussion forum which facilities speech around a particular topic (say, their game) while banning off-topic discussions (say, porn). I'm therefore going to assume you're just thinking of companies which facilitate all kinds of speech, such as forums like Reddit and Twitter and infrastructure like Cloudflare, but excluding Hacker News and lobste.rs and /r/factorio which focus on a particular subject area.
The problem with your approach is that, invariably, a discussion forum which doesn't get rid of despicable content ends up repelling people who dislike that content and attracting people who like that kind of content. A great example is voat.co, which looked like a fairly good Reddit alternative until its free speech absolutism ended up attracting all kinds of hateful people and content.
If a platform isn't allowed to reject legal speech, we would need much stronger laws regarding what counts as hate speech and what doesn't. I don't know if that's what you want.
I don't think it's that simple. Taken at face value, you want it to be illegal for someone (say, a game publisher) to have a discussion forum which facilities speech around a particular topic (say, their game) while banning off-topic discussions (say, porn). I'm therefore going to assume you're just thinking of companies which facilitate all kinds of speech, such as forums like Reddit and Twitter and infrastructure like Cloudflare, but excluding Hacker News and lobste.rs and /r/factorio which focus on a particular subject area.
The problem with your approach is that, invariably, a discussion forum which doesn't get rid of despicable content ends up repelling people who dislike that content and attracting people who like that kind of content. A great example is voat.co, which looked like a fairly good Reddit alternative until its free speech absolutism ended up attracting all kinds of hateful people and content.
If a platform isn't allowed to reject legal speech, we would need much stronger laws regarding what counts as hate speech and what doesn't. I don't know if that's what you want.
The rules of society are always a trade-off.
In this case, the idea is to lose a bit of free speech, and gain less hatred and less murder. That is not an arbitrary judgement; admittedly this is also not a clear-cut judgement.
The system never works itself out, successful societies are the ones which have established governing rules. Game theory has given us pretty good indication that systems rather self-destruct without governance than self-stabilize.
In this case, the idea is to lose a bit of free speech, and gain less hatred and less murder. That is not an arbitrary judgement; admittedly this is also not a clear-cut judgement.
The system never works itself out, successful societies are the ones which have established governing rules. Game theory has given us pretty good indication that systems rather self-destruct without governance than self-stabilize.
Hatred and murder has always existed! The idea that online discussion forums create or foment hatred is laughable. That hatred has always been out there. Now people just have a place to vent. The good part about it being out in the open is that we can actually see it and be aware of it.
> That's why the best course of action is to not censor at all and allow the system to work itself out.
I disagree with this sentiment, and upon reflection of why, it seems we've come to a real-life example of the trolly problem. Choosing to be passive and "let the system sort itself out" will almost certainly result in more deaths (edit: specifically in terms of mass shootings), but choosing to be active means the powers that be are forced to make subjective choices. I personally believe that it's worth taking on the responsibility of subjective choice.
Edit: However, I also realize that censorship oftentimes just ostracizes already-radical groups. This has the advantage of making it harder for them to find an audience, but also allows them to radicalize further while under less scrutiny, which also seems like a complicated balance to me.
I disagree with this sentiment, and upon reflection of why, it seems we've come to a real-life example of the trolly problem. Choosing to be passive and "let the system sort itself out" will almost certainly result in more deaths (edit: specifically in terms of mass shootings), but choosing to be active means the powers that be are forced to make subjective choices. I personally believe that it's worth taking on the responsibility of subjective choice.
Edit: However, I also realize that censorship oftentimes just ostracizes already-radical groups. This has the advantage of making it harder for them to find an audience, but also allows them to radicalize further while under less scrutiny, which also seems like a complicated balance to me.
the problem here is that in one case you're sending the trolley into a tunnel where the potential harm or prevention thereof is largely based on your preexisting (and likely incomplete) assumptions.
what if rather than being a viper pit of nefarious hatemongers seeking to brainwash the youth into committing acts of violence, imageboards tend to be popular among a subset of the population more prone to depression & more severe mental illnesses which also happens to the encompass the the kinds of loser psychopath edgelords who commit these sorts of crimes. the whole response around these events simply shows we've learned nothing from columbine and are still in essence trying to eradicate the trenchcoat mafia.
what if rather than being a viper pit of nefarious hatemongers seeking to brainwash the youth into committing acts of violence, imageboards tend to be popular among a subset of the population more prone to depression & more severe mental illnesses which also happens to the encompass the the kinds of loser psychopath edgelords who commit these sorts of crimes. the whole response around these events simply shows we've learned nothing from columbine and are still in essence trying to eradicate the trenchcoat mafia.
It's not helpful to palm this off on mental illness - that does a disservice to people with such issues and doesn't address the fact that virulent ideologies exist in the real world and have proponents that are capable of planning, organizing, and recruiting.
Sure, 8ch is also full of autists who just need a hug (subject to certain terms and conditions) but if I discover that a bunch of people are making plans to kill me I'm not under any obligation to put my enemy's problems ahead of my own survival.
Sure, 8ch is also full of autists who just need a hug (subject to certain terms and conditions) but if I discover that a bunch of people are making plans to kill me I'm not under any obligation to put my enemy's problems ahead of my own survival.
I am perfectly OK with discriminating against people who enthusiastically plot the death of others just because of ethnic prejudice.
'Speech I don't like' is the kind I can choose to argue with or roll my eyes and ignore. But if people are actively inciting murder, organizing it, and workshopping all aspects of murder technique and how to promote it effectively with the same gusto as any commercial product launch, it's foolish to ignore it.
'Speech I don't like' is the kind I can choose to argue with or roll my eyes and ignore. But if people are actively inciting murder, organizing it, and workshopping all aspects of murder technique and how to promote it effectively with the same gusto as any commercial product launch, it's foolish to ignore it.
> This is the same argument cake shops make against taking order from gay people.
I've always avoid getting involved in (semi-)political discussions but I'm very curious here:
It is fundamentally OK for customers to boycott vendors they do not like (right?), then is it wrong/illegal for the opposite? Are vendors disallow to pick and choose their customers?
We, netizen as a whole, are currently under go the sentiment to boycott Facebook and Google right now: for what we believe to be righteous. If Cloudflare believe it is righteous to boycott 8chan as their customer, are they in the wrong? Is Cloudflare as an organization not allow to have the freedom to pick their customer?
I've always avoid getting involved in (semi-)political discussions but I'm very curious here:
It is fundamentally OK for customers to boycott vendors they do not like (right?), then is it wrong/illegal for the opposite? Are vendors disallow to pick and choose their customers?
We, netizen as a whole, are currently under go the sentiment to boycott Facebook and Google right now: for what we believe to be righteous. If Cloudflare believe it is righteous to boycott 8chan as their customer, are they in the wrong? Is Cloudflare as an organization not allow to have the freedom to pick their customer?
I guess that comes down to what is a person and what is a business. Do businesses have rights? I would say no they do not. A person exists until death. Their rights are fundamental. A business exists or does not exist at the whims of the owner(s), government, or law. It's rights are fungible. It is allowed to exist at all because the government says it can. And one of the requirements can be it is not allowed to discriminate based on sexuality, or it can only do business with certain individuals and businesses.
Refusing service to people based on their ideology or sexuality is vastly different to refusing service to people who threaten harm to others.
No, it is not. Most ideologies have inherent basis that not following that ideology would harms the people. Vast majority of ideologies are ironically created with belief that it ultimately benefits more to the human race overall compared to all other ideologies.
To you. Many others don't see it that way. So your truth isn't the same as theirs, even if you are backed by current science.
Just wanted to point out that being gay is not an “ideology or belief” in the same way that being straight is not.
Comparing the two implicitly accepts the idea that one can choose to be gay (and can thus be changed with the right methods)
Comparing the two implicitly accepts the idea that one can choose to be gay (and can thus be changed with the right methods)
> Comparing the two implicitly accepts the idea that one can choose to be gay (and can thus be changed with the right methods)
Not necessarily, it can also mean that you don't choose ideology or belief either, which I think is hard to argue against: nobody decides "I'm going to be a socialist" and then models their worldview after socialism.
Not necessarily, it can also mean that you don't choose ideology or belief either, which I think is hard to argue against: nobody decides "I'm going to be a socialist" and then models their worldview after socialism.
Great example of the slippery-slope fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
I would disagree a bit. The concern here is that we are leaving doors wide open for businesses to deny service based on their beliefs. We are accepting that people have no right of due process of the law and businesses can just decide to act as judge and jury to punish anyone they desire based on their beliefs. It is likely that businesses will be never exploit the extreme and be benevolent in exercising this power. However its troublesome that it can happen and that they have this power. One of the core foundation of civilized society is to remove this unpredictability, however small it may be, by establishing crystal clear laws.
> wide open for businesses to deny service based on their beliefs
Should private businesses be required to disseminate terrorist recruitment material if it's not specifically outlawed?
There's a big difference between terrorist recruiting and coordination, and the peaceful debate of differing perspectives.
> crystal clear laws
This is an impossible standard.
I reject the implication that anything not explicitly prohibited by law must be perfectly moral and ethical.
It would truly be a dystopia if private individuals and businesses are prevented from making any moral or ethical judgments.
Should private businesses be required to disseminate terrorist recruitment material if it's not specifically outlawed?
There's a big difference between terrorist recruiting and coordination, and the peaceful debate of differing perspectives.
> crystal clear laws
This is an impossible standard.
I reject the implication that anything not explicitly prohibited by law must be perfectly moral and ethical.
It would truly be a dystopia if private individuals and businesses are prevented from making any moral or ethical judgments.
arrrg(3)
ThrowawayR2(1)
> Removing 8chan from our network takes heat off of us, it does nothing to address why hateful sites fester online.
It’s not your role to address the “why”. As a platform you’re only obliged to deal with the “what” and the “how”.
They now have one less platform to choose from, and their ability to do whatever it is they do is reduced. That’s a win, because wins don’t need to be absolute to count.
It’s not your role to address the “why”. As a platform you’re only obliged to deal with the “what” and the “how”.
They now have one less platform to choose from, and their ability to do whatever it is they do is reduced. That’s a win, because wins don’t need to be absolute to count.
Cloudflare wasn't hosting them. NT technologies was, and still is.
Hosting is an inexact but entirely acceptable term of art for the services that are provided by a CDN.
Exactly. To the outside world, for all intents and purposes Cloudflare was their host. Cloudflare's IP addresses served 8chan's content, even held it on their local drives. I don't care (and neither should anyone else) that their primary source of truth was internally hosted elsewhere.
Cloudflare often tries to skirt definitions and would love to be seen as a neutral utility, a simple carrier. They're not though. 8chan was their customer. They hosted their DNS, served their content and potentially took their money (I don't know whether 8chan was on their free plan or not, but again that doesn't matter).
Cloudflare often tries to skirt definitions and would love to be seen as a neutral utility, a simple carrier. They're not though. 8chan was their customer. They hosted their DNS, served their content and potentially took their money (I don't know whether 8chan was on their free plan or not, but again that doesn't matter).
Yeah but now they can be DDoS’d.
They will find another CDN. Piratebay and others have been around for ages.
That's fine. They won't be using Cloudflare, one less option for them. That's worth doing.
May create a cascading effect where less and less CDNs will accept them.
Let's hope.
keep hoping. daily stormer is still online like nothing happened
Piratebay is still using Cloudflare.
Punishable as a federal crime (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or 18 U.S.C. §1030).
True but between DDOS and murder I'm gonna say a jury will prefer the DDOS.
Yeah a prosecutor is definitely going to try that case lol
Prosecutors plea bargain slam dunk cases all the time.
You watch too much Law and Order SVU.
DDoSes are rarely prosecuted as the perpetrators are rarely caught. This is even more true when the DDoS is done by large groups of people (such as the scientology attacks a decade or so ago).
Further, 8chan is run in the Philippines, which would add a lot of complications to any prosecution
Further, 8chan is run in the Philippines, which would add a lot of complications to any prosecution
The computer is in SF. CFAA applies and the US has jurisdiction.
If you think vigilance internet justice is a solution to America's gun problem, you Americans are very deluded.
Yup. Just widening the divide.
[deleted]
ipython(2)
I bet 8chan was on the free plan.
It's concerning that Cloudflare is monetizing on these disasters by publishing this article and promoting it on HN; in a way, they're using these crimes as an opportunity to improve their brand image.
Cloudflare should have dealt with this privately; this matter is between Cloudflare and 8chan - They were always able to choose who they want and don't want to do business with. They were very happy to take the money when it was convenient.
If you want to do the right thing according to your values, you should do it quietly; if you brag about your action publicly and you stand to gain something out of it then it completely undermines the intent of the action.
I'd love to see companies actually do the right thing and not talk about it; just like how they don't talk about it when they do the wrong thing. That would be a step forward.
I'd love to see companies actually do the right thing and not talk about it; just like how they don't talk about it when they do the wrong thing. That would be a step forward.
I think talking about it openly was the right thing to do. People are going to rag on them for this decision (though I assume most will understand) and you have more control over the message if you get out there first rather than waiting to comment til there's a backlash. Maybe it's just lipservice, but I actually liked a lot of what they said in the post about it being obvious 8chan had to go, but that they want to have more objective policies in place rather than deciding who is bad enough to drop on a whim. They made it pretty clear they don't intend to be the internet content police force and that they don't even think this will stop 8chan from existing, so it's not like they were bragging about doing any good really. All-in-all seemed pretty reasonable in my opinion.
Doing it privately just means giving them the opportunity to spin the story in a bad light.
Not a good idea with today's outage society
Not a good idea with today's outage society
There have been many vocal calls for cloudfare to drop 8chan. This is not a move to get publicity, but cloudfare giving in to public pressure.
> This is not a move to get publicity, but cloudfare giving in to public pressure.
Well I'm not sure which is worse. Using tragedy for publicity or caving to a mob.
Well I'm not sure which is worse. Using tragedy for publicity or caving to a mob.
Why do you assume it's only the two options that happen to conform to your narrative?
Why do you reply to a post you find deficient without offering alternative suggestions while simultaneously assuming I'm holding a narrative?
Someone suggested this was an action not of publicity but of mob action, and I merely remarked that I'm not sure which one I find to be worse. Both possibilities concern me.
Someone suggested this was an action not of publicity but of mob action, and I merely remarked that I'm not sure which one I find to be worse. Both possibilities concern me.
Seems they can’t win then.
True in a way. But in such a situation the better option is always not to act and invoke plausible deniability. Otherwise we will see repeated efforts.
Although 8chan is probably just a sacrificial anode for 4chan and some other sites, the pressure of censors will probably not subside for a while. Even if their chances are slim, it is really bothering how quickly people throw away rights just to have an opportunity to point their fingers on people they believe are worse than themselves.
Although 8chan is probably just a sacrificial anode for 4chan and some other sites, the pressure of censors will probably not subside for a while. Even if their chances are slim, it is really bothering how quickly people throw away rights just to have an opportunity to point their fingers on people they believe are worse than themselves.
The only winning move is to not play.
> I'd love to see companies actually do the right thing and not talk about it;
Was this being intentionally ironic? If companies do the right thing and don't talk about it, then you won't see it. They could be doing it right now, and you'd have no way to know.
Was this being intentionally ironic? If companies do the right thing and don't talk about it, then you won't see it. They could be doing it right now, and you'd have no way to know.
If you build a system that is technically possible for someone to censor, particularly if you make it easy to do (and in fact where not doing so would cost them potentially billions of dollars in market cap in an upcoming IPO, recruiting, sales, vendors, etc), you shouldn’t be at all surprised when they do censor. It is interesting that Cloudflare has only really censored two sites (dailystormer and 8chan) outside of a fairly clearly articulated terms of service. There are clearly a large number of sites on Cloudflare which are a net liability to them and always will be, so the “free speech” stance is genuine.
Kicking out and not providing service isn't the same thing as censoring. One is customer-driven, the other is content-driven.
You can kick a customer out because they espouse certain views or whatever, and it's fine to call it discriminatory, but it's not censorship. This isn't usually a relevant distinction, but here it is because Cloudflare hasn't built "a system that is technically possible for someone to censor".
They could, and thank fuck they don't, because that would absolutely be the day I'm getting off Cloudflare.
You can kick a customer out because they espouse certain views or whatever, and it's fine to call it discriminatory, but it's not censorship. This isn't usually a relevant distinction, but here it is because Cloudflare hasn't built "a system that is technically possible for someone to censor".
They could, and thank fuck they don't, because that would absolutely be the day I'm getting off Cloudflare.
The article mentioned that they are now and have been monitoring content of web sites they route and have been sharing information with various agencies based upon that content.
They have removed at least two portals, and higher up in the thread it is mentioned that they have also axed various sex related sites - and they are providing monitored info to agencies that use courts and guns to force people to do things... that is starting to sound more and more like a censorship system than a dump pipe which prevents overuse (ddos) - to me..
They have removed at least two portals, and higher up in the thread it is mentioned that they have also axed various sex related sites - and they are providing monitored info to agencies that use courts and guns to force people to do things... that is starting to sound more and more like a censorship system than a dump pipe which prevents overuse (ddos) - to me..
Only governments can censor; it is not a concept that applies to private parties. Cloudflare's decision to not continue a business relationship with someone is not censorship in any meaningful sense of the word.
Of course it’s censorship. It’s just not government censorship.
I thought they had just stated they weren't going to end suport:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20607945
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20607945
I don't know if the article was updated or what, but near the end:
"Late Sunday, following hours of public criticism, Cloudflare announced a major reversal, saying 8chan had gone too far and “repeatedly proven itself to be a cesspool of hate.” Its access to Cloudflare services was scheduled to terminate at midnight Pacific time, making it more vulnerable to a potentially crippling cyberattack."
"Late Sunday, following hours of public criticism, Cloudflare announced a major reversal, saying 8chan had gone too far and “repeatedly proven itself to be a cesspool of hate.” Its access to Cloudflare services was scheduled to terminate at midnight Pacific time, making it more vulnerable to a potentially crippling cyberattack."
Its pretty clear now what Matt Prince's word is worth.
People can change their minds. Looks like they did.
They'd changed their mind by the end of the day.
> Late Sunday, following hours of public criticism, Cloudflare announced a major reversal, saying 8chan had gone too far and “repeatedly proven itself to be a cesspool of hate.” Its access to Cloudflare services was scheduled to terminate at midnight Pacific time, making it more vulnerable to a potentially crippling cyberattack.
> Late Sunday, following hours of public criticism, Cloudflare announced a major reversal, saying 8chan had gone too far and “repeatedly proven itself to be a cesspool of hate.” Its access to Cloudflare services was scheduled to terminate at midnight Pacific time, making it more vulnerable to a potentially crippling cyberattack.
Yes, but Cloudflare needs talented engineers, and talented engineers don’t sign up to serve clients like 8chan. Software doesn’t run on one person’s contrarian politics.
Cloudflare serves many odious sites, such as https://godhatesfags.com/. They only terminate service when some site gets a lot of heat in the news.
I like to think I'm a pretty talented engineer. I've avoided using Cloudflare and I've avoided applying to them because of their wishy-washy stance on censorship. They are a utility. PG&E doesn't terminate electricity service based on what was said on a property. So too should it be for data services. Otherwise, you get people lying and doing false flags to get their enemies kicked off the internet.
I like to think I'm a pretty talented engineer. I've avoided using Cloudflare and I've avoided applying to them because of their wishy-washy stance on censorship. They are a utility. PG&E doesn't terminate electricity service based on what was said on a property. So too should it be for data services. Otherwise, you get people lying and doing false flags to get their enemies kicked off the internet.
> They are a utility.
They are not even close to a utility.
They are not even close to a utility.
There are already people doing that stuff. Given that's the case, why should they not act?
I think you'd find a great many talented engineers don't share the same politics you do, and an even greater number who are far too apolitical for it to factor into their job search.
Most of us work for whomever pays top dollar, regardless of politics.
I think more engineers are realizing that if you've been working for Uber, Facebook, Twitter, and maybe now (or depending on how they act, maybe not) Cloudflare it severely curtails your future opportunities, both as an employee and socially.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There is nothing inherently virtuous about talented engineers, and in fact some of the most talented engineers I’ve come across in the industry have very loose morals.
It's unfortunately easy to find sociopathic engineers.
I don't like 8chan as a website, but I'm still not a fan of this move. Feels like no one online wants to just provide a 'dumb pipe', and always want to act like a pseudo publisher trying to dictate what's allowed and what isn't.
Imagine if real life utilities did this. If because someone used your property for offensive purposes, the water company cut off the water supply, or the electricity company refused to provide electricity, or your phone provider cut off service or what not. That would be ridiculous, yet it's exactly the situation we're in with internet services. No one wants to just be a utility.
I believe online service providers in at least some markets should be regulated like utilities. Maybe Cloudflare, definitely domain name registrars, perhaps cloud services and CDNs in general. Because at the moment, it seems any controversy at all means losing access to anything internet related.
Imagine if real life utilities did this. If because someone used your property for offensive purposes, the water company cut off the water supply, or the electricity company refused to provide electricity, or your phone provider cut off service or what not. That would be ridiculous, yet it's exactly the situation we're in with internet services. No one wants to just be a utility.
I believe online service providers in at least some markets should be regulated like utilities. Maybe Cloudflare, definitely domain name registrars, perhaps cloud services and CDNs in general. Because at the moment, it seems any controversy at all means losing access to anything internet related.
> Imagine if real life utilities did this.
You don't have to imagine it. Literally all of these things happen. Examples:
- Utilities restricting or even cutting off crypto miners (eg [1])
- Your phone service has prohibited uses that will get your service disconnected (eg see Section 8, Use of the Service in [2]).
- Getting water cut off is more difficult but not impossible, I imagine. Some places will cut you off for not paying your bill. Many don't as it's an essential service. I imagine if you resold a residential water supply for commercial purposes, you may well get cut off.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/nyregion/bitcoin-mining-n...
[2] https://legal.hughesnet.com/VoiceServiceAgreement/index.cfm
You don't have to imagine it. Literally all of these things happen. Examples:
- Utilities restricting or even cutting off crypto miners (eg [1])
- Your phone service has prohibited uses that will get your service disconnected (eg see Section 8, Use of the Service in [2]).
- Getting water cut off is more difficult but not impossible, I imagine. Some places will cut you off for not paying your bill. Many don't as it's an essential service. I imagine if you resold a residential water supply for commercial purposes, you may well get cut off.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/nyregion/bitcoin-mining-n...
[2] https://legal.hughesnet.com/VoiceServiceAgreement/index.cfm
Sure, but none of those have anything to do with the ideological beliefs of the person or organization they're providing service to. Those are all reasonable restrictions designed to prevent one customer from negatively impacting the quality of service the company provides to their other customers. What Cloudflare is doing here is a different thing entirely.
The issue in [1] in a lot of cases was that the region had such cheap electricity because they were buying a defined amount of electricity from a cheap source but had a very expensive rate for going over that amount so the BTC miners were coming in and massively inflating everyone's rates but not otherwise really contributing to the region economically, unlike the Alcoa plant that originally got them that low rate a BTC miner barely employees anyone locally.
Something tells me online Antifa resources won't be affected just because one of their members committed a horrible atrocity in Dayton, OH shortly after El Paso.
Don't know where you're getting this from. All sources i could find talk about a twitter account that _could_ belong to the Dayton, OH shooter, on which he _follows_ Antifa members. You gotta admit that's pretty far from the relation of 8chan to the El Paso shooter...
My point is that no matter how an insane person is affiliated, I don't agree with using them to win political points. As much as I believe Antifa is a dangerous (see Andy Ngo), and how dangerous it is for people like Shaun King to be trying to incite violence, I don't agree with using tragedy that way.
It's all but verified that the Dayton shooter was a fan of Elizabeth Warren, and active with Antifa. But the media isn't going to talk about how divisive it is declare the opposing side is running concentration camps, and basically modern Nazi. I'm actually glad they don't, but coming from the other direction it's non-stop.
EDIT
The downvote isn't supposed to be for a comment you disagree with, but for something that doesn't add to the conversation. Try writing a response instead.
It's all but verified that the Dayton shooter was a fan of Elizabeth Warren, and active with Antifa. But the media isn't going to talk about how divisive it is declare the opposing side is running concentration camps, and basically modern Nazi. I'm actually glad they don't, but coming from the other direction it's non-stop.
EDIT
The downvote isn't supposed to be for a comment you disagree with, but for something that doesn't add to the conversation. Try writing a response instead.
> Imagine if real life utilities did this. If because someone used your property for offensive purposes, the water company cut off the water supply, or the electricity company refused to provide electricity, or your phone provider cut off service or what not. That would be ridiculous, yet it's exactly the situation we're in with internet services. No one wants to just be a utility.
These are flawed comparisons, because water and electricity flow from the utility towards the consumer. If water worked like the internet, and the utility was just a "dumb pipe" that would mean you could pee in my drinking water - I would hope they would disconnect you. And you can be sure that if you mess with the power coming to your house they will disconnect you, too.
If we use the example of a distributed water supply, Cloudpipe would be the company that said:
> yeah sure someone shit in the drinking water coming from my pipes, but I'm not going to tell them to stop, nor tell you who did it so you can tell them yourself.
These are flawed comparisons, because water and electricity flow from the utility towards the consumer. If water worked like the internet, and the utility was just a "dumb pipe" that would mean you could pee in my drinking water - I would hope they would disconnect you. And you can be sure that if you mess with the power coming to your house they will disconnect you, too.
If we use the example of a distributed water supply, Cloudpipe would be the company that said:
> yeah sure someone shit in the drinking water coming from my pipes, but I'm not going to tell them to stop, nor tell you who did it so you can tell them yourself.
Flawed comparison. Nothing 8Chan did or possibly could do would result in service disruption to other Cloudflare customers.
No, that's exactly the point. If water distribution worked in the way that utility companies just laid the pipes, connected them to those of other utilites, and otherwise did not care about what sort of water anybody pumped into them, water quality would drop pretty fast.
But agreed, I am stretching this example very far now to make "water as a utility" conform to "Internet as a utility" - which maybe goes to show that they are not quite the same and might benefit from not treating them the same.
But agreed, I am stretching this example very far now to make "water as a utility" conform to "Internet as a utility" - which maybe goes to show that they are not quite the same and might benefit from not treating them the same.
I still don't understand your analogy. How is 8Chan affecting "water quality" in this analogy? They were not harming the quality of service Cloudflare provides to their customers in any way, were they? The same goes for the water company providing service to 8Chan's owner; providing service to 8Chan doesn't affect the quality of service to their other customers.
Unless any of the people who were killed in El Paso were Cloudflare customers
Sure, but you could say exactly the same thing about a water or electrical utility.
It doesn't matter. Cloudflare is a private company, and as a private company, they have a right to discontinue any service with anyone as long as it isn't some sort of discriminatory act based on a protected class.
Considering that 8chan has a proclivity to be a haven for mass shooters, the site needs to be excessively curtailed regardless of whether they're affecting the businesses services directly or not just for the sole fact that they don't seem to police the people or content that are on the site.
For example, do you think a business shouldn't fire an individual after he committed a murder of some person who isn't affiliated with the company?
Considering that 8chan has a proclivity to be a haven for mass shooters, the site needs to be excessively curtailed regardless of whether they're affecting the businesses services directly or not just for the sole fact that they don't seem to police the people or content that are on the site.
For example, do you think a business shouldn't fire an individual after he committed a murder of some person who isn't affiliated with the company?
>Considering that 8chan has a proclivity to be a haven for mass shooters, the site needs to be excessively curtailed regardless of whether they're affecting the businesses services directly or not just for the sole fact that they don't seem to police the people or content that are on the site.
I'll bet more mass shooters spend time on facebook than 8chan. When are they getting shut down?
I'll bet more mass shooters spend time on facebook than 8chan. When are they getting shut down?
Would you make that same argument for electrical or water utility companies? Why or why not?
> because someone used your property for offensive purposes, the water company cut off the water supply
This actually happens in Europe, typically when authorities decide squatters should not be tolerated.
TBH, services like Cloudflare should be free to operate as they please. A publisher is simply not entitled to a CDN. If there is a demand for specific niches, a supply will eventually emerge, like it has for porn.
This actually happens in Europe, typically when authorities decide squatters should not be tolerated.
TBH, services like Cloudflare should be free to operate as they please. A publisher is simply not entitled to a CDN. If there is a demand for specific niches, a supply will eventually emerge, like it has for porn.
> TBH, services like Cloudflare should be free to operate as they please. A publisher is simply not entitled to a CDN
If a CDN is necessary to support the site being a public platform that's not a given. This whole "A private company should be able to act like it pleases" that Cloudflare mirrors in their news is an ideological standpoint, not an absolute truth. It's certainly possible to see it differently: If a company becomes a public platform important for the public discourse or for the function of journalism, regulation and laws can limit what a company can do. Like Germany does with Facebook.
Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I'm really frustrated with Cloudflare about this. With the announcement they are causing the political discourse after the massacre to be about free speech, while the one thing important here is gun control. This stuff happens in the US because the easy access to guns allows murderers to act like this. It does not matter whether 8chan falls now or whether it survives or whether the US limits their extreme stance on free speech as long the US society continues to accept that those massacres happen in favor of having guns available to everyone.
If a CDN is necessary to support the site being a public platform that's not a given. This whole "A private company should be able to act like it pleases" that Cloudflare mirrors in their news is an ideological standpoint, not an absolute truth. It's certainly possible to see it differently: If a company becomes a public platform important for the public discourse or for the function of journalism, regulation and laws can limit what a company can do. Like Germany does with Facebook.
Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I'm really frustrated with Cloudflare about this. With the announcement they are causing the political discourse after the massacre to be about free speech, while the one thing important here is gun control. This stuff happens in the US because the easy access to guns allows murderers to act like this. It does not matter whether 8chan falls now or whether it survives or whether the US limits their extreme stance on free speech as long the US society continues to accept that those massacres happen in favor of having guns available to everyone.
> If a company becomes a public platform important for the public discourse or for the function of journalism, regulation and laws can limit what a company can do.
Only if there are good arguments for this to be necessary. You didn't mention any. Just being "big" is no reason to get rid of the "free market". Are they abusing their market dominance? Is this a natural monopoly? Are strong network effects in play, as with Facebook? The best argument for a market failure I can think of is high initial investment. Yeah, I'm not convinced gov needs to write rules for Cloudflare specifically.
> With the announcmenet they are causing the political discourse after the massacre to be about free speech
As it should. Simplified, slaughtering = hate guns*. There is no way to get rid of guns in the US any time soon, so most talk about it is a wasted opportunity cost. The hateful and divisive rhetoric, on the other hand, seems to be sharply on the rise, with even the president making it permissible and using it to his one's ends. This seems like a way more promising attempt to stop the probably upcoming civil war.
Only if there are good arguments for this to be necessary. You didn't mention any. Just being "big" is no reason to get rid of the "free market". Are they abusing their market dominance? Is this a natural monopoly? Are strong network effects in play, as with Facebook? The best argument for a market failure I can think of is high initial investment. Yeah, I'm not convinced gov needs to write rules for Cloudflare specifically.
> With the announcmenet they are causing the political discourse after the massacre to be about free speech
As it should. Simplified, slaughtering = hate guns*. There is no way to get rid of guns in the US any time soon, so most talk about it is a wasted opportunity cost. The hateful and divisive rhetoric, on the other hand, seems to be sharply on the rise, with even the president making it permissible and using it to his one's ends. This seems like a way more promising attempt to stop the probably upcoming civil war.
"We can't get rid of guns, so lets get rid of free speech instead"?
I genuinely do not believe the access to the guns are the issue here. There are plenty of ways to accomplish something like this without a gun, so removing the guns from the picture would just change the method. It's lazy to just say that "gun control will fix this" because you're ignoring solving the actual problem of why people are doing this.
On the contrary, its lazy to assume that gun control won't fix the issue, because it implicitly assumes the massive difference between the US and other nations in violent murders is due to some other, vague, unexplained societal malady that somehow is only a problem in the US and not in other first world countries. Occam's razor would assume that the unique extent to which firearms are readily available in the US probably has a major connection to the unique extent to which mass shootings and gun violence occurs. Even if you were to make the argument that the underlying issues, whatever those may be, would persist, it is absolutely progress to have mass murderers be forced to utilize something like a knife than head on down the street and pick up an automatic/semi-automatic weapon.
A point David Frum makes in his latest column:
> There is one developed country—and only one—in which it is not only legal, but easy and convenient, to amass a private arsenal of mass slaughter. That country also happens to be the one—and the only one—regularly afflicted by mass slaughters perpetrated by aggrieved individuals.
> You would not think that this is a complicated problem to puzzle out. Yet even as the casualties from gunfire mount, Americans express befuddlement, and compete to devise ever more far-fetched answers.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/guns-are-a...
A similar column from a few years ago:
> A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain.
> At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic—but more lethal—is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them.
> After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won’t work. “No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers - and oh by the way, you said ‘stilts’ when the proper term is ‘piles,’ so why should anybody listen to you?”
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-rea...
> There is one developed country—and only one—in which it is not only legal, but easy and convenient, to amass a private arsenal of mass slaughter. That country also happens to be the one—and the only one—regularly afflicted by mass slaughters perpetrated by aggrieved individuals.
> You would not think that this is a complicated problem to puzzle out. Yet even as the casualties from gunfire mount, Americans express befuddlement, and compete to devise ever more far-fetched answers.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/guns-are-a...
A similar column from a few years ago:
> A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain.
> At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic—but more lethal—is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them.
> After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won’t work. “No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers - and oh by the way, you said ‘stilts’ when the proper term is ‘piles,’ so why should anybody listen to you?”
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-rea...
> You would not think that this is a complicated problem to puzzle out.
Sure, “the unique access to guns is a significant cause of the unique problem” is an obvious conclusion. Others are plausible, however, the most obvious alternative being that the two are effects of a common cause rather than cause and effect: that is, that America is uniquely heavily populated by violent maniacs, which produces the access to guns as a political result (both of the maniacs seeking arms to commit violence and others seeking access in fear to the maniacs) and the mass slaughter as a more direct result.
In that case, cutting off access to the guns might not have as much result as one might hope.
Sure, “the unique access to guns is a significant cause of the unique problem” is an obvious conclusion. Others are plausible, however, the most obvious alternative being that the two are effects of a common cause rather than cause and effect: that is, that America is uniquely heavily populated by violent maniacs, which produces the access to guns as a political result (both of the maniacs seeking arms to commit violence and others seeking access in fear to the maniacs) and the mass slaughter as a more direct result.
In that case, cutting off access to the guns might not have as much result as one might hope.
Does the AUM cult in Japan not disprove most of his main argument? They didn't have easy access to guns but still found it relatively easy to commit mass murder. More recently it took little more than some gasoline to murder 33 animators in Kyoto. Guns are an easy method of mass murder but hardly exclusive. Is there any reason to believe these murderers wouldn't switch methods? The attacks in Japan show that it's still easy to commit mass murder without guns.
Organized mass killing efforts are unstoppable, but emotion driven ones are amplified by the lethality of easily available weapons and people's experience with them. Meaning that all this culture of having guns, playing with them, knowing how to use them is the reason mass shootings can happen. You can't shoot lots of people with a kitchen knife if you suddenly get passionate and emotional about killing people.
Except Americans have ALWAYS had extensive access to firearms, but frequent massacres by emotional hotheads are a fairly recent problem. In the 1920s you could buy a fully automatic Thompson sub-machine gun via mail order. People weren't shooting up schools regularly, and the worst massacre in the 1920s was done with explosives. Access to weapons hasn't really changed, so what has changed about the American PEOPLE?
My guess is - it was naturally suppressed in the past since there was only top down, centralized, slow and spotty in reaching audiences mass media and recently internet freed it. Everyone with a smartphone became its own little mass media, able to easily find like minded people, supercharge hateful propaganda through feedback loops. Who is spreading that propaganda and why is another question though. Anyone from politicians, foreign, local state actors to gun manufacturers.
AUM was 1 attack 24 years ago. If you sum that and KyoAni, you end up with something like 50 victims in 25 years.
Do you think these numbers are even remotely comparable to US ones, where there have been hundreds of incidents only this year?
Do you think these numbers are even remotely comparable to US ones, where there have been hundreds of incidents only this year?
America is not a violent country, it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south.
And when we make comparisons with Europe, we should remember that violence in Europe is rising, while violence in the US is declining.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-abo...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-c...
https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bombings-grenade-atta...
And when we make comparisons with Europe, we should remember that violence in Europe is rising, while violence in the US is declining.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-abo...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-c...
https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bombings-grenade-atta...
If you compare the US to only developed countries, it is an extreme outlier with regard to violence, and that violence correlates strongly with the number of guns [1]. Gun violence in the US is rising, not declining [2].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-...
By what logic do you exclude Central and South America from the discussion?
The logic that they have different social conditions that place different incentives on people's behaviour. For example, Venezuela banned private gun ownership, but that is not the reason for firearm deaths falling. The reason for that is because of the economic meltdown is so bad that bullets are too expensive for even criminals:
* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-...
It is a control on the variables that can confound comparison so we have a more apples-to-applies situation.
* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-...
It is a control on the variables that can confound comparison so we have a more apples-to-applies situation.
Well now we're talking about what we should be talking about: social conditions. Why people angry enough to kill and end their own lives in America?
But social conditions in America and Europe are very different so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison if we keep talking about gun policy.
But social conditions in America and Europe are very different so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison if we keep talking about gun policy.
> Why people angry enough to kill and end their own lives in America?
There people who are angry enough in other countries:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_van_attack
The thing is that with easy access to powerful weapons, it is easier to implement such impulses in the US compared to other industrialized countries.
The US is not some hell hole where people have nothing to lose: for the most part it is a nice place to live (though, as with any place, it has better and worse areas). I think a lot of these incidents could be curtailed with better social conditions.
However, having a lot of weapons easily available is like having a lot of dry brush in the country: all it takes is one person's spark for things to catch on fire. Furthering the analogy, it's not that other countries don't have people who can be lit off, it's just the surrounding environment has reduced (though not eliminated) the chances of a large conflagration.
There people who are angry enough in other countries:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_van_attack
The thing is that with easy access to powerful weapons, it is easier to implement such impulses in the US compared to other industrialized countries.
The US is not some hell hole where people have nothing to lose: for the most part it is a nice place to live (though, as with any place, it has better and worse areas). I think a lot of these incidents could be curtailed with better social conditions.
However, having a lot of weapons easily available is like having a lot of dry brush in the country: all it takes is one person's spark for things to catch on fire. Furthering the analogy, it's not that other countries don't have people who can be lit off, it's just the surrounding environment has reduced (though not eliminated) the chances of a large conflagration.
This is an answer to every single tricky political problem. If people resort to something those in power don't like - then they didn't provide good enough conditions for people to be happy and not do that.
> America is not a violent country,
The general crime rate in the US is not too different from the crime rate in most other developed countries; see point seven:
* https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u...
However there's a lot more violent crime; see point one (ibid).
> it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south.
And yet as someone who lives in Canada, your neighbour to the north, we have a lot less gun crime. The difference is that we have good social services and decent filters on gun ownership. I don't know all the nitty-gritty details, but it seems that Canada's laws are roughly in line with what Massachusetts has:
* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
There will always probably be mass shootings:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting
But I think adding some filters or speed bumps to ownership (and especially CCW) will weed out the hot heads and incompetents that cause so much low-level carnage:
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11582078708082647...
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11575509903437127...
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
The general crime rate in the US is not too different from the crime rate in most other developed countries; see point seven:
* https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u...
However there's a lot more violent crime; see point one (ibid).
> it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south.
And yet as someone who lives in Canada, your neighbour to the north, we have a lot less gun crime. The difference is that we have good social services and decent filters on gun ownership. I don't know all the nitty-gritty details, but it seems that Canada's laws are roughly in line with what Massachusetts has:
* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
There will always probably be mass shootings:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting
But I think adding some filters or speed bumps to ownership (and especially CCW) will weed out the hot heads and incompetents that cause so much low-level carnage:
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11582078708082647...
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11575509903437127...
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
Both you and Vox are trying to limit the discussion to gun crime, as if knife crime or acid attacks or bombings or mass vehicular homicides don't matter. That's misleading and borderline dishonest. It's the violence that matters, not the weapon.
In December 2012, a crazed man entered an elementary school and attacked several staff members and students. He used a kitchen knife and while there were 24 injuries, there were zero deaths:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_Schoo...
A little while later, another crazed man entered a second elementary school and also attacked staff and students. He used an XM15 and Glock 20SF; there were 2 injuries and 28 deaths:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_s...
> It's the violence that matters, not the weapon.
I'm guessing you have never read Marshal McLuhan. The tools (communication or otherwise) that humans have available shape society and our perception of the world. There are daily examples (both negligent and purposeful) of people acting in a way that they probably would not have if they only had knives or just their fists:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
The effects of different tools are... different. The "Garlic shooter" was able to kill 3 people and injure many more before he was taken out in under 60 seconds:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shootin...
That kind of carnage is difficult to achieve with a baseball bat or a knife.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_Schoo...
A little while later, another crazed man entered a second elementary school and also attacked staff and students. He used an XM15 and Glock 20SF; there were 2 injuries and 28 deaths:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_s...
> It's the violence that matters, not the weapon.
I'm guessing you have never read Marshal McLuhan. The tools (communication or otherwise) that humans have available shape society and our perception of the world. There are daily examples (both negligent and purposeful) of people acting in a way that they probably would not have if they only had knives or just their fists:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
The effects of different tools are... different. The "Garlic shooter" was able to kill 3 people and injure many more before he was taken out in under 60 seconds:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shootin...
That kind of carnage is difficult to achieve with a baseball bat or a knife.
And the effort required to kill a number of people with a gun is significantly less--like, to the point where the "but but what about that?" verges on ludicrous--than knife crime or acid attacks. Gun violence requires less specialized knowledge and provides fewer opportunities to catch a criminal before their plan goes off than bombings. And vehicles have overwhelmingly more legitimate use than guns that present a meaningful and socially valid argument against their restriction where guns have no such value.
Which is why this is low-hanging fruit to deal with and long past due.
Which is why this is low-hanging fruit to deal with and long past due.
The vast majority of killers aren't aiming to kill a lot of people. Just one, usually. You're focusing on the dramatic mass killings instead of the significant majority of murderers, who could switch to knives and acid.
And then there are the mass killers, but since vehicles won't be banned because they have "overwhelmingly more legitimate use", they would remain available for mass killings. As would bombs, though that does require more skill than the other weapons.
And guns would remain available too. Gun control does very little to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, as the gun crime rate in Chicago shows.
And then there are the mass killers, but since vehicles won't be banned because they have "overwhelmingly more legitimate use", they would remain available for mass killings. As would bombs, though that does require more skill than the other weapons.
And guns would remain available too. Gun control does very little to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, as the gun crime rate in Chicago shows.
> The vast majority of killers aren't aiming to kill a lot of people.
The amount of low-level carnage that happens daily in the US from either incompetent, negligent, or malicious gun owners is quite impressive:
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11575509903437127...
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11578845404777594...
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11581452335924346...
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11582078708082647...
A total ban on firearms isn't even necessary; just a filter on the dumb asses and hot heads:
* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
The amount of low-level carnage that happens daily in the US from either incompetent, negligent, or malicious gun owners is quite impressive:
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11575509903437127...
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11578845404777594...
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11581452335924346...
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11582078708082647...
A total ban on firearms isn't even necessary; just a filter on the dumb asses and hot heads:
* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
> And then there are the mass killers, but since vehicles won't be banned because they have "overwhelmingly more legitimate use", they would remain available for mass killings.
Yet curiously, almost all mass murders are committed with guns, not vehicles.
Yet curiously, almost all mass murders are committed with guns, not vehicles.
Only the US has a religious mythology of personal gun use. Guns aren't just weapons, they're practically symbols of inspired personal expression.
So it's not just easy access to guns. It's the surrounding culture of gun play, gun heroism, gun rhetoric, gun rights, gun "freedom", gun permissiveness, guns-make-you-a-real-person-who-matters - and so on.
Other countries don't have anything like the same culture to anything like the same extent. Which is why you can have equivalent levels of gun ownership without the same problems.
So it's not just easy access to guns. It's the surrounding culture of gun play, gun heroism, gun rhetoric, gun rights, gun "freedom", gun permissiveness, guns-make-you-a-real-person-who-matters - and so on.
Other countries don't have anything like the same culture to anything like the same extent. Which is why you can have equivalent levels of gun ownership without the same problems.
Agreed. The US was probably the first country to rely on personal arms ownership to establish their independence. Its important to Americans.
It's important to Americans because it's been sold to us as a fictitious part of a national identity. The gun industry has very successfully crafted this narrative, to the point where so many people take it for granted now, but it wasn't always this way; this is a thing that developed in (depending on age) some of our lifetimes.
Here's a book that takes a closer look at how guns took on this sort of mythic role -- more special than other tools and appliances -- in American identity:
https://www.pamelahaag.com/books/gunning-of-america/
Here's a book that takes a closer look at how guns took on this sort of mythic role -- more special than other tools and appliances -- in American identity:
https://www.pamelahaag.com/books/gunning-of-america/
Funny. I kinda thought it was the U.S. Constitution that sold us on guns.
No, and until 2008's Heller vs DC decision, private gun ownership was not considered an established right. America's status as a gun-loving nation is a relatively modern invention, and entirely one devised by gun manufacturers. It's working, too (and with somewhat predictable results).
> until 2008's Heller vs DC decision, private gun ownership was not considered an established right.
Only in certain circles.
Only in certain circles.
Just take a look at the pop culture. Music is full of guns and showing violence can be hip. This horrible culture is now in exported to others countries too but nevertheless only in America people would dismiss it as ohh it's just showbusiness.
TV too. Living in Japan I find Japanese TV overwhelmingly boring, lots of shows of minor celebrities reacting to things (uncomfortable situations, food, travel)....with almost the exact same expression, every time. That, or drama shows with terrible acting.
Then I come back to the States and I'm honestly shocked at how macabre American TV is in comparison. It's non-stop crime shows, murder investigations, action, and militarism, with a shootout key to the resolution of almost any episode.
Is it any surprise that Americans reach for their weapons to solve problems with increasing regularity? I blame American's Puritanical streak.....we can't have nice, pleasant things like topless women on TV like they do in Europe.
Then I come back to the States and I'm honestly shocked at how macabre American TV is in comparison. It's non-stop crime shows, murder investigations, action, and militarism, with a shootout key to the resolution of almost any episode.
Is it any surprise that Americans reach for their weapons to solve problems with increasing regularity? I blame American's Puritanical streak.....we can't have nice, pleasant things like topless women on TV like they do in Europe.
I remember seeing a picture of a somewhat old gun (WW2 era) repainted in bright colours and the amount of hate the poster got from people left and right.
This doesn't fit in the 'a gun is a tool' mindset, it's fetishism, pure and simple.
This doesn't fit in the 'a gun is a tool' mindset, it's fetishism, pure and simple.
That's dangerous because gun owners have convinced people their kids are safe if they play with toy guns that don't look like real guns.
They aren't, but it's a convenient fiction.
They aren't, but it's a convenient fiction.
I'm not sure this is something we can assume, as I don't think there is a country with anywhere close to the same levels of gun ownership as the US.
>>>Occam's razor would assume that the unique extent to which firearms are readily available in the US probably has a major connection to the unique extent to which mass shootings and gun violence occurs.
Well let's look at just the United States, over time, rather than the US compared to other countries. In the US, a proliferation of firearms has been a constant throughout our history. But it is only recently (really starting with Columbine) that we've had REGULAR outbursts, almost always by men under 30. I would hypothesize that the elephants in the room are a)prescription psychotropic drugs and their side-effects b)constant negative media about males/toxic masculinity c)overall ineffective child-rearing practices and extended adolescence, some of which stems from a reduction in two-parent households.
These are vague partly because so few people will take a deep dive into these subjects when so much money flows from these influences (pharmaceuticals, media, etc...).
But why aren't we looking at the variables, instead of the constant?
>>>it is absolutely progress to have mass murderers be forced to utilize something like a knife than head on down the street and pick up an automatic/semi-automatic weapon.
1. You can't "head on down the street" and pick up an automatic weapon in the US. You need a Federal Firearms License for that. And historically, FFL holders are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country. Even if there were a ban on semi-auto weapons, the market would adapt. I've already brainstormed on how to optimize a bolt-action rifle for rapid, sustained fire and I'm not even a firearms designer.
2. Tightening the gun proliferation sounds great...in theory. How do you actually accomplish it in practice? There are 300 million+ firearms spread across the country in about 40% of households. This is a land area greater than that occupied by the Germans on the Eastern Front, with a greater number of potential "partisans", and the Germans never even came CLOSE to securing their rear areas. That anyone expects widespread gun confiscations to NOT turn into a bloodbath is naive IMO, and if the objective is saving lives than it would also be counter-productive.
3. Maybe the mass murders will switch to homemade explosives instead of knives, which would be a significantly WORSE outcome? Ever think of that? Maybe they'll get guidance from jihadis. Hell, explosives already gave us one of the worst school massacres in American history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Well let's look at just the United States, over time, rather than the US compared to other countries. In the US, a proliferation of firearms has been a constant throughout our history. But it is only recently (really starting with Columbine) that we've had REGULAR outbursts, almost always by men under 30. I would hypothesize that the elephants in the room are a)prescription psychotropic drugs and their side-effects b)constant negative media about males/toxic masculinity c)overall ineffective child-rearing practices and extended adolescence, some of which stems from a reduction in two-parent households.
These are vague partly because so few people will take a deep dive into these subjects when so much money flows from these influences (pharmaceuticals, media, etc...).
But why aren't we looking at the variables, instead of the constant?
>>>it is absolutely progress to have mass murderers be forced to utilize something like a knife than head on down the street and pick up an automatic/semi-automatic weapon.
1. You can't "head on down the street" and pick up an automatic weapon in the US. You need a Federal Firearms License for that. And historically, FFL holders are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country. Even if there were a ban on semi-auto weapons, the market would adapt. I've already brainstormed on how to optimize a bolt-action rifle for rapid, sustained fire and I'm not even a firearms designer.
2. Tightening the gun proliferation sounds great...in theory. How do you actually accomplish it in practice? There are 300 million+ firearms spread across the country in about 40% of households. This is a land area greater than that occupied by the Germans on the Eastern Front, with a greater number of potential "partisans", and the Germans never even came CLOSE to securing their rear areas. That anyone expects widespread gun confiscations to NOT turn into a bloodbath is naive IMO, and if the objective is saving lives than it would also be counter-productive.
3. Maybe the mass murders will switch to homemade explosives instead of knives, which would be a significantly WORSE outcome? Ever think of that? Maybe they'll get guidance from jihadis. Hell, explosives already gave us one of the worst school massacres in American history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
I believe you that it's genuine. But no. Look at other countries. Look at the history of gun control laws in Germany or other countries and their effect. Shootings like this are 100% caused by the easy access to guns.
If someone does not have access to guns, it's harder to do something like this. It gives time to think again. Organizing different attacks gives law enforcement a chance to catch someone planning it beforehand.
HN is not the right forum to discuss this in detail, so I won't go further into this. But it's better to think about this than to follow Cloudflares lead.
If someone does not have access to guns, it's harder to do something like this. It gives time to think again. Organizing different attacks gives law enforcement a chance to catch someone planning it beforehand.
HN is not the right forum to discuss this in detail, so I won't go further into this. But it's better to think about this than to follow Cloudflares lead.
Gun control is necessary to avoid a lot of the smaller scale problems - accidental gun deaths, suicide, violent revenge, robberies, etc.
But for anything serious like terrorist attacks, it won't make much of a difference. Guns come in through criminal networks anyway (as in Europe). Norway has gun control laws, yet Breivik was still able to kill nearly 80 people regardless. Vehicles have proven to be decent weapons to kill many people with. 9/11 used airplanes and improvised knives to kill thousands.
Gun control will not fix the underlying issues behind mass shootings and while discussing it has to be done, it won't make the problems causing things like this to happen stop.
But for anything serious like terrorist attacks, it won't make much of a difference. Guns come in through criminal networks anyway (as in Europe). Norway has gun control laws, yet Breivik was still able to kill nearly 80 people regardless. Vehicles have proven to be decent weapons to kill many people with. 9/11 used airplanes and improvised knives to kill thousands.
Gun control will not fix the underlying issues behind mass shootings and while discussing it has to be done, it won't make the problems causing things like this to happen stop.
[deleted]
>Gun control will not fix the underlying issues behind mass shootings and while discussing it has to be done, it won't make the problems causing things like this to happen stop.
But reduce the overall deaths.
But reduce the overall deaths.
France has pretty strict gun controls laws which have not proven to be much of a protection against terrorism, who used AK47, explosives or simply trucks to cause mass casualties.
We don’t know how different the situation would be if France didn’t have the current regulations, but I personally think the death toll would be higher. For sure you cannot completely remove the risk of mass killing, but you can make it more expensive/difficult for attackers to do a lot of victims.
[deleted]
> HN is not the right forum to discuss this
Then why are you doing it? Don't reply to me though, HN isn't the place to discuss it.
Then why are you doing it? Don't reply to me though, HN isn't the place to discuss it.
> There are plenty of ways to accomplish something like this without a gun, so removing the guns from the picture would just change the method.
The numbers don't seem to bear this out. There seems to be a fairly proportional relationship between gun ownership and per capita gun deaths; see point two:
* https://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-st...
> It's lazy to just say that "gun control will fix this" because you're ignoring solving the actual problem of why people are doing this.
While the desire to do certain things may remain, it may be possible to limit the practical ways that desire may be implemented. These extreme cases will probably be the hardest to stop, but there's a lot of low-level carnage that could be reduced:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
And it isn't even necessarily about bans, but simply a few filters and speed bumps to reduce the chances of hot heads and whack jobs packing heat:
* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
The numbers don't seem to bear this out. There seems to be a fairly proportional relationship between gun ownership and per capita gun deaths; see point two:
* https://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-st...
> It's lazy to just say that "gun control will fix this" because you're ignoring solving the actual problem of why people are doing this.
While the desire to do certain things may remain, it may be possible to limit the practical ways that desire may be implemented. These extreme cases will probably be the hardest to stop, but there's a lot of low-level carnage that could be reduced:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
And it isn't even necessarily about bans, but simply a few filters and speed bumps to reduce the chances of hot heads and whack jobs packing heat:
* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
>> There are plenty of ways to accomplish something like this without a gun, so removing the guns from the picture would just change the method.
>The numbers don't seem to bear this out. There seems to be a fairly proportional relationship between gun ownership and per capita gun deaths
The latter does nothing to refute the former. The first is claiming gun control can reduces deaths by gun, but only by shifting deaths to a different category. The latter claims that in the category of people dying by gun, number of guns and deaths is correlated.
>The numbers don't seem to bear this out. There seems to be a fairly proportional relationship between gun ownership and per capita gun deaths
The latter does nothing to refute the former. The first is claiming gun control can reduces deaths by gun, but only by shifting deaths to a different category. The latter claims that in the category of people dying by gun, number of guns and deaths is correlated.
just want to point out that per capita gun deaths is the wrong metric to use - the vast majority of deaths by gun are suicides
> the vast majority of deaths by gun are suicides
Which can be reduced by restricting access to guns:
> The use of firearms is a common means of suicide. We examined the effect of a policy change in the Israeli Defense Forces reducing adolescents’ access to firearms on rates of suicide. Following the policy change, suicide rates decreased significantly by 40%. Most of this decrease was due to decrease in suicide using firearms over the weekend. There were no significant changes in rates of suicide during weekdays. Decreasing access to firearms significantly decreases rates of suicide among adolescents. The results of this study illustrate the ability of a rela- tively simple change in policy to have a major impact on suicide rates.
* https://www.gsoa.ch/media/medialibrary/2010/12/Lubin_10.pdf
Also:
> In 1995, Connecticut established a "permit to purchase" law, which required a background check and eight hours of safety training for those seeking to buy a handgun.
> Missouri used to have a law like that, too, but repealed it in 2007.
> New research shows what happened afterward. Firearm suicide rates fell 15.4 percent in Connecticut — but rose 16.1 percent in Missouri. The study, published in the journal Preventive Medicine, only confirms what other papers have found: Making it harder to access guns correlates with fewer suicides.
* https://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9242147/gun-control-connecticut...
Which can be reduced by restricting access to guns:
> The use of firearms is a common means of suicide. We examined the effect of a policy change in the Israeli Defense Forces reducing adolescents’ access to firearms on rates of suicide. Following the policy change, suicide rates decreased significantly by 40%. Most of this decrease was due to decrease in suicide using firearms over the weekend. There were no significant changes in rates of suicide during weekdays. Decreasing access to firearms significantly decreases rates of suicide among adolescents. The results of this study illustrate the ability of a rela- tively simple change in policy to have a major impact on suicide rates.
* https://www.gsoa.ch/media/medialibrary/2010/12/Lubin_10.pdf
Also:
> In 1995, Connecticut established a "permit to purchase" law, which required a background check and eight hours of safety training for those seeking to buy a handgun.
> Missouri used to have a law like that, too, but repealed it in 2007.
> New research shows what happened afterward. Firearm suicide rates fell 15.4 percent in Connecticut — but rose 16.1 percent in Missouri. The study, published in the journal Preventive Medicine, only confirms what other papers have found: Making it harder to access guns correlates with fewer suicides.
* https://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9242147/gun-control-connecticut...
>New research shows what happened afterward. Firearm suicide rates fell 15.4 percent in Connecticut — but rose 16.1 percent in Missouri. The study, published in the journal Preventive Medicine, only confirms what other papers have found: Making it harder to access guns correlates with fewer suicides.
That's a misread of the study - making it harder to access guns does not correlate with fewer suicides - it correlates with fewer Firearm suicides. Further, reading the studies referenced, you will find that they simply show correlation without examining other risk factors. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that less guns=less shooting, personally, though I know some people disagree with that for some reason. I don't know about less guns=less violence in general, though.
That study of the IDF is interesting, especially how they ignore the fact that there was not actually a 40% drop in gun related suicides; there was a 70% drop in suicide by gun, from 10 to 3, and a more general drop from 28 to 16.5 with another 4.5 per capita coming from non-gun related suicide. Despite this, they claim the entire 40% drop was driven by the gun change. This is interesting because it was not the only significant policy change the IDF put in place between 2005 and 2007 in order to address suicide, so it's pretty difficult to claim a direct causal relationship which is what they did.
Based on that, you would expect countries with lower rates of gun ownership to have lower adolescent suicide rates, and those with higher rates of gun ownership to have higher adolescent suicide rates. According to the WHO, though, that is not the case. The US, for example, had a below average adolescent suicide rate in 2000, whereas New Zealand, Luxembourg, Ireland, norway, Austria and others had higher than average rates.
That's a misread of the study - making it harder to access guns does not correlate with fewer suicides - it correlates with fewer Firearm suicides. Further, reading the studies referenced, you will find that they simply show correlation without examining other risk factors. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that less guns=less shooting, personally, though I know some people disagree with that for some reason. I don't know about less guns=less violence in general, though.
That study of the IDF is interesting, especially how they ignore the fact that there was not actually a 40% drop in gun related suicides; there was a 70% drop in suicide by gun, from 10 to 3, and a more general drop from 28 to 16.5 with another 4.5 per capita coming from non-gun related suicide. Despite this, they claim the entire 40% drop was driven by the gun change. This is interesting because it was not the only significant policy change the IDF put in place between 2005 and 2007 in order to address suicide, so it's pretty difficult to claim a direct causal relationship which is what they did.
Based on that, you would expect countries with lower rates of gun ownership to have lower adolescent suicide rates, and those with higher rates of gun ownership to have higher adolescent suicide rates. According to the WHO, though, that is not the case. The US, for example, had a below average adolescent suicide rate in 2000, whereas New Zealand, Luxembourg, Ireland, norway, Austria and others had higher than average rates.
"If we reduced mass shootings by restricting gun access, we might accidentally reduce suicides" sounds like an upside, not a downside.
That'd completely be an upside, if the data showed that happened. I don't know that it does. The US has a lower suicide rate than some other developed countries even with guns, and the Americas in general are significantly under Europe in crude rate per capita numbers.
Comparing countries against each other gets very sticky, due to differences in reporting.
We do, however, have a variety of same-country data demonstrating it happens. Several examples here:
https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/article/how-do-gun-laws-affec...
IIRC, there's also the factor that attempts with guns tend to be more successful - other methods like pills tend to take longer, be easier to mess up, and offer the ability to renege or have someone intervene in a way guns tend not to.
We do, however, have a variety of same-country data demonstrating it happens. Several examples here:
https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/article/how-do-gun-laws-affec...
IIRC, there's also the factor that attempts with guns tend to be more successful - other methods like pills tend to take longer, be easier to mess up, and offer the ability to renege or have someone intervene in a way guns tend not to.
Those are interesting. Unfortunately, the only definitive bit shows that CAD laws are likely to lower general suicide rates by about 8% among people age 14-17. That's important, and those laws should probably be enacted in order to make that happen.
Unfortunately, laws about the age at which it is legal to purchase or possess a gun show no effect. Basically, if you are allowed to own a gun or not as a child, there's no relationship. The decrease only happens when there is a gun in the home and it is stored properly, where children can't get at it easily.
The message I get from that is make guns more difficult to get in times of mental crisis and it will lower the firearm related suicide rate, but not necessarily the general suicide rate outside of that 14-17 age group.
Also, the relationship with suicide attempts is likewise sticky, because a lot of suicide attempts are not really a driven attempt to die. Many take a number of pills, for example, then purposefully leave out the pill bottle or tell people prior to the attempt. It's a difficult thing to track in terms of metrics.
Unfortunately, laws about the age at which it is legal to purchase or possess a gun show no effect. Basically, if you are allowed to own a gun or not as a child, there's no relationship. The decrease only happens when there is a gun in the home and it is stored properly, where children can't get at it easily.
The message I get from that is make guns more difficult to get in times of mental crisis and it will lower the firearm related suicide rate, but not necessarily the general suicide rate outside of that 14-17 age group.
Also, the relationship with suicide attempts is likewise sticky, because a lot of suicide attempts are not really a driven attempt to die. Many take a number of pills, for example, then purposefully leave out the pill bottle or tell people prior to the attempt. It's a difficult thing to track in terms of metrics.
> The numbers don't seem to bear this out. There seems to be a fairly proportional relationship between gun ownership and per capita gun deaths; see point two:
Well, not exactly: https://twitter.com/mark_j_perry/status/672946028706996224
Well, not exactly: https://twitter.com/mark_j_perry/status/672946028706996224
That's highly misleading. The tweet conflates gun ownership with gun counts. The chart largely illustrates the tiny percentage of gun hoarders expanding their collections.
> Rates of personal and household gun ownership appear to have declined over the past decades – roughly two-thirds of Americans today say they live in a gun-free household. By contrast, in the late 1970s, the majority of Americans said they lived in a household with guns.
> But America’s gun super-owners, have amassed huge collections. Just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each.
(See also the chart showing a couple percent increase in female gun ownership, but a fairly hefty decrease amongst men.)
> Rates of personal and household gun ownership appear to have declined over the past decades – roughly two-thirds of Americans today say they live in a gun-free household. By contrast, in the late 1970s, the majority of Americans said they lived in a household with guns.
> But America’s gun super-owners, have amassed huge collections. Just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each.
(See also the chart showing a couple percent increase in female gun ownership, but a fairly hefty decrease amongst men.)
True, but it is still false to say that more guns necessarily means more gun crime. I don't think this chart proves anything, it just shows another perspective of the data.
Another point of interest is the number of CCW issued (estimated to be around 17 million now) and the liberalization of carry in general since the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry#/media/Fi...
Another point of interest is the number of CCW issued (estimated to be around 17 million now) and the liberalization of carry in general since the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry#/media/Fi...
> True, but it is still false to say that more guns necessarily means more gun crime.
The research seems to indicate otherwise:
* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jels.12219
* https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542
* https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an...
* https://www.nber.org/papers/w7967
* https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2018/handgun-purcha...
I think there is a point in diminishing returns--some gun control measure are more effective than others--but many places in the US have not even plucked the low-hanging fruit.
The research seems to indicate otherwise:
* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jels.12219
* https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542
* https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an...
* https://www.nber.org/papers/w7967
* https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2018/handgun-purcha...
I think there is a point in diminishing returns--some gun control measure are more effective than others--but many places in the US have not even plucked the low-hanging fruit.
I have guns in my home. My wife hates guns and she has a home defense weapon. That's my intro because I don't want to be mistaken for anti-gun. I like guns and I like shooting.
How would you accomplish this without a firearm? Do you think you could accomplish this with a bat or a knife? The attack happened at a Walmart. They sell hard objects. This couldn't have gotten far. I can't imagine a location or situation where you could be so effective in harming so many without a weapon that gives you so much distance from your victim.
Do you have kids? I have one. Every day I look at my toddler and have to think about how to keep her safe (statistics are in my favor but they were in every parents' favor). Then I have to look at my wife and assure her that our baby will be able to live a long life.
I'll relinquish my second amendment rights, if I never again ahave to live through a year where there are more mass shootings than days. For now, we're just moving out of Texas.
How would you accomplish this without a firearm? Do you think you could accomplish this with a bat or a knife? The attack happened at a Walmart. They sell hard objects. This couldn't have gotten far. I can't imagine a location or situation where you could be so effective in harming so many without a weapon that gives you so much distance from your victim.
Do you have kids? I have one. Every day I look at my toddler and have to think about how to keep her safe (statistics are in my favor but they were in every parents' favor). Then I have to look at my wife and assure her that our baby will be able to live a long life.
I'll relinquish my second amendment rights, if I never again ahave to live through a year where there are more mass shootings than days. For now, we're just moving out of Texas.
The three most deadly mass killing in the US where not done by guns, two where by bombs and the other one was done by jets. One was done with diesel fuel and fertilizer and it leveled half of a 10 story building. 4 to 10 bags of fertilizer would have done some serious damage to that Walmart, as well as most likely killed and maimed a lot more people. That amount would not put him on any radar (we do monitor ammonium nitrate purchases in bulk after Oklahoma City)
Personally I think there is a link in A-moral violent video games as well as violent music that glorifies killing. Now in saying that please don't construe it with me being an advocate for censorship. I am not, but I think there is a link.
Further if you couple that with young males who have little prospects in this brave new world, fresh out of school or getting ready to graduate, no real direction and probably a hand full of romantic rejections due to being awkward you have a powder keg waiting to happen.
Funny enough in the case of the Texas shooter, after reading his manifesto, I was surprised he did not use explosives. His reasoning where more like Timothy Mcveigh's than many of the other shooters. He does not fit the typical profile.
Personally I think there is a link in A-moral violent video games as well as violent music that glorifies killing. Now in saying that please don't construe it with me being an advocate for censorship. I am not, but I think there is a link.
Further if you couple that with young males who have little prospects in this brave new world, fresh out of school or getting ready to graduate, no real direction and probably a hand full of romantic rejections due to being awkward you have a powder keg waiting to happen.
Funny enough in the case of the Texas shooter, after reading his manifesto, I was surprised he did not use explosives. His reasoning where more like Timothy Mcveigh's than many of the other shooters. He does not fit the typical profile.
The science on the matter disagrees with your personal opinion's about the impact of video games. There have been more than a handful of studies around this.
I don't couple that with young males having little prospects because they still have more than their counterparts. Why aren't young black women shooting up Walmarts? Why not Mexican men? I'm a white male. I didn't graduate from a college. I was awkward. I haven't killed anyone and I know a lot of others that fit that mold. You're ignoring the poison being put into their heads by people using your exact talking points. That creates the powder keg.
Bombs don't get you the praise from the gutter. The alt-right incels like the glory. You're right, we could see a rise in bombings but we also might not. What we'll definitely see (and already do) is nothing changing by doing nothing.
I don't couple that with young males having little prospects because they still have more than their counterparts. Why aren't young black women shooting up Walmarts? Why not Mexican men? I'm a white male. I didn't graduate from a college. I was awkward. I haven't killed anyone and I know a lot of others that fit that mold. You're ignoring the poison being put into their heads by people using your exact talking points. That creates the powder keg.
Bombs don't get you the praise from the gutter. The alt-right incels like the glory. You're right, we could see a rise in bombings but we also might not. What we'll definitely see (and already do) is nothing changing by doing nothing.
and most of them have led to the conclusion of increased aggression, so it's not really a personal opinion (as I tend to hold opinions fairly loosely):
https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson
As well just because someone fit's a profile does not mean they are predisposed to commit acts of violence. That being said, when there is a pattern, there is a pattern. There are many young white males, of similar experience who do not pick up a gun and start killing people. That being said, there is a definitive pattern of behavior and interest among these white males that do, rejection, isolation and immersion in video games (almost always violent) are certainly some of those patterns.
Also please stop trying to pin it on alt-right (or left for that matter), these guys are popping up all over the political spectrum.
https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson
As well just because someone fit's a profile does not mean they are predisposed to commit acts of violence. That being said, when there is a pattern, there is a pattern. There are many young white males, of similar experience who do not pick up a gun and start killing people. That being said, there is a definitive pattern of behavior and interest among these white males that do, rejection, isolation and immersion in video games (almost always violent) are certainly some of those patterns.
Also please stop trying to pin it on alt-right (or left for that matter), these guys are popping up all over the political spectrum.
I'm not pinning this on any group (although if we look at the rhetoric from major events in the past few years, it clearly supports doing so) but I am saying your talking points come straight from the alt-right playbook. Hate fueled rhetoric, plus making the world the bogie man for the sad displaced white boy is literally the alt-right SOP. Let's not stop pointing fingers at them as part of the problem.
For the record, I do not consider myself to be right, I may lean to the right on some issues but as a supporter of Universal-Basic-Income and Universal Healthcare, environmental science etc. I would say many of my view lean left of center. It total I consider myself a centrist.
Where I don't waver from the alt-right on is on constitutional rights, so while my talking points may seem to you to come out of a playbook they are my views on the world and I tend to form those views based of my experiences and reasoning.
I do not believe I am making the world a boggy man for anyone. Just calling the numbers as I see them. I believe these young men are cowards as evident in the Texas shooters manifesto where he explicitly states that he targeted Walmart as he would not meet armed resistance.
Where I don't waver from the alt-right on is on constitutional rights, so while my talking points may seem to you to come out of a playbook they are my views on the world and I tend to form those views based of my experiences and reasoning.
I do not believe I am making the world a boggy man for anyone. Just calling the numbers as I see them. I believe these young men are cowards as evident in the Texas shooters manifesto where he explicitly states that he targeted Walmart as he would not meet armed resistance.
I think you misunderstand the things I'm saying are talking points. The sad white boy having no place in the world and sexual rejection being a new and uniue problem that justifies disproportionate response, is what I'm talking about. That's the alt-right bogeyman. That's the fuel for a lot of this fire.
> That being said, when there is a pattern, there is a pattern.
There is a pattern of mentally unhinged men being radicalized by the right wing and committing heinous acts of violence with guns.
There is a pattern of mentally unhinged men being radicalized by the right wing and committing heinous acts of violence with guns.
The Ohio shooter described himself as a left wing Satanist. Most of the school shooters had little to no political ideology. A few have been hard left leaning and some have been alt-right. It is disingenuous to state that they are motivated by political ideology as the overwhelming majority have has little to no interest in politics given their age. I don't dispute that some of the mass killings have been done out of ultra-radicalized political ideologies but the majority are not committed for that reason.
> It is disingenuous to state that they are motivated by political ideology as the overwhelming majority
No it is not. You provided one or two examples that do not eliminate a pattern, and as you yourself said- "A pattern is a pattern."
There are three problems here: mental illness, (far right) radicalization, and guns. I don't have any solutions to propose for this but saying videogames are somehow the cause of this is absurd.
No it is not. You provided one or two examples that do not eliminate a pattern, and as you yourself said- "A pattern is a pattern."
There are three problems here: mental illness, (far right) radicalization, and guns. I don't have any solutions to propose for this but saying videogames are somehow the cause of this is absurd.
Why not see it as a bigger culture rot? Guns and violence is glorified by games, music, tv. It might a sign, not a cause. Also, a lot of these shooters talk about high score (kill count), a lot of these extremists (right wing) and tied to gaming communities etc. So it's a lot to think about, people like to nitpick things they like and say it doesn't have anything to do with it because it does not affect me.
I think there is a link, but the causation arrow is opposite what you think it is.
Violent video games don't create violent people necessarily, but video people like to play violent video games.
Violent video games don't create violent people necessarily, but video people like to play violent video games.
Multiple shooters have mentioned "high score" in their manifestos or messages left before the attacks.
I don't disagree, that is why I choose the term link as opposed to causation, it could very well be that they are choosing to immerse themselves in violent content because they have a predisposed desire for it.
It is also why I am anti-censorship, as I believe it is the opposite side of the same coin as blaming the gun for mass murders.
Just as guns are linked to these issues as the tool of choice, we find back linking to excessive immersion in violent media.
I just find is strange the cognitive dissonance people make when wanting to ban the one but not the other when they are both clearly linked. They want law abiding people to give up their guns but find all kinds of reasons to deny the link with violent content.
It is also why I am anti-censorship, as I believe it is the opposite side of the same coin as blaming the gun for mass murders.
Just as guns are linked to these issues as the tool of choice, we find back linking to excessive immersion in violent media.
I just find is strange the cognitive dissonance people make when wanting to ban the one but not the other when they are both clearly linked. They want law abiding people to give up their guns but find all kinds of reasons to deny the link with violent content.
Ugh. This is nonsense.
Do you think Timothy McVeigh was inspired by Doom?
Do you think Timothy McVeigh was inspired by Doom?
Violent video games seems to be the talking point du jour coming out of the gun rights/white supremacist media machine... Was weirdly all over fox news yesterday. Is it a genuine concern, or just a trial balloon, looking for the best way to derail the conversation this time around? You be the judge!
While I don't doubt the right is using it as a talking point, ignoring one link because one likes it (games) while demonizing another link (guns) is not the answer to actually solving the issue and is a form of filter bubbling.
So then let's go back to stuffing our heads in the sand and doing nothing instead.
Show a link between games and hate crime fueled mass shooting by sad white boys and we can put it on the list of things to worry about. Until then, perhaps making it harder to get guns could help...
Show a link between games and hate crime fueled mass shooting by sad white boys and we can put it on the list of things to worry about. Until then, perhaps making it harder to get guns could help...
>>>gun rights/white supremacist media machine
Why do you link these two things, as if no minority is pro-gun rights and active in the media?
https://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir
Why do you link these two things, as if no minority is pro-gun rights and active in the media?
https://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir
People play and have been playing violent videogames all over the world for many years.
Much like mass shootings, violence in videogames might be symptoms of rots within our capitalist society.
Very powerful people are profiting off our rots.
Much like mass shootings, violence in videogames might be symptoms of rots within our capitalist society.
Very powerful people are profiting off our rots.
If it were a gun access problem then it would have peaked when gun access was easiest, i.e. back when machine guns were sold by mail order.
Now it's happening in a time of rampant depression, polarization, social isolation, 24-hour news, and social media. That can't be a coincidence.
Now it's happening in a time of rampant depression, polarization, social isolation, 24-hour news, and social media. That can't be a coincidence.
Mass shootings are a meme in the United States, like a sort of cultural epidemic. You fight epidemics with techniques like quarantines to stop the spread, medicine to help those that are already infected, and inoculations for people who haven’t been.
I think the quarantine is for information in this case. Instead of breathless, stop-the-world coverage of these events, treat them like traffic accidents: “22 people were murdered by a white supremacist terrorist in an El Paso Wal-Mart this afternoon. Now here’s Bob with the weather.”
Gun buyback programs are 1 kind of medicine. Some people won’t take it, but we should try. Maybe we can institute some kind of guns-for-Medicare program (only sorta joking).
Gun control legislation is the inoculation. I don’t think we can get to full-on prohibition in the US without repealing the 2nd amendment, but we can implement licensing and registration requirements and longer waiting periods.
We also need to improve the existing systems. The ATF has a “gun registry”, but it’s not a searchable database. See https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database...
I think the quarantine is for information in this case. Instead of breathless, stop-the-world coverage of these events, treat them like traffic accidents: “22 people were murdered by a white supremacist terrorist in an El Paso Wal-Mart this afternoon. Now here’s Bob with the weather.”
Gun buyback programs are 1 kind of medicine. Some people won’t take it, but we should try. Maybe we can institute some kind of guns-for-Medicare program (only sorta joking).
Gun control legislation is the inoculation. I don’t think we can get to full-on prohibition in the US without repealing the 2nd amendment, but we can implement licensing and registration requirements and longer waiting periods.
We also need to improve the existing systems. The ATF has a “gun registry”, but it’s not a searchable database. See https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database...
I agree with your first two points. Point 3 I have sort of fussy disagreements with (firearms have value, buybacks tend to short change this value, and overarching tend to target already poor folks).
4. What good does registration do? Like, awesome, now you have a database with all the gun owners in it.. but for the purpose of stopping mass shooters how does that help you? Likewise, what licensing requirement do you foresee which will help with (1)?
5. Again, how does this help?
4. What good does registration do? Like, awesome, now you have a database with all the gun owners in it.. but for the purpose of stopping mass shooters how does that help you? Likewise, what licensing requirement do you foresee which will help with (1)?
5. Again, how does this help?
Good points.
I’d argue that 3 is an implementation detail. If we’re serious about getting guns off the streets, then we need to make it worthwhile to trade them in.
As to 4 and 5, I’ll just say that not all shooting are “mass shootings” like we saw in El Paso. Chicago alone has something like 1500 shootings each year, many of which go unsolved. The article I linked says that the ATF gets 1000 gun trace requests per day and it takes an average of 4-7 days to compete one of them. That seems a bit slow to me, but I honestly can’t say what effect speeding that up would have on our ability to prosecute perpetrators of gun violence.
I’d argue that 3 is an implementation detail. If we’re serious about getting guns off the streets, then we need to make it worthwhile to trade them in.
As to 4 and 5, I’ll just say that not all shooting are “mass shootings” like we saw in El Paso. Chicago alone has something like 1500 shootings each year, many of which go unsolved. The article I linked says that the ATF gets 1000 gun trace requests per day and it takes an average of 4-7 days to compete one of them. That seems a bit slow to me, but I honestly can’t say what effect speeding that up would have on our ability to prosecute perpetrators of gun violence.
It's strange that everyone brings up symptoms of poor education and healthcare. Racism, violence, shootings, these are all symptoms of lacking infrastructure. I feel like banning 8chan, instituting stricter gun policy, it's all bandages on a deeper wound.
If the ATF has a gun registry with names of owners, it would be in violation of the law. There are only a couple of ways that it can be done: first by capturing and retaining information called in for NCIS check (against the law) for form 4473, and the other by sending people out to photocopy and enter data into registry of firearm sales log at gun store (I believe this is also illegal).
Do you agree with the law prohibiting the maintenance of an up to date and accurate gun ownership registry?
I absolutely do agree with that law. Why? Because maintaining an ownership registry makes it too tempting for big brother to begin confiscation.
We require licenses to prove people are competent to operate a motor vehicle and we require most motor vehicles to be registered. Yet, car confiscation isn’t a huge issue in this country.
That's because no one seriously wants to confiscate cars.
Got it. So we managed to find out footing on that’s slippery slope somehow. Why can’t that happen with guns?
In fact, some states already have licensing and registration laws for guns and they’ve also managed to not tumble down that slippery slope.
I‘ll grant that some people do want to confiscate guns, but that’s not a popular view. See https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx.
In fact, some states already have licensing and registration laws for guns and they’ve also managed to not tumble down that slippery slope.
I‘ll grant that some people do want to confiscate guns, but that’s not a popular view. See https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx.
No one is saying its coincidence. But is Europe without those same issues? No depression? No political polarization or social isolation? No news, no social media? The problems you describe aren't unique to the US. What is unique is the ease of access to firearms. Conversely, you are the one who is assuming that the vast difference in access to guns correlating to the vast difference in gun violence is simply a coincidence around the world today.
I think it isn't absurd today that poor mental health, social isolation, and digital media consumption is making certain segments of the population more likely to violently lash out, and for the countries which afford these people easy access to firearms, the cost will be orders of magnitude higher.
I think it isn't absurd today that poor mental health, social isolation, and digital media consumption is making certain segments of the population more likely to violently lash out, and for the countries which afford these people easy access to firearms, the cost will be orders of magnitude higher.
You can have more than one problem. Think of it like a post mortem. Don't just look for root cause hut also think about mitigating factors. Solve for as many as possible.
Even if you don't accept easy access to firearms as the root cause, it's definitely a factor. You don't kill 21 people with rocks and sticks.
Even if you don't accept easy access to firearms as the root cause, it's definitely a factor. You don't kill 21 people with rocks and sticks.
In 2014, 29 people were killed in an attack with knives (multiple attackers). In 1927, 38 children were killed in a school bombing in Michigan. There was a sarin gas attack in Japan that killed many. There are also numerous examples where many have been killed by fire.
It's naive and wrong to assume that there would be no mass killings without guns. There would likely be less, but it wouldn't be 0. Before anyone counters me with "we should prohibit all guns because it will prevent some mass killings", we still have 2nd amendment.
It's naive and wrong to assume that there would be no mass killings without guns. There would likely be less, but it wouldn't be 0. Before anyone counters me with "we should prohibit all guns because it will prevent some mass killings", we still have 2nd amendment.
No but you can do so very easily with fire, a car or a trivial fertilizer bomb.
Then why don't they? It's just as easy, right? Just as effective, if not more so? You're making a supposition that the perpetrators would switch but in order for that to be considered in our post mortem, you need to provide evidence to support the argument
More important, as it's not a factor in the current incident, it's irrelevant.
More important, as it's not a factor in the current incident, it's irrelevant.
Do you remember the anime studio attack less than a month ago that killed more people than these last two killers put together? That was done with only a gas tank and lighter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack as an example found in seconds.
> More important, as it's not a factor in the current incident, it's irrelevant.
Well now that seems like a bad faith kind of argument. Since none of us have a time machine, surely our intent is to solve potential future issues and not go back and change the past?
> More important, as it's not a factor in the current incident, it's irrelevant.
Well now that seems like a bad faith kind of argument. Since none of us have a time machine, surely our intent is to solve potential future issues and not go back and change the past?
That's not how a post mortem works. You want to identify the root cause of an incident and any factors that increased the impact or prolong the incident. Solving for every possible scenario is how you end up solving for nothing. Playing the "what if?" game leads to an infinite set of potential problems and time, being finite, means you can never succeed
When we've solved for the current problem, we can address the next worst thing. We won't know what that is until it happens.
We could also solve for knife and sword attacks because there was that one time in Japan where someone murdered a bunch of kids or chainsaws because of that other one time that guy had a chainsaw but we do more by staying focused.
When we've solved for the current problem, we can address the next worst thing. We won't know what that is until it happens.
We could also solve for knife and sword attacks because there was that one time in Japan where someone murdered a bunch of kids or chainsaws because of that other one time that guy had a chainsaw but we do more by staying focused.
This isn't a service we can restart and try again on. Unlike software issues, you can't assign attacks into single-fault instances and go case-by-case. One attack does not indicate another, nor is it a template. We're dealing with a hydra, not a dragon - "fixing" one attack doesn't alter future ones just as preventing a single incidence of cancer doesn't fix cancer.
Historically bombings and arsons have always been a major problem, eg the Bath School Bombing. Car attacks are new-ish but rising. Shootings are an American phenomenon, but massacres are not.
We should not solve for shootings, we're just pouring the acid into a different jar. We should solve for massacres.
Historically bombings and arsons have always been a major problem, eg the Bath School Bombing. Car attacks are new-ish but rising. Shootings are an American phenomenon, but massacres are not.
We should not solve for shootings, we're just pouring the acid into a different jar. We should solve for massacres.
So if you can't solve for everything, you can't solve for anything? Gun massacres, in this country are on the rise. What else is and at what rate? You're arguing assumptions when we have facts and we can try to do something about facts.
You're right, we can't restart this service. These people are dead. They were shot. To death. We can never solve their problem but if we don't learn from it and try _something_ then we can't avoid the same thing from happening again. And again. And again. And again. (Repeat a few hundred times.)
But don't let me stop you. Solve for allthethings and let us know when you're done. In the meantime, a bunch of us are going to fight to solve for this current problem.
You're right, we can't restart this service. These people are dead. They were shot. To death. We can never solve their problem but if we don't learn from it and try _something_ then we can't avoid the same thing from happening again. And again. And again. And again. (Repeat a few hundred times.)
But don't let me stop you. Solve for allthethings and let us know when you're done. In the meantime, a bunch of us are going to fight to solve for this current problem.
I feel like you're taking the wrong conclusion here. Perhaps modern society and guns being widely accessible don't mix. Other countries took measures when the problem became apparent, the US didn't.
2 things: other countries don't have 2nd amendment in constitution, and US doesn't pretend to be the same as all the other countries.
> other countries don't have 2nd amendment in constitution
Changes to the constitution can and do happen. And it's kind of beside the point anyway because a degree of gun control already exists in the US without being in conflict with the constitution.
> US doesn't pretend to be the same as all the other countries
Clearly. You're also the only one where this is such a problem.
Changes to the constitution can and do happen. And it's kind of beside the point anyway because a degree of gun control already exists in the US without being in conflict with the constitution.
> US doesn't pretend to be the same as all the other countries
Clearly. You're also the only one where this is such a problem.
You're 100% correct - changes to the constitution can happen (and have happened). It's not beside the point because any additional controls have to be weighed in the context of the 2nd amendment (as it is written and interpreted today).
The United States has more individual freedoms than most (if not all) countries. The downside of those freedoms is when individuals use their free will for evil purposes.
The United States has more individual freedoms than most (if not all) countries. The downside of those freedoms is when individuals use their free will for evil purposes.
Agreed! If a conscious decision is being made to value the ability for people to own guns in expense of frequent killings then go for it.
But it's usually phrased as "there's nothing we can do" and gun control wouldn't help, which is dishonest.
But it's usually phrased as "there's nothing we can do" and gun control wouldn't help, which is dishonest.
A Thompson was sold for around $225 in 1925, so adjusted for inflation that's roughly $3300. A good AR-15 style rifle will be around 1/3 of that, and an AK style rifle around $500.
I'm pretty sure those $225 Thompsons were fully automatic. You're not getting a full-auto AK for anywhere close to $500. Most full-auto weapons today are also in the $2000+ range.
The difference between a semi-auto AK and a full one is a very small, easily made piece of metal... Has no bearing on the cost.
It has no bearing on the manufacturing cost but it absolutely impacts the retail price.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/825012731
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/825012731
I’d strongly suggest watching John Oliver’s Aussi gun control sequel. It’s hilarious and educating (surely he’s a biased source, but at min you’ll get a good laugh)
The Internet, at least in the US and probably the world, is not a public utility. It's run by a conglomerate of private corporations that have just as much rights as an individual, at least according to US law.
Cloudflare is a CDN just like many ISP's. And ISP's have had the right to control traffic how they like for decades (within reason of course based on a stipulated contract). They do not provide journalistic services, or speech services, or editorial services. They provide infrastructure. So it's not like Facebook or Twitter which are discussion areas.
Cloudflare is a CDN just like many ISP's. And ISP's have had the right to control traffic how they like for decades (within reason of course based on a stipulated contract). They do not provide journalistic services, or speech services, or editorial services. They provide infrastructure. So it's not like Facebook or Twitter which are discussion areas.
It would be far more concerning to me if Cloudflare used this moment to express a business opinion on gun control rather than a freedom of speech/association argument to permit them to cease doing business with a group they revile.
Do I need to know Cloudflare’s opinion on gun control, religion, abortion, or any number of other irrelevant topics? Nope. Do I appreciate that they terminated 8chan? 95% yes and 5% reluctant yes. In conjunction with that, so I want to know their policy stance on freedom of content on their platform? 100% yes.
Do I need to know Cloudflare’s opinion on gun control, religion, abortion, or any number of other irrelevant topics? Nope. Do I appreciate that they terminated 8chan? 95% yes and 5% reluctant yes. In conjunction with that, so I want to know their policy stance on freedom of content on their platform? 100% yes.
cloudflare isn't in the gun business, arguably it's in the speech business. why are you disappointed that they took action over part of the problem they have control over?
Because they just influenced public discourse in a negative way. They shouldn't have taken any action now. In two month would still be time to act on this if it's still deemed the right choice then.
In two months there will have been another mass shooting. Are they then supposed to wait another 2 months before acting? Given the current state of the US, Cloudflare will never have a window where it is appropriate to do anything according to your standard.
So yes, let's all sit on our hands say there's nothing we can do and now isn't the right time to have this discussion and wonder why these tragedies continue to happen.
So yes, let's all sit on our hands say there's nothing we can do and now isn't the right time to have this discussion and wonder why these tragedies continue to happen.
Freedom of speech is not unlimited. Different countries set it in different places. In the US there aren't many limits, beyond the old "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater" thing. But in Germany you can't deny the holocaust, for instance.
Maybe we as a society need to decide that some things are just beyond the pale. Trying to indoctrinate young people into ideologies of hatred doesn't promote free and open discourse, it shuts it down. Let's just take sites like his off the Internet - nothing of value will be lost.
Maybe we as a society need to decide that some things are just beyond the pale. Trying to indoctrinate young people into ideologies of hatred doesn't promote free and open discourse, it shuts it down. Let's just take sites like his off the Internet - nothing of value will be lost.
In some parts of Europe water and electricity are considered rights, and you cannot cut off service to a home under normal circumstances.
see e.g. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/deeper-and-fairer...
see e.g. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/deeper-and-fairer...
Cloudfare didn't cut off service to a home, so you haven't provided relevant information.
> This actually happens in Europe, typically when authorities decide squatters should not be tolerated.
How often does that happen in countries where squatting itself is not illegal?
How often does that happen in countries where squatting itself is not illegal?
I'm genuinely curious in which countries squatting is not illegal.
On the other hand cutting off utility service to squatters seems like somewhat different case and another thing I'm curious about is how the squatters managed to get the service itself in the first place as that usually requires either consent and active participation of previous user at the same address or proving that you have legal right to use the property.
On the other hand cutting off utility service to squatters seems like somewhat different case and another thing I'm curious about is how the squatters managed to get the service itself in the first place as that usually requires either consent and active participation of previous user at the same address or proving that you have legal right to use the property.
In the modern era in developed countries squatting is now largely just trespassing, which is illegal, but there have been periods where that wasn't the case.
Most notably, following the two World Wars you had a large number of young men (primarily) that died overseas with corresponding effects like their family might move as a result and so on. So you had a large number of vacant properties with no clear idea if the owner was still alive or not. So squatting became a way of "solving" that problem. A squatter could get the rights to a place if they occupied it for some long period of time (typically over 10 years) if no one showed up earlier to claim ownership.
In the computerized records era, and with no mass casualties from war in developed countries, this is now relegated to an historical anachronism.
Most notably, following the two World Wars you had a large number of young men (primarily) that died overseas with corresponding effects like their family might move as a result and so on. So you had a large number of vacant properties with no clear idea if the owner was still alive or not. So squatting became a way of "solving" that problem. A squatter could get the rights to a place if they occupied it for some long period of time (typically over 10 years) if no one showed up earlier to claim ownership.
In the computerized records era, and with no mass casualties from war in developed countries, this is now relegated to an historical anachronism.
> that usually requires either consent and active participation of previous user at the same address or proving that you have legal right to use the property.
That's the key. Where I live, it only takes online applications to sign up with power companies and telcos, if infrastructure is already in place (cables laid, power meters installed, etc) and it's not associated with any active contract. After sign-up, services are remotely turned on and kept on as long as bills are being paid.
It's not up to service providers to police property rights. They own or have rights to infrastructure leading up to the final junction box and what happens downstream is not their business.
That's the key. Where I live, it only takes online applications to sign up with power companies and telcos, if infrastructure is already in place (cables laid, power meters installed, etc) and it's not associated with any active contract. After sign-up, services are remotely turned on and kept on as long as bills are being paid.
It's not up to service providers to police property rights. They own or have rights to infrastructure leading up to the final junction box and what happens downstream is not their business.
In the countries I've lived in (IT, GB), utilities are not routinely shut off when somebody leaves the premises, nor does the utility company know (or care about) who is or is not the rightful owner of a given property. As the last occupier, you just tell the company you're leaving on day X and that's it. Squatters come in and just keep using pipes, or even take out new contracts in their names.
That's a false equivocation. Squatters and offensive people are not the same.
The type of squatters that authorities take drastic action against, are typically of the "offensive" variety (far-right and far-left groups).
That's another false equivocation.
You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about.
Sure, they are free to operate as they please. And people are free to dislike the way they operate.
Plus people are also free to want to change the law and make it non-free for them to operate as they please.
And there goes freedom.
By this definition, any law destroys freedom. Every nation on the planet already operates on the premise that certain personal freedoms are regulated or restricted for the sake of societal harmony and progress. The "slippery slope" arguments either ignore the fact that we already make the same compromises all the time, or assumes all such compromise is wrong, which is a viewpoint that is so unrealistic or extreme that, at best, will never ever have support from more than a sliver of the population and will never be realized.
Well, we also don't have the freedom to murder or steal (and numerous others besides, like letting our dog crap all over the street, employ child labor, even if "consensual", and so on) So there's that.
Sure, people are free to want anything. Acting on their wants may be another thing.
Then they're not free to operate as they please.
Oh dear - no, strictly speaking, they are not. Nobody is.
> If because someone used your property for offensive purposes, the water company cut off the water supply, or the electricity company refused to provide electricity, or your phone provider cut off service or what not.
I think it's key that in this case cloudflare are actively between you and 8chan. The phone provider is the most reasonable comparison, were you able to switch provider. I wouldn't be hugely shocked if one phone company out of several options (which when you call the line occasionally puts their branding in your face) dropped you if you were running a line that read out terrorist manifestos. I'd be surprised if something similar hasn't happened.
> Because at the moment, it seems any controversy at all means losing access to anything internet related.
This is, what, the second time cloudflare have done this? That's a far cry from any controversy.
I think it's key that in this case cloudflare are actively between you and 8chan. The phone provider is the most reasonable comparison, were you able to switch provider. I wouldn't be hugely shocked if one phone company out of several options (which when you call the line occasionally puts their branding in your face) dropped you if you were running a line that read out terrorist manifestos. I'd be surprised if something similar hasn't happened.
> Because at the moment, it seems any controversy at all means losing access to anything internet related.
This is, what, the second time cloudflare have done this? That's a far cry from any controversy.
What’s wrong with hosting a manifesto?
Getting insight into the state of mind of such an individual seems valuable, no?
What’s wrong with hosting a manifesto? It should be blindingly obvious: when they spread extremism and terrorism like a virus, there’s plenty wrong.
It might make the tiniest bit of sense if we were collectively able to do something preventative about mass murders before they happened by using that “insight”. That certainly does not seem to be happening.
No, I think the time is coming where white supremacist manifestos and the like should be actively stamped out by society.
It might make the tiniest bit of sense if we were collectively able to do something preventative about mass murders before they happened by using that “insight”. That certainly does not seem to be happening.
No, I think the time is coming where white supremacist manifestos and the like should be actively stamped out by society.
>What’s wrong with hosting a manifesto? It should be blindingly obvious: when they spread extremism and terrorism like a virus, there’s plenty wrong.
Yeah, a state that is constantly in war(s), paints the target countries du jour as the enemy building racism against their citizens, tolerates torture and police shootings (letting officers that do that shit free), and is obsessed with violence and gun ownership, suddenly is worried about "spreading extremism".
Yeah, a state that is constantly in war(s), paints the target countries du jour as the enemy building racism against their citizens, tolerates torture and police shootings (letting officers that do that shit free), and is obsessed with violence and gun ownership, suddenly is worried about "spreading extremism".
Surely there is a name for this kind of logical fallacy? That a country is flawed because of "X" means that they can't be correct about "Y"? It also assumes a homogeneity among the population about all of those issues, which clearly isn't the case.
So let’s open the floodgates because some things are wrong in the world? Nah, no thanks.
No, "let's fix the way worse systemic things helping breed, nurture, and arm wackos, and then you can decide about them posting on some board".
We’re doing a bang-up job of fixing those “way worse systemic things”. How’s that working out?
I guess that's sarcasm, since I don't see anybody doing any kind of job (much less a bang-up one) of fixing those "way worse systemic things".
In light of this, worse than band-aids like "let's close the internet forums they frequent" is the new blaming heavy metal and computer games for mass shootings...
In light of this, worse than band-aids like "let's close the internet forums they frequent" is the new blaming heavy metal and computer games for mass shootings...
The United States is not homogeneous, and the current government does not reflect the will of 100% of the people.
It is entirely possible for one fraction of the population to be concerned about spreading extremism while another fraction does as you describe.
If you assume that the people of a nation stand in line behind those in charge, you will be continually surprised.
It is entirely possible for one fraction of the population to be concerned about spreading extremism while another fraction does as you describe.
If you assume that the people of a nation stand in line behind those in charge, you will be continually surprised.
So are you in favour of hunting down every copy of Mein Kampf and burning them? What about all the other things said by Hitler?
What about Stalin?
What about non-white supremacist manifestos? They do exist, you know.
How much history would you erase due to your belief that words are capable of 'infecting' (presumably) lesser minds?
There's no evidence that manifestos spread "extremism and terrorism like a virus". Words are not able to infect people against their will. There are only ideas, and they can only be fought with reflection, more words and more ideas.
In the end, white supremacists and other kinds of supremacists existed before the internet. By supporting China-style censorship you're not actually eliminating those ideas, or even stopping their spread.
What about Stalin?
What about non-white supremacist manifestos? They do exist, you know.
How much history would you erase due to your belief that words are capable of 'infecting' (presumably) lesser minds?
There's no evidence that manifestos spread "extremism and terrorism like a virus". Words are not able to infect people against their will. There are only ideas, and they can only be fought with reflection, more words and more ideas.
In the end, white supremacists and other kinds of supremacists existed before the internet. By supporting China-style censorship you're not actually eliminating those ideas, or even stopping their spread.
> In the end, white supremacists and other kinds of supremacists existed before the internet. By supporting China-style censorship you're not actually eliminating those ideas, or even stopping their spread.
They existed before the internet, but the internet has given them a tool to organize that they didn't have before. And by censoring them online effectively, you take this tool away from them.
Which is exactly what happens in China. I am sure Chinese officials know ideas and philosophies spread on the mainland, but as long as the people who believe in those ideas and philosophies can't organize effectively then they can be controlled.
They existed before the internet, but the internet has given them a tool to organize that they didn't have before. And by censoring them online effectively, you take this tool away from them.
Which is exactly what happens in China. I am sure Chinese officials know ideas and philosophies spread on the mainland, but as long as the people who believe in those ideas and philosophies can't organize effectively then they can be controlled.
Yes, let's be more like China! I'm looking forward to requiring loyalty oaths from our many religious groups. Where do you think we should put the reeducation camps?
Edit: in a less sarcastic way, a government can accomplish quite a bit if it has no concern for the rights of its citizens. There is a reason we don't do this kind of thing in the West; it's a good reason and it's one that China will eventually learn the hard way.
Edit: in a less sarcastic way, a government can accomplish quite a bit if it has no concern for the rights of its citizens. There is a reason we don't do this kind of thing in the West; it's a good reason and it's one that China will eventually learn the hard way.
I never said we should be more like China. I just said that internet censorship can prevent extremist groups from organizing (which it can).
> I just said that internet censorship can prevent extremist groups from organizing (which it can).
That's exactly what China does, for their definition of extremist.
But, of course, that could never happen in the US, right? I mean, it's about as likely as a bombastic demagogue being elected to the presidency. /s
That's exactly what China does, for their definition of extremist.
But, of course, that could never happen in the US, right? I mean, it's about as likely as a bombastic demagogue being elected to the presidency. /s
> Words are not able to infect people against their will.
... are you kidding?
... are you kidding?
The idea that words can control people's minds against their will is the stuff of sci-fi and fantasy stories, not reality. As observed in a reply, it's literally the Jedi Mind Trick. Where did you get the idea it's real?
You can probably mitigate their spread. However, as the poster does seem to want Chinese-style authoritarianism, I can only conclude they have limited experience of what that looks like in reality.
As an aside, I've defended certain versions of democratic socialism (though I'm not a fan of it) to some of my friends that are recent immigrants from China (having worked grown up there and worked in the corporate world). All of them think capitalism and Western democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
As an aside, I've defended certain versions of democratic socialism (though I'm not a fan of it) to some of my friends that are recent immigrants from China (having worked grown up there and worked in the corporate world). All of them think capitalism and Western democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The people you know from China are a highly biased sample, most Chinese are very happy with the way China is run.
[deleted]
If that's your goal you need to put it in context, like what museums and libraries do. When mixed inbetween memes, there's no context. It's just vitriol being spread
It's not about the manifesto: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2019/08/04/the-el-p...
Maybe to you and me, but we're not its target audience. Its target audience is other 8chan users, some of which might be just a step away from committing such atrocities themselves.
And not seeing the manifesto will stop them, right?
Sounds like a genius plan.
Don't ban easy access to guns, don't change a crazy individualistic/every man for themselves/violence loving culture.
Just hide the manifestos, that should work.
(Cue the "one doesn't prevent us doing the other" answers).
Sounds like a genius plan.
Don't ban easy access to guns, don't change a crazy individualistic/every man for themselves/violence loving culture.
Just hide the manifestos, that should work.
(Cue the "one doesn't prevent us doing the other" answers).
It's not just the manifesto. Places like 8chan are positive feedback generators for this kind of extremism. Every time one of these events happen it fuels the sort of unofficial contest to see who can be the next one, to be the next hero/martyr of the community. Easy access to guns is certainly a problem, but easy access to these radicalization factories is also a significant component that needs to be addressed.
Where did I claim it's the only thing needed to stop a person like that?
You gotta start somewhere. This is a nice and easy way to do that's completely within the reach of the tech community. There are no laws requiring that, just a sign of a good will.
If it were up to me, Cloudflare would block at least 30 other websites, starting with Gab. Unfortunately, it takes a shooting or two for them to realize that they have a problem with a client of theirs.
You gotta start somewhere. This is a nice and easy way to do that's completely within the reach of the tech community. There are no laws requiring that, just a sign of a good will.
If it were up to me, Cloudflare would block at least 30 other websites, starting with Gab. Unfortunately, it takes a shooting or two for them to realize that they have a problem with a client of theirs.
>Where did I claim it's the only thing needed to stop a person like that?
Nowhere, but I already covered that.
I wrote "(Cue the "[doing this] doesn't prevent us doing the other" answers)".
Nowhere, but I already covered that.
I wrote "(Cue the "[doing this] doesn't prevent us doing the other" answers)".
Giving hate manifestos easy access to a global audience can help get more people killed.
As a private company, as long as they are not a monopoly or a quasi monopoly(), they can do what they want, no restriction.
() My personnal definition is a minimum of 4-6 participant in any market with at least 5%-10% share each (Exemple : France has some of the lowest mobile telephony fares in the world, because there are 4 "biggish" providers (one is over 50%), and they are often trying to merge "to regain pricing power", luckilly they have so far failed. 3 can somewhat manage a cartel, 4 seems to be much harder.).
() My personnal definition is a minimum of 4-6 participant in any market with at least 5%-10% share each (Exemple : France has some of the lowest mobile telephony fares in the world, because there are 4 "biggish" providers (one is over 50%), and they are often trying to merge "to regain pricing power", luckilly they have so far failed. 3 can somewhat manage a cartel, 4 seems to be much harder.).
The dumb pipe is DNS + ip routing. No one wants to share or sell their smart pipes (CDN, analytics, cloud platform, etc.) into a powder keg.
> Imagine if real life utilities did this
TV & Radio platforms have declined to provide amplification to numerous fringe ideas / platforms over the years. As a direct "knowledge/information utility" that corollary carries the most weight for me.
But again, DNS is the real "utility" or "road" to me here -- Cloudflare et al are hotels along the road, and private property holders have declined to house people since the inception of private property. There's nothing to prevent 8chan from delivering it's message; but they may have to be careful with their biz. relationships, which is a lesson they should have been learning for years.
> Imagine if real life utilities did this
TV & Radio platforms have declined to provide amplification to numerous fringe ideas / platforms over the years. As a direct "knowledge/information utility" that corollary carries the most weight for me.
But again, DNS is the real "utility" or "road" to me here -- Cloudflare et al are hotels along the road, and private property holders have declined to house people since the inception of private property. There's nothing to prevent 8chan from delivering it's message; but they may have to be careful with their biz. relationships, which is a lesson they should have been learning for years.
Why is a CDN a "smart pipe" but DNS is not? That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me.
Is the internet not a "knowledge/information utility"? Do CDNs not provide critical protection against DDOS attacks? How then does denying service not "prevent 8chan from delivering it's message"?
Is the internet not a "knowledge/information utility"? Do CDNs not provide critical protection against DDOS attacks? How then does denying service not "prevent 8chan from delivering it's message"?
CDNs are not the only way to provide protection against DDOS, they're a packaged offering combining multiple technologies but there's nothing preventing you from running geolocated servers, on multiple providers, with ddos mitigation you buy/build yourself. Blocking at the DNS layer (through multi-party action I guess) is going to be an insurmountable hurdle. Wanting cloudflare or any other company to offer you prerolled infrastructure as a right is ludicrous. This distinction is anything but arbitrary.
Maybe not strictly insurmountable. But building your own massively distributed infrastructure capable of resisting DDOS attacks is expensive. Perhaps prohibitively so, depending on the size of your budget.
You could just as easily argue that since DNS blocks can technically be overcome by directing users to a specific IP address, or by using an alternate name server infrastructure like Namecoin, that DNS isn't critical.
In my opinion, the distinction is rather blurry.
You could just as easily argue that since DNS blocks can technically be overcome by directing users to a specific IP address, or by using an alternate name server infrastructure like Namecoin, that DNS isn't critical.
In my opinion, the distinction is rather blurry.
I always find the utility comparison an interesting one. If the water supply was poisoned, would you expect the utility company to cut your supply until it could be cleaned? If they could cut it off closer to the source of the poison so you weren't affected, would you prefer that?
You don't expect 1000V from your electricity company. You don't expect arsenic from your water utility. You expect the fcc no-call list to be honored. Very few utilities are truly dumb pipes.
(Not trying to draw the obvious comparison between 8chan & arsenic. Just that I think when we're holding "dumb pipes" up as a holy grail, it'd be worth remembering that the holy grail is a myth.)
You don't expect 1000V from your electricity company. You don't expect arsenic from your water utility. You expect the fcc no-call list to be honored. Very few utilities are truly dumb pipes.
(Not trying to draw the obvious comparison between 8chan & arsenic. Just that I think when we're holding "dumb pipes" up as a holy grail, it'd be worth remembering that the holy grail is a myth.)
I don't understand how any of that relates to what Cloudflare is doing here. 8Chan isn't poisoning the water supply or back-feeding 1000V into the electrical grid; they're just making normal use of Cloudflare's service just like any other customer.
Are you implying that ISPs are sending arsenic down my pipes when they service my request to load a web page from 8Chan? In that case, I'd argue that the websites I choose to visit are entirely my decision, and my ISP denying my request to connect to 8Chan would not improve their quality of service to me in any way.
Are you implying that ISPs are sending arsenic down my pipes when they service my request to load a web page from 8Chan? In that case, I'd argue that the websites I choose to visit are entirely my decision, and my ISP denying my request to connect to 8Chan would not improve their quality of service to me in any way.
I was more aiming at the dumb pipe analogy than this specific instance. Kinda "be careful what you wish for". When people say they want the internet to be a Utility, they overlook a lot of what they're asking for. They're not dumb pipes, they're heavily controlled, regulated, measured & metered infrastructure. Making the internet a utility would have far, far more effect than adding consumer protections to the last mile.
> Feels like no one online wants to just provide a 'dumb pipe', and always want to act like a pseudo publisher trying to dictate what's allowed and what isn't.
Sites like 8chan, Hacker news, etc are publishers, and I think it's reasonable if the service providers that disagree with their content don't want to do business with them.
A proper analogy (IMO), would be if a newspaper was printing hate speech and the company that prints the newspaper refused to do business with them. That would be perfectly acceptable, and has nothing to do with the government protected free speech. People aren't robots (or dumb pipes) after all, and if they don't want to enable/support what they see as a morally reprehensible enterprise with their work that is their right.
> any controversy at all means losing access to anything internet related
Giving a platform for manifestos that are propagating violence and mass shootings should not be dismissed as "any controversy at all." It feels like you are trying to minimize what happened here.
Sites like 8chan, Hacker news, etc are publishers, and I think it's reasonable if the service providers that disagree with their content don't want to do business with them.
A proper analogy (IMO), would be if a newspaper was printing hate speech and the company that prints the newspaper refused to do business with them. That would be perfectly acceptable, and has nothing to do with the government protected free speech. People aren't robots (or dumb pipes) after all, and if they don't want to enable/support what they see as a morally reprehensible enterprise with their work that is their right.
> any controversy at all means losing access to anything internet related
Giving a platform for manifestos that are propagating violence and mass shootings should not be dismissed as "any controversy at all." It feels like you are trying to minimize what happened here.
> Imagine if real life utilities did this.
Instead of making me imagine the entire premise of your argument, maybe reason for why Cloudflare's services should be regulated as a utility, and convince me that it is at all comparable to drinking water and electricity.
Personally, on a list representing my hierarchy of needs, CDNs and clean drinking water end up on the opposite far ends.
Instead of making me imagine the entire premise of your argument, maybe reason for why Cloudflare's services should be regulated as a utility, and convince me that it is at all comparable to drinking water and electricity.
Personally, on a list representing my hierarchy of needs, CDNs and clean drinking water end up on the opposite far ends.
These scums don't deserve water let alone internet access.
I don't understand this free speach absolutism. If we can't agree that encouraging people to commit killings should not be allowed then what the fuck
I don't understand this free speach absolutism. If we can't agree that encouraging people to commit killings should not be allowed then what the fuck
Agreed. The sort of radicalization that's going on at 8chan and the like serve no legitimate public interest. Think I'm wrong? Then explain to me why this sort of online domestic terrorism academy is good for the public. Explain how any single person improves the world by participating in it.
It seems like having a known honeypot to capture conversations of would be evil doers would be much better than to further force them underground into the likes of Tor. Who is going to be able to mine conversations for advanced warnings once they are there?
Also, the silencing of dissidents seems like the wrong move in general for all internet companies. The truth can tolerate being harassed, bashed and unliked. What it does not seem to do so well with is a regime that does not tolerate the free flow of ideas.
I'm okay with the very worst people posting on youtube and twitter. Those platforms can require an extra login to determine who is so interested in these videos. The removal of videos on the basis of dislike does not seem to be the solution. I'm not even certain that demonetizing them is the right answer, because even that can create a money trail for police and detectives to follow.
Also, the silencing of dissidents seems like the wrong move in general for all internet companies. The truth can tolerate being harassed, bashed and unliked. What it does not seem to do so well with is a regime that does not tolerate the free flow of ideas.
I'm okay with the very worst people posting on youtube and twitter. Those platforms can require an extra login to determine who is so interested in these videos. The removal of videos on the basis of dislike does not seem to be the solution. I'm not even certain that demonetizing them is the right answer, because even that can create a money trail for police and detectives to follow.
8chan has been a known commodity for a long time. If it was such a valuable source of intelligence, why aren't these attacks being stopped?
No, but it will be harder for the children to see it. Because a lot of those people there are children (under 18). By increasing the friction, you reduce the audience.
I understand the point you are making. However lets take a look at the following:
Cloudflare is U.S. corporation providing services to other people and companies. You have to be a member in order to use their services, so you are tied to their terms. This basically a "private" club you are joining
Cloudflare is not beholden to uphold the Constitution of the USA. They are beholden to their shareholders and the laws of the USA in order to operate as a Corporation.
Cloudflare can do what ever it wants. People and Companies do not have to use cloudflare. Boycott them, do not recommend them ever.
Now if the USA had some kind of non-profit, Nationwide Municipal ISP (fibre), for instance, the US Public Library system could be a good choice. They could offer some basic services and at the same time be the location that would protect speech/text (based on the Constitution). It's not perfect, but it's something to consider & you wouldn't be kicked off because somebody doesn't like what you are saying/producing.
Or there should be a law in the USA, stating that companies doing business in the USA cannot refuse service if they find the clients content to be offense and protected under the Constitution of the USA
Peace
Cloudflare is U.S. corporation providing services to other people and companies. You have to be a member in order to use their services, so you are tied to their terms. This basically a "private" club you are joining
Cloudflare is not beholden to uphold the Constitution of the USA. They are beholden to their shareholders and the laws of the USA in order to operate as a Corporation.
Cloudflare can do what ever it wants. People and Companies do not have to use cloudflare. Boycott them, do not recommend them ever.
Now if the USA had some kind of non-profit, Nationwide Municipal ISP (fibre), for instance, the US Public Library system could be a good choice. They could offer some basic services and at the same time be the location that would protect speech/text (based on the Constitution). It's not perfect, but it's something to consider & you wouldn't be kicked off because somebody doesn't like what you are saying/producing.
Or there should be a law in the USA, stating that companies doing business in the USA cannot refuse service if they find the clients content to be offense and protected under the Constitution of the USA
Peace
I think slippery-slope-type arguments are they, themselves a slippery slope. What if nobody ever again acts on their moral courage because they’re afraid of hypothetical bad actors abusing that precedent? Oh My! [clutches pearls] Not everything is relative, you’re not smart or ethical because you can make up hypotheticals to oppose any action. You’re just a nihilist with no grounding in reality and no value system. It’s ok to say something is bad, and then act against that bad thing. /rant
Edit: and when you do fall into that relativist trap, the bad guys win because they don’t care about any of it. They don’t worry about slippery slopes, or unintended consequences. Overthinking and other various mental masturbation by good people let’s bad people win.
Edit: and when you do fall into that relativist trap, the bad guys win because they don’t care about any of it. They don’t worry about slippery slopes, or unintended consequences. Overthinking and other various mental masturbation by good people let’s bad people win.
> real life utilities
Online services are not utilities, it's not like an ISP without competition in their area was to refuse them service. There are plenty of alternatives to CloudFlare, they're just usually not as cheap or easy to use.
Online services are not utilities, it's not like an ISP without competition in their area was to refuse them service. There are plenty of alternatives to CloudFlare, they're just usually not as cheap or easy to use.
[deleted]
I believe it's alright as long as the product isn't necessary and just value-added. In the case of Cloudflare, that's pretty clear that it's just value-added.
In the case of water supply, electricity, phone, internet service, etc... it's not just value-added, you can't function without those, there's no alternative.
In the case of water supply, electricity, phone, internet service, etc... it's not just value-added, you can't function without those, there's no alternative.
> Imagine if real life utilities did this.
Coming soon to a wrongthinker near you.
Coming soon to a wrongthinker near you.
“I may disagree with what you say but will defend with you your right to say it.”
- Voltaire
- Voltaire
Just because you recognize the right for someone to say something doesn't mean you have to help them say/publish it.
But Voltaire didn't go on to say "I also think private companies have an obligation to transmit what you say to the wider world even if they think it's bollocks."
Those always sounded like noble, wise words. And maybe they once were.
But in age when white supremacy/fascism/nazism/strongman-leader-ism is rising again, I’m no longer sure I agree with them.
But in age when white supremacy/fascism/nazism/strongman-leader-ism is rising again, I’m no longer sure I agree with them.
> I’m no longer sure I agree with them.
the problem is that the alternative is, basically, a white-list of approved ideas.
Who makes this white-list? That's the issue with wholesale censorship.
A system like that will get gamed as soon as the political winds change one way or another.
the problem is that the alternative is, basically, a white-list of approved ideas.
Who makes this white-list? That's the issue with wholesale censorship.
A system like that will get gamed as soon as the political winds change one way or another.
Exactly. It’s trivially easy to defend speech that we like. The difficult thing is defending the right to make speech the content of which we dislike or disagree with.
Particularly given that a large part of the left and of the medias uses the term "racist", "alt-right" or "facist" very liberally. Worrying about slippery slope isn't rhetorical, we can see people actively oiling up that slope right now.
I think most people can see that there's a huge gulf between "everything is lawful" and "the government regulates ideas and risks doing so in their favor".
Most people accept that you cannot say "how unfortunate it would be for him if Jack ate seafood tonight" to your Mafia henchmen. Nor can you say "we will storm parliament at dawn using these weapons" if you are part of a plot to replace the state with a capitalist anarchy.
And in the same manner, it seems that there are plenty of laws in place already against saying "if white people are to defend ourselves and survive as a race, our immune system must go to work" in an 8chan manifesto.
But that's different than saying "Jack has betrayed me", "representative democracy is defective and must be replaced by capitalist anarchy" or "the white race is superior; non-whites are traitors and should be dealt with harshly; vote for me".
(Whether a text advocates violence cannot necessarily be reduced to a few words, as I hope my first example demonstrates. The context in which the words are uttered and the interpretation the speaker can reasonably intend are relevant. Fortunately, no legal system has been replaced by a computer program, but are generally interpreted by intelligent human beings.)
Free speech absolutism was never intended by the Voltaire or the American founding fathers - as can be seen by their other actions. It is a recent populist view without warrant of careful analysis. I support free speech; but I do not support free speech absolutism.
Most people accept that you cannot say "how unfortunate it would be for him if Jack ate seafood tonight" to your Mafia henchmen. Nor can you say "we will storm parliament at dawn using these weapons" if you are part of a plot to replace the state with a capitalist anarchy.
And in the same manner, it seems that there are plenty of laws in place already against saying "if white people are to defend ourselves and survive as a race, our immune system must go to work" in an 8chan manifesto.
But that's different than saying "Jack has betrayed me", "representative democracy is defective and must be replaced by capitalist anarchy" or "the white race is superior; non-whites are traitors and should be dealt with harshly; vote for me".
(Whether a text advocates violence cannot necessarily be reduced to a few words, as I hope my first example demonstrates. The context in which the words are uttered and the interpretation the speaker can reasonably intend are relevant. Fortunately, no legal system has been replaced by a computer program, but are generally interpreted by intelligent human beings.)
Free speech absolutism was never intended by the Voltaire or the American founding fathers - as can be seen by their other actions. It is a recent populist view without warrant of careful analysis. I support free speech; but I do not support free speech absolutism.
I think it’s more like a black-list. Nazis? White supremacy? Pretty obviously black-list.
Is nazizm fine if the political winds change a bit? No, of course not.
And I’m not saying “blanket censor an understanding of these things in historical context”. That would be insane. But I am saying - just maybe, consider stopping giving free, entirely unregulated platforms for black-list extremists and terrorists to spread their message.
Is nazizm fine if the political winds change a bit? No, of course not.
And I’m not saying “blanket censor an understanding of these things in historical context”. That would be insane. But I am saying - just maybe, consider stopping giving free, entirely unregulated platforms for black-list extremists and terrorists to spread their message.
One of the shooters wasn't a white supremacist. Will you add his ideas to the blacklist too?
That shooter didn't post a manifesto to 8chan, and therefore didn't contribute to Cloudflare terminating their service, and therefore is entirely irrelevant to what is being discussed.
I disagree that this is irrelevant to find the reasons why these shootings occur.
After every tragedy people look for a scapegoat. I don't see anything worthwhile coming out of it to sanction anyone beside the perpetrators.
After every tragedy people look for a scapegoat. I don't see anything worthwhile coming out of it to sanction anyone beside the perpetrators.
Because Voltaire's age was so peaceful and didn't have those things?
(Voltaire didn't said it exactly, it's a later quote. But he said words to the same effect, and it's by itself a good quote).
(Voltaire didn't said it exactly, it's a later quote. But he said words to the same effect, and it's by itself a good quote).
Voltaire didn’t live in a time of algorithmically influenced news cycles. Things have changed a bit. He might no longer be right.
Aside from that, there's an important difference between expressing an opinion, and creating an atmosphere and culture of hate and/or violence.
There are things you're not allowed to say because they endanger lives, like threatening people, blackmailing people, or slandering people. Spreading intolerance and hatred directed at specific demographic groups has also been shown to endanger those people, so banning that is absolutely defensible.
There are things you're not allowed to say because they endanger lives, like threatening people, blackmailing people, or slandering people. Spreading intolerance and hatred directed at specific demographic groups has also been shown to endanger those people, so banning that is absolutely defensible.
>Because Voltaire's age was so peaceful and didn't have those things?
Voltaire wasn't a youth bullying youth to the point that they killed themselves.
Voltaire wasn't a man sitting in his living room sexually harassing and shaming women in an organized effort after they are selected as a target by some random person online for blocking them after receiving dick pics.
Voltaire wasn't encouraging anonymous strangers on the internet to make death threats to high profile persons.
Voltaire wasn't a youth bullying youth to the point that they killed themselves.
Voltaire wasn't a man sitting in his living room sexually harassing and shaming women in an organized effort after they are selected as a target by some random person online for blocking them after receiving dick pics.
Voltaire wasn't encouraging anonymous strangers on the internet to make death threats to high profile persons.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
And I think it’s fair to ask if those ideas, expressed hundreds of years ago, are still “100%-blanket-statement-correct”, or if they should ever be modified based on changing societal conditions.
Blind faith in a political figure from several centuries ago is, to me, as ridiculous as blind faith in an imaginary magic sky deity.
Blind faith in a political figure from several centuries ago is, to me, as ridiculous as blind faith in an imaginary magic sky deity.
You might wanna read more about the circumstances when those words were said.
Its probably problematic to be religiously dogmatic about applying quotes from historical figures from nearly three centuries ago about every possible modern context.
...this was said in reference to being able to use the powers of legislature to serve the greater good despite private interests.
It means the exact opposite of what you think it means.
It means the exact opposite of what you think it means.
Then you probably never shared these values to begin with.
Voltaire probably wasn't someone that would give up freedoms out of fear of negligent threats.
Voltaire probably wasn't someone that would give up freedoms out of fear of negligent threats.
Unless we're talking about a different Voltaire, he did precisely that many times to avoid prison and execution...
Then you know more than I do. Because he was in prison for things he said multiple times if I remember correctly. But to the topic at hand, being sanctioned because of something you said is not what I would describe as a negligent threat.
Unfortunately they have the right to say what they will. They second they stop being just words and turn in to physical actions is when there is a problem.
"I may not want you to have sex with my wife but I will defend to the death your right to do so" - Me
"any controversy at all means losing access to anything internet related"
No, no, no. Let's not put this in the box of "any controversy". This is not that.
This is people using an online forum to breed their hatred of a race of human being which led to more than one mass-shooting event and one of the providers who played a part in supporting them said enough was enough.
White supremacists/Nazis are bad. There isn't a subjective measurement of "badness" when it comes to white supremacy. It is bad. They have proven themselves to be bad. Society needs to stop being so tolerant of intolerance.
No, no, no. Let's not put this in the box of "any controversy". This is not that.
This is people using an online forum to breed their hatred of a race of human being which led to more than one mass-shooting event and one of the providers who played a part in supporting them said enough was enough.
White supremacists/Nazis are bad. There isn't a subjective measurement of "badness" when it comes to white supremacy. It is bad. They have proven themselves to be bad. Society needs to stop being so tolerant of intolerance.
This is one of the most disturbing things I've read this year. Now I definitely do not feel like any of my sites are safe on cloudflare.
I would appreciate even more transparency details to be published. When talking about cloudflare following the rule of law - will you all be more specific about which countries and which locales?
There are rules in the UK I have read about that people wanted to bust through cloudflare to get to people.
Will the countries that have anti-gay laws be included in this rule of law thing? What about ones that have laws about sex info? How about religions?
How many people need to be up in arms about something before cloudflare ejects something? If we get enough of religion A to be angry about the lawless killing espoused in Religion B's texts - can we get all of the various religious sites ejected?
To read that this is all going on with cloudflare is terrible - but I am glad you all decided to share that you have also monitoring web site content and sending information to multiple law enforcement agencies as well.
I'm shocked, but not surprised at this point. As soon as stormer was removed you changed from being a dumb pipe infrastructure company into one that can eject and censor at will. It's been rolling down that hill ever since it seems.
Cloudflare has really opened the floodgates to be used for additional censoring by many other groups and gov agencies at this point.
The internet needs more anti-ddos options aside from this has been company.
I have personally suffered months of agony from people using 4chan in the past, but I would not ask internet companies to shut them down. Around that time is when I started looking for a service like cloudflare. It was too easy to dox and ddos - cloudflare helped.
Are you guys also going to pull service for blackhat hacker forums? I've suffered from posts on those as well.
There will likely be an 18chan dot com and a 818chan dot com and a blackerhatter dot net and a... I look forward to an updating listing of sites that are not reachable via the cloudflare internet in various places.
I would appreciate even more transparency details to be published. When talking about cloudflare following the rule of law - will you all be more specific about which countries and which locales?
There are rules in the UK I have read about that people wanted to bust through cloudflare to get to people.
Will the countries that have anti-gay laws be included in this rule of law thing? What about ones that have laws about sex info? How about religions?
How many people need to be up in arms about something before cloudflare ejects something? If we get enough of religion A to be angry about the lawless killing espoused in Religion B's texts - can we get all of the various religious sites ejected?
To read that this is all going on with cloudflare is terrible - but I am glad you all decided to share that you have also monitoring web site content and sending information to multiple law enforcement agencies as well.
I'm shocked, but not surprised at this point. As soon as stormer was removed you changed from being a dumb pipe infrastructure company into one that can eject and censor at will. It's been rolling down that hill ever since it seems.
Cloudflare has really opened the floodgates to be used for additional censoring by many other groups and gov agencies at this point.
The internet needs more anti-ddos options aside from this has been company.
I have personally suffered months of agony from people using 4chan in the past, but I would not ask internet companies to shut them down. Around that time is when I started looking for a service like cloudflare. It was too easy to dox and ddos - cloudflare helped.
Are you guys also going to pull service for blackhat hacker forums? I've suffered from posts on those as well.
There will likely be an 18chan dot com and a 818chan dot com and a blackerhatter dot net and a... I look forward to an updating listing of sites that are not reachable via the cloudflare internet in various places.
"Now I definitely do not feel like any of my sites are safe on cloudflare."
Now I definitely have some idea, what your sites are all about ;-)
Now I definitely have some idea, what your sites are all about ;-)
>Are you guys also going to pull service for blackhat hacker forums? I've suffered from posts on those as well.
They have done this several times in the past, but don’t talk about it publicly.
>As soon as stormer was removed you changed from being a dumb pipe infrastructure company into one that can eject and censor at will.
So what makes the nazis special to you? Cloudflare had banned many other sites prior to that.
They have done this several times in the past, but don’t talk about it publicly.
>As soon as stormer was removed you changed from being a dumb pipe infrastructure company into one that can eject and censor at will.
So what makes the nazis special to you? Cloudflare had banned many other sites prior to that.
oh, I did not know. It's not the nazis were special, that was the first take down that I was aware of - so to me that take down was the crack in the damn that would make it so all the other groups around the world could now point fingers and say take down 'xyz' and 'abc' because you can do it, that proves that you can.
> As soon as stormer was removed you changed from being a dumb pipe infrastructure company into one that can eject and censor at will.
You're defending the Daily Stormer, do I read that correctly?
> I look forward to an updating listing of sites that are not reachable via the cloudflare internet in various places.
Cloudflare is not "the Internet". If Stormer or 8chan get kicked off of them, you can still access them if they find an upstream provider - which Stormer managed to do and 8chan likely will, too.
> Are you guys also going to pull service for blackhat hacker forums? I've suffered from posts on those as well.
I would seriously hope that this happens rather sooner than later.
You're defending the Daily Stormer, do I read that correctly?
> I look forward to an updating listing of sites that are not reachable via the cloudflare internet in various places.
Cloudflare is not "the Internet". If Stormer or 8chan get kicked off of them, you can still access them if they find an upstream provider - which Stormer managed to do and 8chan likely will, too.
> Are you guys also going to pull service for blackhat hacker forums? I've suffered from posts on those as well.
I would seriously hope that this happens rather sooner than later.
You're defending the Daily Stormer,
do I read that correctly?
stevenicr is referring to Cloudflare's values of "total content neutrality" [1] where they argued they were similar to a 'common carrier' and should provide services to everyone, like a phone company or mail service would.
Such values have been articulated by Cloudflare's CEO himself [2].
Hence, the DDoS protection service would protect the Taliban, child pornographers, stolen credit card sellers, DDoS-as-a-service providers and, yes, neo-nazis. So this policy had odious consequences, but was at least consistent and clearly articulated.
The new policy seems a lot less clear - drop service to neo-nazis, by all means. But why haven't they dropped the Taliban and paedophiles and DDoS providers and carders at the same time?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloudflare&oldid=... [2] https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-and-free-speech/
> stevenicr is referring to Cloudflare's values of "total content neutrality" [1] where they argued they were similar to a 'common carrier' and should provide services to everyone, like a phone company or mail service would.
...in the US
All of these free speech arguments need to be really clear that they're talking about the extremist version of freedom of speech used in the US.
Other countries have postal services and phone companies that place limits on what can be sent over them.
...in the US
All of these free speech arguments need to be really clear that they're talking about the extremist version of freedom of speech used in the US.
Other countries have postal services and phone companies that place limits on what can be sent over them.
> You're defending the Daily Stormer, do I read that correctly?
I don't think that's a fair reading of it - he's attacking CloudFlare's decision to remove it, not defending the Daily Stormer per se (in a "I will defend to the death your right to say it" sort of way was my reading of it).
I don't think that's a fair reading of it - he's attacking CloudFlare's decision to remove it, not defending the Daily Stormer per se (in a "I will defend to the death your right to say it" sort of way was my reading of it).
> we draw the line at platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design
What does "lawless by design" mean?
What does "lawless by design" mean?
> What does "lawless by design" mean?
It's a euphemism for sites that are not censored and still allow free speech. Matthew Prince used to support freedom of speech but he's abandoned that concept a while back.
It's a euphemism for sites that are not censored and still allow free speech. Matthew Prince used to support freedom of speech but he's abandoned that concept a while back.
4chan banned some of its more disgusting users, and they migrated to 8chan. By design it is a hate-speech echo chamber (aka "free speech zone")
8chan claims not to be able to ban content because of the way they are set up, as such they have no real control even over people running pedo boards.
That is pretty obviously 'lawless by design'.
That is pretty obviously 'lawless by design'.
> 8chan claims not to be able to ban content because of the way they are set up
How is this implemented?
How is this implemented?
> How is this implemented?
By throwing up their hands and claiming that it's too hard to implement.
8ch is not running a highly sophisticated software stack. (Quite honestly, their code [1] is pretty terrible -- it's a bunch of frameworkless, hacked-together PHP.) Nothing about their setup is especially elaborate or unusual; at best, "we can't ban content" is an admission of their incompetence.
[1]: https://github.com/OpenIB/OpenIB
By throwing up their hands and claiming that it's too hard to implement.
8ch is not running a highly sophisticated software stack. (Quite honestly, their code [1] is pretty terrible -- it's a bunch of frameworkless, hacked-together PHP.) Nothing about their setup is especially elaborate or unusual; at best, "we can't ban content" is an admission of their incompetence.
[1]: https://github.com/OpenIB/OpenIB
The only people that can ban content are the board owners.
Sure I imagine they could go db diving and ban content manually, but they don't want to.
Sure I imagine they could go db diving and ban content manually, but they don't want to.
8chan was created to provide a platform for content that wouldn't be accepted else where.
The best argument I’ve heard for being a free speech absolutist is that speech is the highest form of thought in Humans. We think via dialogue. We arrive at the truth via dialogue.
Criminalizing free speech limits our ability to think and arrive at the truth, and that can’t be good for anyone long term.
I haven’t heard of a good rebuttal to the above reasoning.
Criminalizing free speech limits our ability to think and arrive at the truth, and that can’t be good for anyone long term.
I haven’t heard of a good rebuttal to the above reasoning.
To extend your metaphor, imagine that part of humanity's brain is engaged in thinking about the abduction and exploitation of children. Another part is lionizing mass murderers and advocating for copy cats. A different part of the brain is contemplating the state of the art for financial and cyber crimes etc.
If you come to believe that the time humanity's brain spends occupied with these pursuits leads to negative real world consequences then I don't think the argument you've presented is very compelling. Put another way, if I were someone's therapist and my patient confided in me that, the more time he spends thinking about shooting up his school, the more he feels like actually doing it - I might advise him to spend less time thinking about shooting up the school. If I had the power, I might forbid him from thinking about it at all.
Really, what, but the amusement of edgy people, does humanity gain from entertaining these dark conversations? Perhaps such conversations play a role in the detection or prevention of bad outcomes. For example, police detectives are sometimes taught to identify with the criminal to understand their behavior, and so maybe having access to dark thoughts would help in that regard.
To me, the question of moderation hinges on whether you think permitting speech will be, on net, positive or negative. I don't have data or solid evidence - but I do have intuitions.
If you come to believe that the time humanity's brain spends occupied with these pursuits leads to negative real world consequences then I don't think the argument you've presented is very compelling. Put another way, if I were someone's therapist and my patient confided in me that, the more time he spends thinking about shooting up his school, the more he feels like actually doing it - I might advise him to spend less time thinking about shooting up the school. If I had the power, I might forbid him from thinking about it at all.
Really, what, but the amusement of edgy people, does humanity gain from entertaining these dark conversations? Perhaps such conversations play a role in the detection or prevention of bad outcomes. For example, police detectives are sometimes taught to identify with the criminal to understand their behavior, and so maybe having access to dark thoughts would help in that regard.
To me, the question of moderation hinges on whether you think permitting speech will be, on net, positive or negative. I don't have data or solid evidence - but I do have intuitions.
I hear you, the problem is the Catholic Church had intuitions about whether the earth revolves around the sun was positive or negative, too. Dangerous ideas come in all shapes and sizes; but on the whole are less dangerous than someone deciding which is which.
That’s a good point. Thoughts can be dangerous. My post only works if you have a bias against thought-crime.
As an aside, if someone’s thoughts are ill-intentioned, you should be able to dispel them by forcing an honest examination of everything.
As an aside, if someone’s thoughts are ill-intentioned, you should be able to dispel them by forcing an honest examination of everything.
> As an aside, if someone’s thoughts are ill-intentioned, you should be able to dispel them by forcing an honest examination of everything.
Unfortunately the human brain doesn't work that way. It tends to resist new information -- even if logically presented and supported by hard evidence -- that contradicts its world view.
And I'm not even talking about people who suffer from some sort of mental illness, or who are poorly educated, or anything of that nature. Everyone's brain works this way.
Unfortunately the human brain doesn't work that way. It tends to resist new information -- even if logically presented and supported by hard evidence -- that contradicts its world view.
And I'm not even talking about people who suffer from some sort of mental illness, or who are poorly educated, or anything of that nature. Everyone's brain works this way.
> Really, what, but the amusement of edgy people, does humanity gain from entertaining these dark conversations
I write short stories, some are EXTREMELY dark. None deal with murder but I have done a rape story... well the two were lovers and he thought she wanted to be raped, so he did it. But still very dark no?
I write short stories, some are EXTREMELY dark. None deal with murder but I have done a rape story... well the two were lovers and he thought she wanted to be raped, so he did it. But still very dark no?
> None deal with murder
Wait I was wrong, of course I've done murder in shorts, but not for years and years.
Wait I was wrong, of course I've done murder in shorts, but not for years and years.
Free speech shouldn’t be criminalized.
But, neither does anyone have a right to an audience. And that’s what this is really about. Cloudflare is not depriving 8chan of their freedom of speech; they are just declining to assist 8chan in finding an audience.
I also disagree that speech is the highest form of thought in humans, but that is a sort of a side topic.
But, neither does anyone have a right to an audience. And that’s what this is really about. Cloudflare is not depriving 8chan of their freedom of speech; they are just declining to assist 8chan in finding an audience.
I also disagree that speech is the highest form of thought in humans, but that is a sort of a side topic.
> But, neither does anyone have a right to an audience.
Free speech includes the right to be heard.
That's why the government is allowed to kick you out of political rallies/meetings if you're just there to protest or whatever; you're not allowed to try to shout over someone else to prevent them from talking, rather if you disagree with them then you need to go find your own followers to try to convince.
edit: To all the people downvoting me, do you not realize I'm literally just paraphrasing the relevant supreme court ruling?: https://www.thefire.org/say-it-again-for-the-people-in-the-b...
Free speech includes the right to be heard.
That's why the government is allowed to kick you out of political rallies/meetings if you're just there to protest or whatever; you're not allowed to try to shout over someone else to prevent them from talking, rather if you disagree with them then you need to go find your own followers to try to convince.
edit: To all the people downvoting me, do you not realize I'm literally just paraphrasing the relevant supreme court ruling?: https://www.thefire.org/say-it-again-for-the-people-in-the-b...
This has nothing to do with the right to be heard. In this case, it'd be about requiring CloudFlare to _assist_ 8chan in _being_ heard. And there's no such right, or ruling.
8chan's hosting isn't even being yanked, only their access to an edge caching CDN. I'm really struggling to see a "free speech" issue here. What if Google Analytics decides not to offer 8chan analytics? Does that also interfere with the right to speech?
8chan's hosting isn't even being yanked, only their access to an edge caching CDN. I'm really struggling to see a "free speech" issue here. What if Google Analytics decides not to offer 8chan analytics? Does that also interfere with the right to speech?
> In this case, it'd be about requiring CloudFlare to _assist_ 8chan in _being_ heard. And there's no such right, or ruling.
The comment I was replying to was about what the constitutional right to free speech entails, not about what CloudFlare is required to do.
The comment I was replying to was about what the constitutional right to free speech entails, not about what CloudFlare is required to do.
I submit that the concept of free speech does not include a right to be heard.
Certainly there are forms of restricting someone's ability to be heard that would infringe on their right to free speech, but the former does not necessarily imply or require the latter.
Certainly there are forms of restricting someone's ability to be heard that would infringe on their right to free speech, but the former does not necessarily imply or require the latter.
The concept of free speech does include the right to be heard in that if I want to hear what you're saying, the government preventing me from hearing it is just as bad as preventing you from saying it. It takes two to communicate.
However if I don't want to hear what you say--or I don't want to help you say it--the government is not going to step in and force me to do it.
The distinction is really about depriving vs. providing.
People get it mixed up in their heads when it comes to contractual relationships like Cloudflare. On one hand it is grammatically correct to say that Cloudflare is "depriving" 8chan of their service, since 8chan used to have access to it. Legally, though, 8chan never had any right to Cloudflare's service. It was a privilege that was revoked.
However if I don't want to hear what you say--or I don't want to help you say it--the government is not going to step in and force me to do it.
The distinction is really about depriving vs. providing.
People get it mixed up in their heads when it comes to contractual relationships like Cloudflare. On one hand it is grammatically correct to say that Cloudflare is "depriving" 8chan of their service, since 8chan used to have access to it. Legally, though, 8chan never had any right to Cloudflare's service. It was a privilege that was revoked.
> Legally, though, 8chan never had any right to Cloudflare's service.
Correct. However, the main/only service CloudFlare provides is preventing DDOS attacks, which fall plainly into the category of unconstitutionally depriving someone of their free speech.
Providing services to 8chan isn't furthering their mission in any way, and the only "advantage" of cutting them off is that it empowers the people who would deprive the 8channers of their constitutional right to free speech.
Correct. However, the main/only service CloudFlare provides is preventing DDOS attacks, which fall plainly into the category of unconstitutionally depriving someone of their free speech.
Providing services to 8chan isn't furthering their mission in any way, and the only "advantage" of cutting them off is that it empowers the people who would deprive the 8channers of their constitutional right to free speech.
_I_ have no obligation to ensure that _a third party_ doesn't impair _your_ right to speech.
We think via dialogue, We arrive at the truth via dialogue, and to arrive at the truth necessarily means pruning out the untrue.
Thus, limiting a speech when it first comes out is never good. Any point of view should be discussed, debated, and its truthiness assessed. However, if something has been deemed untrue over and over, it would be pointless to keep bringing it up and trying to assert it as truth. At that point, it deserves to be censored out as to not interfere with the other ongoing legitimate pruning processes.
Thus, limiting a speech when it first comes out is never good. Any point of view should be discussed, debated, and its truthiness assessed. However, if something has been deemed untrue over and over, it would be pointless to keep bringing it up and trying to assert it as truth. At that point, it deserves to be censored out as to not interfere with the other ongoing legitimate pruning processes.
>We arrive at the truth via dialogue.
In the US, we are currently undergoing the Democratic primaries, and consequently are having many televised debates. Almost anyone in this country who has watched one would scoff at the idea that an unmoderated debate would arrive at anything approaching truth. As it is, I've heard many people criticize the moderators in previous debates for not being more heavy handed in what blatant mistruths they allow the candidates to say on stage. You can't arrive at the truth if one member of a dialogue is not interested in getting there.
In the US, we are currently undergoing the Democratic primaries, and consequently are having many televised debates. Almost anyone in this country who has watched one would scoff at the idea that an unmoderated debate would arrive at anything approaching truth. As it is, I've heard many people criticize the moderators in previous debates for not being more heavy handed in what blatant mistruths they allow the candidates to say on stage. You can't arrive at the truth if one member of a dialogue is not interested in getting there.
> I haven’t heard of a good rebuttal to the above reasoning
All important philosophy and epistemology has occurred in countries with free speech restrictions.
All important philosophy and epistemology has occurred in countries with free speech restrictions.
Are you making a dig at the U.S.A? Haha :D
I think I get your point though: It’s not an absolute game. You can do a lot of useful thinking even under some restrictions, so we’re forced to consider everything with more nuance.
I think I get your point though: It’s not an absolute game. You can do a lot of useful thinking even under some restrictions, so we’re forced to consider everything with more nuance.
Limiting who and how can experiment with anthrax doesn't seem like a limitation on science -- it looks sanity to me.
Since ideas are just as viral and as deadly there is nothing inherently wrong with limiting the spread of some.
Since ideas are just as viral and as deadly there is nothing inherently wrong with limiting the spread of some.
Give it a bit more time, and anyone with two brain cells will be able to experiment with anthrax in their garage.
What then?
What then?
So what? It'd still be illegal, and you do the same thing to disincentivize garage anthrax as you do with any other illegal act: the threat of prison.
I agree with the premise, not the argument
We can arrive at truth through dialogue, but dialog can also lead to propagation and affirmation of misinformation. One does not necessarily converge on truth.
Though, to entrust any government to control free speech to that end is an entire different point.
We can arrive at truth through dialogue, but dialog can also lead to propagation and affirmation of misinformation. One does not necessarily converge on truth.
Though, to entrust any government to control free speech to that end is an entire different point.
It would be better if cloudflare terminated service for all media outlets. Every time you turn a mass shooting into a national spectacle, it inspires copycats in rapid succession as we've just seen.
Mass shootings (generally) don't kill that many people. They are scary, yes, but not that deadly (statistically). Keep it local news, don't publish the name of the killer, basically keep the story away from the front lines.
By turning every mass shooting into a hysterical emotional maelstrom, you signal a green light to all the other potential shooters that this is how you get attention.
Mass shootings (generally) don't kill that many people. They are scary, yes, but not that deadly (statistically). Keep it local news, don't publish the name of the killer, basically keep the story away from the front lines.
By turning every mass shooting into a hysterical emotional maelstrom, you signal a green light to all the other potential shooters that this is how you get attention.
In every other, let's say, G20 country, someone shooting up a shopping mall and killing 20 will absolutely make national news - they will talk about it for months and it will be ranked "top ten worst news for $country in 2019", if not the absolute worst. In some countries (let's say, Korea) reporters will probably dig into the shooter's elementary school transcripts and interview second cousins.
In other words, if anyone is aiming for notoriety, shooting up people in Seoul or Tokyo will give you an eternal place in national zeitgeist, while in America you will be famous until the next shooting: A few months? Weeks?
Yet nobody's (thankfully) taking up the opportunity in these other countries. Certainly not every week, or even every year.
It's not the media. It's not attention-seeking. It's not games (duh). Maybe it's a bit about mental health, but other countries also have problems with crazies and they don't just shoot up schools and nightclubs.
Can we stop beating around the bush?
In other words, if anyone is aiming for notoriety, shooting up people in Seoul or Tokyo will give you an eternal place in national zeitgeist, while in America you will be famous until the next shooting: A few months? Weeks?
Yet nobody's (thankfully) taking up the opportunity in these other countries. Certainly not every week, or even every year.
It's not the media. It's not attention-seeking. It's not games (duh). Maybe it's a bit about mental health, but other countries also have problems with crazies and they don't just shoot up schools and nightclubs.
Can we stop beating around the bush?
>In every other, let's say, G20 country, someone shooting up a shopping mall and killing 20 will absolutely make national news - they will talk about it for months and it will be ranked "top ten worst news for $country in 2019", if not the absolute worst.
I don't think this would apply to China and India. Every other country in the world has a lower national population than the US. Yet I doubt that your statement even applies to countries such as Brazil and Nigeria.
You really do have to take population numbers into account when you look at what the media focuses on. No other western country even comes close to the population the US has, so it gives the impression that the US is somehow much worse.
I don't think this would apply to China and India. Every other country in the world has a lower national population than the US. Yet I doubt that your statement even applies to countries such as Brazil and Nigeria.
You really do have to take population numbers into account when you look at what the media focuses on. No other western country even comes close to the population the US has, so it gives the impression that the US is somehow much worse.
It looks like there’ve been about four mass shootings in China since 1990; a couple criminal (robbery-related), one terrorist, one random.
Of course, information out of China isn’t that reliable, you could argue. The EU as a whole is considerably bigger than the US, and every year or so there’s a mass shooting or other mass killing. And it’s huge news for a long time. The UK has about a fifth as many people as the US, and this century has had five mass killings (one of which involved guns). The US rate and attitude really is abnormal.
Edit: It’s also worth noting that the vast majority of European mass killing incidents are terroristic; the “someone just shoots a bunch of people for no particularly discernible reason” thing is really, really rare. The Texas shooting (terroristic) would be extremely shocking in any European country and would dominate the news for a long time. But the Ohio one (looks non-terroristic) would probably have an even bigger impact and would likely lead to tightening of gun laws etc (the Dunblane massacre lead to the banning of almost all handguns in the UK, for instance).
Of course, information out of China isn’t that reliable, you could argue. The EU as a whole is considerably bigger than the US, and every year or so there’s a mass shooting or other mass killing. And it’s huge news for a long time. The UK has about a fifth as many people as the US, and this century has had five mass killings (one of which involved guns). The US rate and attitude really is abnormal.
Edit: It’s also worth noting that the vast majority of European mass killing incidents are terroristic; the “someone just shoots a bunch of people for no particularly discernible reason” thing is really, really rare. The Texas shooting (terroristic) would be extremely shocking in any European country and would dominate the news for a long time. But the Ohio one (looks non-terroristic) would probably have an even bigger impact and would likely lead to tightening of gun laws etc (the Dunblane massacre lead to the banning of almost all handguns in the UK, for instance).
Well it turns out gun crime under totalitarian regimes is usually pretty low. So it's not very useful to say things like "Look at North Korea! They have way lower gun deaths and mass shootings rates than America!"
If you trade all of your freedoms for securities, you too can have a totalitarian regime that keeps you safe. It's a "slippery" slope that can take centuries, but you just keep losing a few freedoms here, a few there, and pretty soon your monolithic monstrosity of a government holds all the cards.
If you trade all of your freedoms for securities, you too can have a totalitarian regime that keeps you safe. It's a "slippery" slope that can take centuries, but you just keep losing a few freedoms here, a few there, and pretty soon your monolithic monstrosity of a government holds all the cards.
Who's talking about North Korea? We're talking about South Korea, Japan, and the entire western Europe.
> If you trade all of your freedoms for securities, you too can have a totalitarian regime that keeps you safe.
Totalitarian regime usually have worse security because nobody can criticize the supreme leader and they can simply make an inconvenient news item (like an unsolved murder) go away. Your slippery slope isn't even in the correct direction.
No society is perfect, but it's quite possible to have a safe and free society. But you should be willing to make reasonable compromises instead of arguing from centuries-old aphorisms.
> If you trade all of your freedoms for securities, you too can have a totalitarian regime that keeps you safe.
Totalitarian regime usually have worse security because nobody can criticize the supreme leader and they can simply make an inconvenient news item (like an unsolved murder) go away. Your slippery slope isn't even in the correct direction.
No society is perfect, but it's quite possible to have a safe and free society. But you should be willing to make reasonable compromises instead of arguing from centuries-old aphorisms.
> Who's talking about North Korea?
The person I directly responded to was talking about China, which is YAGFTR (yet another gun-free totalitarian regime).
> No society is perfect, but it's quite possible to have a safe and free society.
That also lasts a long time without lapsing back into being YAGFTR? Japan was YAGFTR less than 75 years ago, same with a lot of currently "safe and free societies".
I am skeptical that a gun-free society can last hundreds of years without it lapsing back to being YAGFTR but I suppose time will tell
The person I directly responded to was talking about China, which is YAGFTR (yet another gun-free totalitarian regime).
> No society is perfect, but it's quite possible to have a safe and free society.
That also lasts a long time without lapsing back into being YAGFTR? Japan was YAGFTR less than 75 years ago, same with a lot of currently "safe and free societies".
I am skeptical that a gun-free society can last hundreds of years without it lapsing back to being YAGFTR but I suppose time will tell
> It’s not the media. It’s not attention-seeking.
It may not be these things alone. But they do contribute. The number of copy-cat crimes is a pretty clear indication of that.
It may not be these things alone. But they do contribute. The number of copy-cat crimes is a pretty clear indication of that.
The "do it for my 5 minutes of fame" narrative is mostly wrong. It is meant to denigrade the shooters.
If you read tarrant's manifesto, for example, his motivation is entirely racial/political. He thinks white people is being destroyed, and he lashes out against his enemies.
If people's grievances, real or not, are not addressed. They will lash out. Calling them racist, stupid, xenophobes, losers, mentally ill or whatever else will not stop the tide of blood.
If you read tarrant's manifesto, for example, his motivation is entirely racial/political. He thinks white people is being destroyed, and he lashes out against his enemies.
If people's grievances, real or not, are not addressed. They will lash out. Calling them racist, stupid, xenophobes, losers, mentally ill or whatever else will not stop the tide of blood.
>In other words, if anyone is aiming for notoriety, shooting up people in Seoul or Tokyo will give you an eternal place in national zeitgeist, while in America you will be famous until the next shooting: A few months? Weeks?
Good luck buying guns in Korea/Japan (or any country[1] for that matter) as a tourist, or smuggling them in. It's significantly easier to get guns where you normally reside.
[1] Except maybe the US. Is the gunshow exemption still around?
Good luck buying guns in Korea/Japan (or any country[1] for that matter) as a tourist, or smuggling them in. It's significantly easier to get guns where you normally reside.
[1] Except maybe the US. Is the gunshow exemption still around?
There’s no gun show exemption. There’s a private sale exemption, because the law doesn’t allow private sellers to access the background check system.
Registered FFL holders selling guns at a show have to do the same background checks they’d do anywhere else.
Registered FFL holders selling guns at a show have to do the same background checks they’d do anywhere else.
There never was a gunshow exemption. Federally licensed dealers must follow the same process to sell a gun no matter where they do it - at their brick-and-mortar store, at a gunshow, or in a parking lot. Individuals can sell a personally owned firearm to anyone in the same state with no check, and where the sale is made has no relevance.
What's your diagnosis?
or in this case...hours. :sigh:
Your premise is wrong. Mass shootings and killings happen across the globe at rates comparable to America. America is exceptional only in its population, which obviously increases the number of events without increasing their prevalence, and in its proximity to you personally, which increases how much you hear about American events versus other events.
Even Polifact has fact-checked this and found that America is not particularly exceptional [0]. By this study, it's not even in the top 10. [1]
And just off the top of my head, there were two mass killings recently in Japan. A guy burned down an animation studio and killed 35 people. Before that, a guy stabbed a bunch of kids to death near a subway station in Tokyo a few months ago.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun...
[1a] https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-despite-...
[1b] https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from...
Even Polifact has fact-checked this and found that America is not particularly exceptional [0]. By this study, it's not even in the top 10. [1]
And just off the top of my head, there were two mass killings recently in Japan. A guy burned down an animation studio and killed 35 people. Before that, a guy stabbed a bunch of kids to death near a subway station in Tokyo a few months ago.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun...
[1a] https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-despite-...
[1b] https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from...
You know when you cherry pick countries with 1 attack and a small population, then stack Norway with 1, finland with 2 etc and proclaim "look these small places should be compared per capita with the US, 1 attack surely is enough data points", then don't look at the combined EU and state that gun legislation is fine? Maybe you even misrepresent (frequency, literally noone claims that mass killings cannot physically happen elsewhere, what the actual f) what the person you are 'fact checking' said and change nothing when it's pointed out to you?
Yeah, that is what you just posted.
Yeah, that is what you just posted.
It would be good if you actually looked at the study because it talks about dozens and dozens of countries. There is no cherry-picking and it is not a one-to-one comparison with one other country.
I did look at it. And yeah, you need dozens and dozens of small nations to get the population of one superpower.
Now, if they were clustered together like for example in one continent maybe you could actually compare, and you can, but that doesn't look as good for the US.
This is the typical handwaving from the right. None of these incidents are even remotely comparable to what has happened in the US over the last decade in totality. Andres Breivik swings these stats in a way that is useful for this agenda.
> Mass shootings (generally) don't kill that many people. They are scary, yes, but not that deadly (statistically). Keep it local news, don't
The problem is there is a simmering domestic nationalistic terrorism threat to the country - and that is news.
The killer in TX directly referenced it, as did very many of the prior mass-murders of recent. That is noteworthy, and fundamentally different from people killed in a gas station robbery.
This rising domestic terrorism is fed and incited by nationalistic groups who have explicitly stated this as their plans and goals.
Yes the media could adjust how they report it, but that's not the root problem here. It's an intentionally fostered growing domestic nationalist terrorism.
The problem is there is a simmering domestic nationalistic terrorism threat to the country - and that is news.
The killer in TX directly referenced it, as did very many of the prior mass-murders of recent. That is noteworthy, and fundamentally different from people killed in a gas station robbery.
This rising domestic terrorism is fed and incited by nationalistic groups who have explicitly stated this as their plans and goals.
Yes the media could adjust how they report it, but that's not the root problem here. It's an intentionally fostered growing domestic nationalist terrorism.
>Yes the media could adjust how they report it, but that's not the root problem here. It's an intentionally fostered growing domestic nationalist terrorism.
Like any form of lone-wolf terrorism, these shootings are being perpetrated by individuals, with individual motivations. There's a compelling case that they're at least partially motivated or inspired by media coverage.
We often hear that suicide is contagious. Some studies and commentators have suggested that murder-suicide might spread like noncriminal suicide. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/americas-...
Columbine shooting reporter Dave Cullen has suggested some low-impact changes to media coverage which could have a positive effect. https://www.buzzfeed.com/davecullen/stop-naming-mass-shooter...
Like any form of lone-wolf terrorism, these shootings are being perpetrated by individuals, with individual motivations. There's a compelling case that they're at least partially motivated or inspired by media coverage.
We often hear that suicide is contagious. Some studies and commentators have suggested that murder-suicide might spread like noncriminal suicide. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/americas-...
Columbine shooting reporter Dave Cullen has suggested some low-impact changes to media coverage which could have a positive effect. https://www.buzzfeed.com/davecullen/stop-naming-mass-shooter...
It's not really lone wolf terrorism; evidence suggests that most killers actually have a loose but persistent social network. Even though they may select the time, location, and specifics of their actions in private, they typically discuss the possibilities and general goals/tactics with others.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2017.1...
Media coverage can make a difference but I think relatively few people just decide to do it based on news coverage. FBI data suggests a median planning time of 1-2 months and a median preparation time of a week.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-...
There is a community that actively celebrates, studies, and iterates on mass shootings for a variety of ends from political to psychic reasons.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2017.1...
Media coverage can make a difference but I think relatively few people just decide to do it based on news coverage. FBI data suggests a median planning time of 1-2 months and a median preparation time of a week.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-...
There is a community that actively celebrates, studies, and iterates on mass shootings for a variety of ends from political to psychic reasons.
This is a strong feeling you have, but I see no evidence for it. The media likes to talk more about ultra nationalist groups now than it did in the past, giving some sense that it's growing into a big problem, but where is the actual evidence. Seems more like a big narrative push, a puff of smoke in everyone's eyes.
By many studies Americans overall are far less racist and more tolerant than they ever were. Things are actually improving on that front rather than deteriorating.
By many studies Americans overall are far less racist and more tolerant than they ever were. Things are actually improving on that front rather than deteriorating.
I’d argue that the effort spent hunting Muslim terrorists at borders, museums, transit hubs etc is not justified when compared to the relative death toll from domestic ultranationalists/white supremacists.
Can you cite evidence for this? My understanding is that deaths due to mass shootings hasn't really changed since the 70s, but rather the media coverage has expanded.
That seems unlikely. The first graph[1] on this Wiki[2] article shows from 1982 until 2017 -- so not the exact range you mentioned -- but it shows that mass shooting deaths are higher today than decades ago.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...
Sure, but the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 "killed at least 168 people, [and] injured more than 680 others".[0] And annual traffic deaths were 50K-35K during the 90s through the 01s.[1]
0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT...
0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT...
It should go without saying, but the Okahoma City bombing wasn't a mass shooting, which is what is being discussed.
And what's your point about traffic deaths? By that logic, heart disease killed more people over that interval, should we stop caring about traffic deaths?
And what's your point about traffic deaths? By that logic, heart disease killed more people over that interval, should we stop caring about traffic deaths?
Well, generically the topic is domestic terrorism.
I know that I'm verging on whataboutism. But there is the tendency to amplify outrage based on public sympathies.
I worry lots more about official government violence. Consider deaths of US troops in Iraq during the mid 00s. About 800-900 per year.[0] Or far worse, deaths of Iraqis, which exceeded 20K per year during that period.[1] The same issues that are driving mass shootings will likely result in another major war. That's the thing to worry about.
0) https://www.statista.com/statistics/263798/american-soldiers...
1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civili...
I know that I'm verging on whataboutism. But there is the tendency to amplify outrage based on public sympathies.
I worry lots more about official government violence. Consider deaths of US troops in Iraq during the mid 00s. About 800-900 per year.[0] Or far worse, deaths of Iraqis, which exceeded 20K per year during that period.[1] The same issues that are driving mass shootings will likely result in another major war. That's the thing to worry about.
0) https://www.statista.com/statistics/263798/american-soldiers...
1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civili...
Some people die from cancer, therefore we shouldn’t do anything about AIDs?
[deleted]
On what do you base your understanding?
Ugh, I just realized that I saw some data on school shootings, not mass shootings in general. I will look for it.
I believe the research is more nuanced.
The murderers like the idea of their face on TV and their words read to the world. And content that shows chaos.
They don't like stories about the victims portrayed as people with lives, scenes of community comming together, and etc.
NPR did some stories about that research and shortly after you saw more stories about the victims lives.
The murderers like the idea of their face on TV and their words read to the world. And content that shows chaos.
They don't like stories about the victims portrayed as people with lives, scenes of community comming together, and etc.
NPR did some stories about that research and shortly after you saw more stories about the victims lives.
> you signal a green light to all the other potential shooters that this is how you get attention.
As pointed out by an ever prescient Charlie Brooker almost ten fucking years ago. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4).
On a similar subject, The Samaritans publish very specific and thorough guidelines as to how to report and publish suicides (https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines...) which are still ignored by many even if unknowingly.
As pointed out by an ever prescient Charlie Brooker almost ten fucking years ago. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4).
On a similar subject, The Samaritans publish very specific and thorough guidelines as to how to report and publish suicides (https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines...) which are still ignored by many even if unknowingly.
> Mass shootings (generally) don't kill that many people. They are scary, yes, but not that deadly (statistically)
Logic like that is usually applied to forces of nature. Or at least things that provide utility in return for this risk (e.g. cars). Mass shootings don't really fit that mould.
"stop telling people things" strikes me as a strange response. We could have a nationwide epidemic of mass shootings flying under the radar entirely. Sometimes issues need to faced head on.
(and even if the national media didn't say a peep, 8Chan would be all over it, tracking the number of deaths for their high score board. It's a forum for radicalisation that's been ignored for a very long time)
Logic like that is usually applied to forces of nature. Or at least things that provide utility in return for this risk (e.g. cars). Mass shootings don't really fit that mould.
"stop telling people things" strikes me as a strange response. We could have a nationwide epidemic of mass shootings flying under the radar entirely. Sometimes issues need to faced head on.
(and even if the national media didn't say a peep, 8Chan would be all over it, tracking the number of deaths for their high score board. It's a forum for radicalisation that's been ignored for a very long time)
> We could have a nationwide epidemic of mass shootings flying under the radar entirely.
There are published statistics. They suggest that the focus should be on car safety, driving and worrying about bad habits that have health impacts. We'd know if there was a problem and the evidence is that your greatest enemy is you. It'd be interesting to get statistics on how many of these shootings are linked to drug abuse though.
> Logic like that is usually applied to forces of nature.
Good decisions that feel bad will get a better result than bad decisions that feel good. Politics is almost always improved by people taking deep breaths and not focusing too much on what is happening today - ideally using logic although simply sticking to process is good enough for me.
There are published statistics. They suggest that the focus should be on car safety, driving and worrying about bad habits that have health impacts. We'd know if there was a problem and the evidence is that your greatest enemy is you. It'd be interesting to get statistics on how many of these shootings are linked to drug abuse though.
> Logic like that is usually applied to forces of nature.
Good decisions that feel bad will get a better result than bad decisions that feel good. Politics is almost always improved by people taking deep breaths and not focusing too much on what is happening today - ideally using logic although simply sticking to process is good enough for me.
> They suggest that the focus should be on car safety, driving
And it has been. Look at the data for car death over time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
For decades the government has passed laws and regulations that have forced car manufacturers and owners to prioritise safety over all else: seat belts, air bags, crumple-resistant frames... the list goes on and on. The results have been a massive success. It's an example of effective government.
They could do the same for guns, if they had the political will. The only way they get the political will is if voters demand it. The only way voters demand it is if they are aware of the problem.
And it has been. Look at the data for car death over time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
For decades the government has passed laws and regulations that have forced car manufacturers and owners to prioritise safety over all else: seat belts, air bags, crumple-resistant frames... the list goes on and on. The results have been a massive success. It's an example of effective government.
They could do the same for guns, if they had the political will. The only way they get the political will is if voters demand it. The only way voters demand it is if they are aware of the problem.
Media outrage often leads social changes like car safety, food safety, pharmaceutical safety, etc.
> There are published statistics.
But no government data unlike car deaths, because the gun lobby blocks any attempt to actually fund research into gun deaths.
But no government data unlike car deaths, because the gun lobby blocks any attempt to actually fund research into gun deaths.
All around the world people listen to and see the same news stories. I woke up yesterday thinking that the media was reporting on the same mass shooting, but I figured out it was another new and predictably American assault rifle massacre pretty quickly.
I don't know why you are getting downvoted. It is the same here. Every time I see a US city name in my Twitter sidebar here in Australia, I just know that it is another mass shooting without having to click.
I hate that it has become so common now that I have just stopped clicking to find out more about them. This sort of thing used to horrify me, but nowadays I just feel so numb about it, and that scares me because I feel that I am becoming less empathetic and more cynical.
I hate that it has become so common now that I have just stopped clicking to find out more about them. This sort of thing used to horrify me, but nowadays I just feel so numb about it, and that scares me because I feel that I am becoming less empathetic and more cynical.
I also wonder if Americans who think this is a problem with the media inspiring more shootings would take the same tack on reporting terrorist incidents. Wouldn't it make sense to say we shouldn't report on them, given that attitude?
I'm a US/AU dual citizen and I've visited America quite often over the last few years, and it feels like we hear about the shootings only very slightly less in Australia than in the US. Here they're still front page news, and my co-workers are all talking about them.
Had some friends from San Diego and Houston over in the last few weeks and the commented on how safe Sydney feels, even in the grimy parts. They said that they had a need for situational awareness at all times in the US, but here it feels like it wasn't so necessary. At this point I'm certainly not looking at America as the safe haven of liberal democracy or freedom. I feel freer walking around the streets near public housing here than I do in the financial district in SF. But I guess in America you get to own guns with a high clip capacity, bump stocks, and get to post white nationalist manifestos on message boards? Cool.
I'm a US/AU dual citizen and I've visited America quite often over the last few years, and it feels like we hear about the shootings only very slightly less in Australia than in the US. Here they're still front page news, and my co-workers are all talking about them.
Had some friends from San Diego and Houston over in the last few weeks and the commented on how safe Sydney feels, even in the grimy parts. They said that they had a need for situational awareness at all times in the US, but here it feels like it wasn't so necessary. At this point I'm certainly not looking at America as the safe haven of liberal democracy or freedom. I feel freer walking around the streets near public housing here than I do in the financial district in SF. But I guess in America you get to own guns with a high clip capacity, bump stocks, and get to post white nationalist manifestos on message boards? Cool.
> would take the same tack on reporting terrorist incidents. Wouldn't it make sense to say we shouldn't report on them, given that attitude?
I had a muslim coworker recently self-radicalize with online ISIS videos and attempt to carry out a truck attack against national harbor. It didn't make it out of local news because the FBI nabbed him a few hours before the attack was to take place.
I think that's a good thing. If the media blew it up, no doubt it would have inspired others to try the same.
I had a muslim coworker recently self-radicalize with online ISIS videos and attempt to carry out a truck attack against national harbor. It didn't make it out of local news because the FBI nabbed him a few hours before the attack was to take place.
I think that's a good thing. If the media blew it up, no doubt it would have inspired others to try the same.
The biggest puzzle to me is how a lot of Americans I talk to that equate 2A with 'freedom'. I have seriously had conversations with some people who believe that we are _less_ free here in Australia that them in the US because we do not have the right to bear arms.
I think that definition of 'freedom' has just become so conflated or twisted of late that it really needs to be decoupled from the overall culture and re-examined.
Today I read tweets from pundits and politicians advocating for armed guards to be at every 'peaceful gathering' in order to ensure safety in the US. I grew up in an authoritarian S/E Asian country where there were policemen or soldiers on literally every street corner with an automatic weapon slung around their front and with one hand close to the trigger. This is the very antithesis of 'freedom' to me.
I think that definition of 'freedom' has just become so conflated or twisted of late that it really needs to be decoupled from the overall culture and re-examined.
Today I read tweets from pundits and politicians advocating for armed guards to be at every 'peaceful gathering' in order to ensure safety in the US. I grew up in an authoritarian S/E Asian country where there were policemen or soldiers on literally every street corner with an automatic weapon slung around their front and with one hand close to the trigger. This is the very antithesis of 'freedom' to me.
> I have seriously had conversations with some people who believe that we are _less_ free here in Australia that them in the US because we do not have the right to bear arms.
You seem to be conflating "freedom" with "safety". Often they're correlated, but in this case they conflict.
You seem to be conflating "freedom" with "safety". Often they're correlated, but in this case they conflict.
Under what definition of freedom does having less right to defend yourself make you more free?
I understand how you might see the tradeoff as worth it - some safety purchased at a cost of freedom. But expanding the list of things that you're not allowed to do doesn't seem like it could possibly be interpreted as expanding freedom. Same argument for drug or alcohol prohibition, religious restrictions, etc.
I understand how you might see the tradeoff as worth it - some safety purchased at a cost of freedom. But expanding the list of things that you're not allowed to do doesn't seem like it could possibly be interpreted as expanding freedom. Same argument for drug or alcohol prohibition, religious restrictions, etc.
We absolutely have the right to defend ourselves here in Australia. With guns even, no less.
I used to own several (bolt action, 5 shot internal magazine capacity) rifles because I used to competition shoot. I sold them off years ago because I stopped competing and just didn't need them lying around the house, rusting. There you go - freedom to own guns or not.
I could probably also get a handgun if I wanted, but I would need to renew my licence and pass strenuous background checks and prove to the police that I store it safely, AND I have to be a continual member of a gun club and shoot regularly with others so they can assess my gun handling skills (and I guess also my mental state) on a regular basis.
What I absolutely CANNOT do is to go and buy a semi automatic gun with a magazine capacity to slaughter an entire school room full of kids without having to reload. What the heck would _any_ civilian in a peaceful country want/need such a weapon? On the flipside, it also means I am free to enjoy the fact that my kids can go to school every day with a less than .001% chance that some maniac will walk into their classroom and mow them down.
To close off this post, and to end that illusion of "I can protect my family with a gun" hero storyline - About 3 years ago we had someone break into our house in the middle of the night. I was woken up by the sound of my son yelling at someone to get the fk out of his room so I jumped out of bed and grabbed a small wooden baton that I keep under our bed.
When I threw open our bedroom door, I saw a shadowy figure run past it in the dark corridor. To this day, I am glad I grabbed the baton instead of an (imagined, non existent) loaded gun, because my first instinct was let fly at the fleeing figure, only to realise a few seconds later that it was my own son, giving chase to the intruder who was fleeing ahead of him. I could have killed my own son if I had a gun in my hand in that split second of rage and confusion.
Later, we found out that the police nabbed the intruder, who turned out to be a 15 year old boy that lived a couple of streets away. Had I shot HIM, I would have had to live with the thought that I had killed someone's child. I cannot do that. I prefer to live with the _freedom_ of not having the guilt of taking someone else's life on my conscience.
I used to own several (bolt action, 5 shot internal magazine capacity) rifles because I used to competition shoot. I sold them off years ago because I stopped competing and just didn't need them lying around the house, rusting. There you go - freedom to own guns or not.
I could probably also get a handgun if I wanted, but I would need to renew my licence and pass strenuous background checks and prove to the police that I store it safely, AND I have to be a continual member of a gun club and shoot regularly with others so they can assess my gun handling skills (and I guess also my mental state) on a regular basis.
What I absolutely CANNOT do is to go and buy a semi automatic gun with a magazine capacity to slaughter an entire school room full of kids without having to reload. What the heck would _any_ civilian in a peaceful country want/need such a weapon? On the flipside, it also means I am free to enjoy the fact that my kids can go to school every day with a less than .001% chance that some maniac will walk into their classroom and mow them down.
To close off this post, and to end that illusion of "I can protect my family with a gun" hero storyline - About 3 years ago we had someone break into our house in the middle of the night. I was woken up by the sound of my son yelling at someone to get the fk out of his room so I jumped out of bed and grabbed a small wooden baton that I keep under our bed.
When I threw open our bedroom door, I saw a shadowy figure run past it in the dark corridor. To this day, I am glad I grabbed the baton instead of an (imagined, non existent) loaded gun, because my first instinct was let fly at the fleeing figure, only to realise a few seconds later that it was my own son, giving chase to the intruder who was fleeing ahead of him. I could have killed my own son if I had a gun in my hand in that split second of rage and confusion.
Later, we found out that the police nabbed the intruder, who turned out to be a 15 year old boy that lived a couple of streets away. Had I shot HIM, I would have had to live with the thought that I had killed someone's child. I cannot do that. I prefer to live with the _freedom_ of not having the guilt of taking someone else's life on my conscience.
You talked a lot about why you think guns are not necessary in a peaceful society. Of course, this isn't why people think that citizens should be allowed to have them. The reason is to resist organized violence, which can arise over time or without warning. It's not just about stopping burglars.
However the more critical problem with what you wrote is that it doesn't actually attempt to disprove anything I said. You simply reiterated a bunch of arguments against gun ownership.
You didn't actually say why adding to the list of things you're not allowed to do here makes you more free. And I think that's because it's definitionally impossible to demonstrate.
Would you say that alcohol prohibition 'expands freedom' because it reduces drunk driving deaths?
The definition of freedom is being allowed to do things. It doesn't mean being allowed to do only good things, or things which are good in some particular person's opinion. It means I can do something that you would rather I did not do. That's freedom. Freedom to do what others want you to do is not freedom.
However the more critical problem with what you wrote is that it doesn't actually attempt to disprove anything I said. You simply reiterated a bunch of arguments against gun ownership.
You didn't actually say why adding to the list of things you're not allowed to do here makes you more free. And I think that's because it's definitionally impossible to demonstrate.
Would you say that alcohol prohibition 'expands freedom' because it reduces drunk driving deaths?
The definition of freedom is being allowed to do things. It doesn't mean being allowed to do only good things, or things which are good in some particular person's opinion. It means I can do something that you would rather I did not do. That's freedom. Freedom to do what others want you to do is not freedom.
At what point do you draw the line though? If your intent with the second amendment is to, as it says, stop a potentially tyrannical government, then do you also have the freedom to buy hand grenades? How about shoulder mounted surface to air missiles to stop those pesky government F-16s? Some drones with Hellfire rounds? An M1-Abrahams to drive down to the corner store in case an uprising should start when you are out getting the milk?
Are your neighbours free to mine the road outside your house in case insurgents should drive up some day? How about them buying some uranium and building a small detonator in their garage? Or perhaps brewing some toxic cocktail of poison gas in the local primary school science lab?
Any of the above can be classed as a weapon to deter others, never mind the unintended consequence of accidental (or deliberate) discharging of any of them killing multiple innocent people. If you cannot purchase any of the above at a local dealership, then are you really free, when your government can outgun you at any point in time?
I consider myself 'free' when I take steps to minimise the infinitesimally small probability that something bad might happen, and I know that the steps I take will not result in an even worse 'bad thing' happening.
I got rid of my guns when we had kids. The very very tiny chance that I would need to use a gun against an intruder was outweighed by the even larger chance that one of my kids may have found my rifles and thought of them as play toys. Or the even larger chance that someone could burgle our house when we were not there and take them. I was free to choose what I wanted to do, and I still do not feel any less protected or safe in my own home, or while walking down the street, or when sending my kids to school, or when visiting a bar or attending a concert... or doing pretty much anything that a 'free' American is actually dead scared to do in their own country today.
Are your neighbours free to mine the road outside your house in case insurgents should drive up some day? How about them buying some uranium and building a small detonator in their garage? Or perhaps brewing some toxic cocktail of poison gas in the local primary school science lab?
Any of the above can be classed as a weapon to deter others, never mind the unintended consequence of accidental (or deliberate) discharging of any of them killing multiple innocent people. If you cannot purchase any of the above at a local dealership, then are you really free, when your government can outgun you at any point in time?
I consider myself 'free' when I take steps to minimise the infinitesimally small probability that something bad might happen, and I know that the steps I take will not result in an even worse 'bad thing' happening.
I got rid of my guns when we had kids. The very very tiny chance that I would need to use a gun against an intruder was outweighed by the even larger chance that one of my kids may have found my rifles and thought of them as play toys. Or the even larger chance that someone could burgle our house when we were not there and take them. I was free to choose what I wanted to do, and I still do not feel any less protected or safe in my own home, or while walking down the street, or when sending my kids to school, or when visiting a bar or attending a concert... or doing pretty much anything that a 'free' American is actually dead scared to do in their own country today.
Discussion about heavier weapons is interesting and worthwhile; there is a line there. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about guns right now. If the line of policy ever gets past guns we can all have a debate about hand grenades and RPGs.
Howver, again, you are slipping sideways off the topic we're discussing. You're discussing what good policy is towards weapons. That's not what we're debating. This thread is about what it means to be free.
If you could buy an RPG launcher, you would undoubtedly be more free than if you could not. This is by definition. It doens't mean you'd be safer, or better, or that this is good policy. It just means you'd be more free.
"I consider myself 'free' when I take steps to minimise the infinitesimally small probability that something bad might happen, and I know that the steps I take will not result in an even worse 'bad thing' happening."
This definition matches the word 'safe', not the word 'free'. (If you disagree, I wonder what your definition of 'safe' would be that differs from this?)
Howver, again, you are slipping sideways off the topic we're discussing. You're discussing what good policy is towards weapons. That's not what we're debating. This thread is about what it means to be free.
If you could buy an RPG launcher, you would undoubtedly be more free than if you could not. This is by definition. It doens't mean you'd be safer, or better, or that this is good policy. It just means you'd be more free.
"I consider myself 'free' when I take steps to minimise the infinitesimally small probability that something bad might happen, and I know that the steps I take will not result in an even worse 'bad thing' happening."
This definition matches the word 'safe', not the word 'free'. (If you disagree, I wonder what your definition of 'safe' would be that differs from this?)
As a technical point of fact, Americans can buy tanks, missiles, hand grenades, and most any other conventional weapon if they wish, there is no prohibition under Federal law and an existing process for doing so. In practice, it is a hassle and weapons are extremely expensive so only a handful of wealthy collectors ever dabble in it.
You are correct, you'd definitely lose the freedom to own a gun that fires 10 rounds a second, to defend your home. In Australia you'd just have to make do with the freedom to own a bolt-action.
On the other hand, A whole bunch of civilians in malls would gain the freedom to live.
Freedom would expand.
On the other hand, A whole bunch of civilians in malls would gain the freedom to live.
Freedom would expand.
Three massive pieces of wrongness in this post.
First, people in America can't own guns that fire '10 rounds a second' without a class 3 firearms license, which is very rare. Such guns are basically never used in mass shootings.
Second, depending on who you need to defend your home from, you may want such a gun. For example, if government or government sanctioned groups are a threat. An example of this is the killings of white farmers in South Africa. Is not just about burglars, it's about gas chambers and political threats. Always has been.
Finally, redefining safety as freedom is a truly absurd abuse of language which wipes out a critical distinction that has been heavily discussed for a long time. If this is what it takes for you to make your point make sense, your point doesn't make sense.
Just admit it. You want more safety. You're willing to give up freedom (or rather, sacrifice the freedom of others) to get it. No need to play ridiculous semantic games to pretend there are no tradeoffs here.
First, people in America can't own guns that fire '10 rounds a second' without a class 3 firearms license, which is very rare. Such guns are basically never used in mass shootings.
Second, depending on who you need to defend your home from, you may want such a gun. For example, if government or government sanctioned groups are a threat. An example of this is the killings of white farmers in South Africa. Is not just about burglars, it's about gas chambers and political threats. Always has been.
Finally, redefining safety as freedom is a truly absurd abuse of language which wipes out a critical distinction that has been heavily discussed for a long time. If this is what it takes for you to make your point make sense, your point doesn't make sense.
Just admit it. You want more safety. You're willing to give up freedom (or rather, sacrifice the freedom of others) to get it. No need to play ridiculous semantic games to pretend there are no tradeoffs here.
Again, you are very correct. There's always tradeoffs where freedom is concerned. For example, you may be free to bring a gun into your home for defence, but the tradeoff is that you and your family are 3x freer to die from gunshot wounds as a result.
Also very cool and correct of you to support the restriction of high fire rate firearms, like the assault rifles used in all of the mass shootings over the last decade.
You're correct to say safety isn't freedom. However, being alive definitely contributes to freedom. Gun safety and being alive are correlated :) Remember, trigger discipline!
America is definitely an outlier in terms of gun deaths. I don't know much about the situation in South Africa, but it's very interesting you'd consider the death of some white farmers in Africa as pertinent, when the vast majority of political violence in America in the last decade has been perpetrated by white men.
Also interesting that you'd consider government sanctioned groups as a threat. Do you feel like if the brave men and women of the American military were ordered to take your guns, they'd do so? Why do you think so little of our troops?
Also very cool and correct of you to support the restriction of high fire rate firearms, like the assault rifles used in all of the mass shootings over the last decade.
You're correct to say safety isn't freedom. However, being alive definitely contributes to freedom. Gun safety and being alive are correlated :) Remember, trigger discipline!
America is definitely an outlier in terms of gun deaths. I don't know much about the situation in South Africa, but it's very interesting you'd consider the death of some white farmers in Africa as pertinent, when the vast majority of political violence in America in the last decade has been perpetrated by white men.
Also interesting that you'd consider government sanctioned groups as a threat. Do you feel like if the brave men and women of the American military were ordered to take your guns, they'd do so? Why do you think so little of our troops?
"you may be free to bring a gun into your home for defence, but the tradeoff is that you and your family are 3x freer to die from gunshot wounds as a result."
Do I need to say this? Correlation does not equal causation.
"restriction of high fire rate firearms, like the assault rifles used in all of the mass shootings over the last decade"
I never stated any such support, and that is not the definition of an assault rifle, it's the definition of an automatic weapon.
"it's very interesting you'd consider the death of some white farmers in Africa as pertinent, when the vast majority of political violence in America in the last decade has been perpetrated by white men."
I wasn't talking about 'gun violence', I was talking about political violence; those African killers are not necessarily using guns. You didn't understand me, clearly, but nice to immediately slip in a racism accusation there.
Of course it's perpetrated by whites; they're almost 80% of the population.
"Do you feel like if the brave men and women of the American military were ordered to take your guns, they'd do so?"
The rest of what you're saying seems to be some kind of rhetorical trick; speak plainly if you have a point to make.
I don't have any guns and I never said I was American, but I appreciate the stereotyping and assumptions. Clearly, imagining me as a truck-driving beer-swilling hillbilly, or whatever racist steretotype you prefer, makes it easier to not think about what I'm saying, because you clearly didn't engage with any of it.
Do I need to say this? Correlation does not equal causation.
"restriction of high fire rate firearms, like the assault rifles used in all of the mass shootings over the last decade"
I never stated any such support, and that is not the definition of an assault rifle, it's the definition of an automatic weapon.
"it's very interesting you'd consider the death of some white farmers in Africa as pertinent, when the vast majority of political violence in America in the last decade has been perpetrated by white men."
I wasn't talking about 'gun violence', I was talking about political violence; those African killers are not necessarily using guns. You didn't understand me, clearly, but nice to immediately slip in a racism accusation there.
Of course it's perpetrated by whites; they're almost 80% of the population.
"Do you feel like if the brave men and women of the American military were ordered to take your guns, they'd do so?"
The rest of what you're saying seems to be some kind of rhetorical trick; speak plainly if you have a point to make.
I don't have any guns and I never said I was American, but I appreciate the stereotyping and assumptions. Clearly, imagining me as a truck-driving beer-swilling hillbilly, or whatever racist steretotype you prefer, makes it easier to not think about what I'm saying, because you clearly didn't engage with any of it.
> Do I need to say this? Correlation does not equal causation.
It has been backed up by numerous studies which control for that sort of thing.
> I never stated any such support, and that is not the definition of an assault rifle, it's the definition of an automatic weapon.
Awesome, reasonable gun control for all! Don't even need a handgun, really.
You: > I was talking about political violence
Me: > political violence in America
> Of course it's perpetrated by whites; they're almost 80% of the population.
White men are around 35%, so it's weird that this very vocal and pearl-clutching portion of the population commits so many murders per capita.
> speak plainly if you have a point to make
Do you feel like if the brave men and women of the American military were ordered to take your guns, they'd do so?
> makes it easier to not think about what I'm saying
What have you specifically said that you think I'm not thinking about?
It has been backed up by numerous studies which control for that sort of thing.
> I never stated any such support, and that is not the definition of an assault rifle, it's the definition of an automatic weapon.
Awesome, reasonable gun control for all! Don't even need a handgun, really.
You: > I was talking about political violence
Me: > political violence in America
> Of course it's perpetrated by whites; they're almost 80% of the population.
White men are around 35%, so it's weird that this very vocal and pearl-clutching portion of the population commits so many murders per capita.
> speak plainly if you have a point to make
Do you feel like if the brave men and women of the American military were ordered to take your guns, they'd do so?
> makes it easier to not think about what I'm saying
What have you specifically said that you think I'm not thinking about?
>White men are around 35%, so it's weird that this very vocal and pearl-clutching portion of the population commits so many murders per capita.
Men commit more murders than women (in all places and times).
In America, whites commit less murders than their population percentage. This is true overall, and amongst men only.
You seem to support holding suspicion of entire identity groups on the basis of crime statistics. If so, you must really hate young black men; they're 4% of the population and commit >50% of American murders. Do you? If not, why the obsessive focus on 'white men'?
>Do you feel like if the brave men and women of the American military were ordered to take your guns, they'd do so?
I asked you to make your point and you insist again on rhetorical questions with some kind of implied but unspoken point behind them. But sure, I'll answer: Given that I'm not American and I don't own any guns, it's kind of a bizarre question. If they were ordered to invade my country, I think they would. But that'd be a very different world.
>What have you specifically said that you think I'm not thinking about?
Redefining safety as freedom is absurd.
Men commit more murders than women (in all places and times).
In America, whites commit less murders than their population percentage. This is true overall, and amongst men only.
You seem to support holding suspicion of entire identity groups on the basis of crime statistics. If so, you must really hate young black men; they're 4% of the population and commit >50% of American murders. Do you? If not, why the obsessive focus on 'white men'?
>Do you feel like if the brave men and women of the American military were ordered to take your guns, they'd do so?
I asked you to make your point and you insist again on rhetorical questions with some kind of implied but unspoken point behind them. But sure, I'll answer: Given that I'm not American and I don't own any guns, it's kind of a bizarre question. If they were ordered to invade my country, I think they would. But that'd be a very different world.
>What have you specifically said that you think I'm not thinking about?
Redefining safety as freedom is absurd.
How do you feel like "mental illness" argument holds up between AU and US?
I think most people's fears are around unhinged homeless than random shooters.
I think most people's fears are around unhinged homeless than random shooters.
I feel like if America has a mental illness problem, surely it would be addressed by providing more mental health services perhaps cough universally to the populace somehow. But, it's all rhetoric. If claims there was a mental illness problem were in good faith, we'd see American action on mental health.
"Mental illness" is just a convenient way to dismiss any notion of doing anything about gun violence. It's misdirection. Because, as you point out, we're not going to actually do anything about mental illness. Indeed, half the Congress and all of the Administration is trying to reduce access to health care, which would include mental health care.
I disagree.
News reports what happened. These days people seem to see news organizations as the enemy or at least the news organizations they don't like.
Although one thing I have noticed about news these days is it tends to voice personal opinion openly much more than years ago. Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings wouldn't spout their own opinion they'd tell you what happened, and that's it.
Show the bodies, name the attackers, send reports to the NRA, government officials don't take no for an answer hound them day and night for a reply. Make it uncomfortable for everyone so much so that everyone wants to prevent another event from occurring.
There is no way to hide what happened or who did it in this age of information. If information lacking people just make up their own story or create conspiracy theories to fill the void.
News reports what happened. These days people seem to see news organizations as the enemy or at least the news organizations they don't like.
Although one thing I have noticed about news these days is it tends to voice personal opinion openly much more than years ago. Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings wouldn't spout their own opinion they'd tell you what happened, and that's it.
Show the bodies, name the attackers, send reports to the NRA, government officials don't take no for an answer hound them day and night for a reply. Make it uncomfortable for everyone so much so that everyone wants to prevent another event from occurring.
There is no way to hide what happened or who did it in this age of information. If information lacking people just make up their own story or create conspiracy theories to fill the void.
> News reports what happened.
selectively reports what happened, and only if it tells the right narrative and/or generates clicks, yes.
Mass shooting where 3 innocents die = clicks and correct narrative and will therefore be reported.
DUI crash where 5 innocents die = boring, wrong narrative; no report
Civilian kills police officer = boring, wrong narrative; no report
Police officer kills civilian (esp. with different color skin) = clicks and correct narrative and will therefore be reported
selectively reports what happened, and only if it tells the right narrative and/or generates clicks, yes.
Mass shooting where 3 innocents die = clicks and correct narrative and will therefore be reported.
DUI crash where 5 innocents die = boring, wrong narrative; no report
Civilian kills police officer = boring, wrong narrative; no report
Police officer kills civilian (esp. with different color skin) = clicks and correct narrative and will therefore be reported
> Civilian kills police officer = boring, wrong narrative; no report
You're kidding, right?
Cops getting doused in water got national news coverage.
So'd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers
You're kidding, right?
Cops getting doused in water got national news coverage.
So'd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers
The case you cited isn't just a civilian killing a cop at a traffic stop or during a random crime. It's a targeted assassination of two police officers for politicial reasons. It's more terrorism than crime. This makes it very newsworthy.
Equally, if a cop went out purely to kill some black men for reasons of political revenge, that would be newsworthy in a way that a random death at a traffic stop is not.
The status quo, however, is that random traffic stop deaths of white guys are not newsworthy, but random traffic stop deaths of black guys are national news. That racist double standard is what's being called out.
Equally, if a cop went out purely to kill some black men for reasons of political revenge, that would be newsworthy in a way that a random death at a traffic stop is not.
The status quo, however, is that random traffic stop deaths of white guys are not newsworthy, but random traffic stop deaths of black guys are national news. That racist double standard is what's being called out.
Maybe you should subscribe to a newspaper or two because otherwise this is what you get -- news that people click on.
I wish people would stop blaming the news and blame themselves.
I wish people would stop blaming the news and blame themselves.
The 19th century version of clicks is "readership," and newspapers pursue it.
by not reporting on it, the public is not made aware of this very tragic problem which can in fact be improved by several orders of magnitude with the return of some simple political will. Political will requires media publicity, so in that sense, the media is doing the right thing here.
> with the return of some simple political will
Gun control is a "third rail" in many political jurisdictions in the USA. Many Americans will vote against any agent who would disarm them; those voters are unlikely to see disarming to diminish the (very roughly) ~0.000001% chance of death by mass shooting as a sensible--or even Constitutional--trade.
Gun control is a "third rail" in many political jurisdictions in the USA. Many Americans will vote against any agent who would disarm them; those voters are unlikely to see disarming to diminish the (very roughly) ~0.000001% chance of death by mass shooting as a sensible--or even Constitutional--trade.
85% of the population approves of increased background checks for gun owners. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing debate.
In the abstract, yes, virtually everyone agrees with "wouldn't it be great if bad people couldn't get guns". The problem is the moment it becomes specific a lot of the support is lost.
It's worth pointing out that the House passed the "Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019" back in February, and that Republican leadership in the Senate refuses to bring it to a vote. I have not heard of any House representatives facing enormous backlash at home over their vote.
As it is, the House is more representative of the population of the US than the Senate, so it's fair to say the biggest barrier to increased gun control right now is the quirky nature of the US political system, not popular sentiment.
As it is, the House is more representative of the population of the US than the Senate, so it's fair to say the biggest barrier to increased gun control right now is the quirky nature of the US political system, not popular sentiment.
I wasn't aware of that, thanks.
> Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019
That bill would do nothing to combat these mass shooters. I can't think of any offhand that have bought their weapons through private sale. Most don't have a criminal record so they just buy them from random gun shops.
So if it won't solve anything related to these incidents, what's the point?
That bill would do nothing to combat these mass shooters. I can't think of any offhand that have bought their weapons through private sale. Most don't have a criminal record so they just buy them from random gun shops.
So if it won't solve anything related to these incidents, what's the point?
There are many types of gun crime in the US. Background checks would help with a lot of individual murders, particularly in domestic cases where one partner has already been arrested for domestic abuse.
No, it wouldn't solve everything. But if we wait to pass a law that solves everything, we'll never pass anything.
No, it wouldn't solve everything. But if we wait to pass a law that solves everything, we'll never pass anything.
I guess I would need to see numbers on how many murders use a gun that was bought by a prohibited person through private sale. I highly doubt its anything significant.
So your presumption is that all the people calling for background checks and that have drafted and passed a complete background check law have not considered any of this, or looked at any data? And despite not actually knowing yourself you're comfortable dismissing it as something you "highly doubt"?
I have tried to find numbers on this after I made my comment and couldn't come up with anything.
> have drafted and passed a complete background check law have not considered any of this, or looked at any data
Yes, generally because the people proposing gun laws know nothing about guns.
I have watched national politicians tell townhalls that it's perfectly legal for someone to order a gun online right to their door without a background check, that is a felony.
I have watched them tell people that fully automatic guns are easy to obtain, which they are not.
I have watched them tell people that banning the AR-15 should be our #1 priority, when in reality more people are punched and kicked to death each year than are killed with rifles.
So yes, politicians generally talk out of their @$$ to pander to their bases and get votes. They are not experts on most subject matter so I wouldn't expect them to have any info that isn't widely known.
> have drafted and passed a complete background check law have not considered any of this, or looked at any data
Yes, generally because the people proposing gun laws know nothing about guns.
I have watched national politicians tell townhalls that it's perfectly legal for someone to order a gun online right to their door without a background check, that is a felony.
I have watched them tell people that fully automatic guns are easy to obtain, which they are not.
I have watched them tell people that banning the AR-15 should be our #1 priority, when in reality more people are punched and kicked to death each year than are killed with rifles.
So yes, politicians generally talk out of their @$$ to pander to their bases and get votes. They are not experts on most subject matter so I wouldn't expect them to have any info that isn't widely known.
Seems like exactly the opposite is true. Where specific bills have reached the floor, they've passed. The tactics of the opposition are to use procedural control and veto power to prevent these from becoming laws. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was a successful law, and would have removed access to almost all the weapons used in the recent attacks. It had a sunset provision, and expired in 2004. But it passed, and it worked.
It's a common founding myth among gun rights people that "The American People" are pro-gun, but it's just not really true. It's a particular driving issue for a particular subset of the republican base, and beyond that opinions aren't as strong, but are broadly pro-gun-control.
It's a common founding myth among gun rights people that "The American People" are pro-gun, but it's just not really true. It's a particular driving issue for a particular subset of the republican base, and beyond that opinions aren't as strong, but are broadly pro-gun-control.
I was under the impression that the 1994 ban targeted specific models of firearm and silly features like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonets (I might be confusing this with a california ban). The whole "Assault weapon" thing is considered something of a joke to a lot of firearm enthusiasts. For example, the ruger mini 14 wasn't legally considered an "Assault weapon" (but would be considered one if it had a collapsible stock? might be a myth idk this is what some people claim) despite it being a well regarded semi-automatic rifle which was also used in an infamous shootout with the fbi to devestating effect.
> might be a myth idk this is what some people claim
It was a flawed list of too-specific rules that were self-contradictory or incomplete in a bunch of places, and indeed that became part of the mythology about it in gun circles.
But it also directly outlawed clones of the Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles that have been preferentially used (for fairly obvious reasons) in much of the recent violence. It worked, within its domain.
No one likes the ACA either, but you can still buy insurance with a pre-existing condition. Same deal. The gun folks like to conflate "flawed law" with "useless law", but that's not how it works in practice.
It was a flawed list of too-specific rules that were self-contradictory or incomplete in a bunch of places, and indeed that became part of the mythology about it in gun circles.
But it also directly outlawed clones of the Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles that have been preferentially used (for fairly obvious reasons) in much of the recent violence. It worked, within its domain.
No one likes the ACA either, but you can still buy insurance with a pre-existing condition. Same deal. The gun folks like to conflate "flawed law" with "useless law", but that's not how it works in practice.
That's total nonsense. The AWB accomplished nothing at all, and did not remove access to any weapons for anybody. It banned specific models of weapons and a few specific features that don't correlate to anything in particular. Manufacturers basically instantly made minor modifications and kept selling the exact same thing.
Seconding your assertion that the AWB was ineffective. It barred certain cosmetic features--some malarkey about muzzle brakes and folding stocks or foregrips or whatnot. While doing nothing to diminish the availability of equally potent weapons. 100% toothless, feel-good legislation.
People agree with the specifics too, until the media outlets they watch start pumping out misinformation about whatever the specific proposal says. After a few weeks of watching their favorite pundits bloviate, many people’s “personal preferences” change.
It is not clear if background checks can prevent this type of event.
How about a background check and a mental check? Gun owners always call it a mental health crisis, so let's make sure all new gun owners are vetted and have to pass a psychological exam.
> How about a background check and a mental check?
That would pretty much guarantee that people who need mental health services would deliberately avoid getting it to prevent it from showing up on their records, e.g. a security guard who needs to carry a firearm for their job.
That would pretty much guarantee that people who need mental health services would deliberately avoid getting it to prevent it from showing up on their records, e.g. a security guard who needs to carry a firearm for their job.
It gets worse. If you’re flagged with a mental illness, most states will yank your professional license (you lose your job and possible primary income). Our society has an economic incentive to underreport mental illness.
It would not be optional to do the mental exam.
> It would not be optional to do the mental exam.
Uh, what do you think a psychiatric exam is? There's no crazy-o-meter that they stick into an orifice to objectively determine whether you're mentally ill or not. You simply get asked a series of questions which you can reply to in any way you like.
Uh, what do you think a psychiatric exam is? There's no crazy-o-meter that they stick into an orifice to objectively determine whether you're mentally ill or not. You simply get asked a series of questions which you can reply to in any way you like.
How do you define a "mental check"?
"socially awkward people aren't allowed to have guns" as a policy would be a flagrant violation of a constitutional right.
The scary thing is that mentally ill people can intentionally mask their illness in order to pass exams.
"socially awkward people aren't allowed to have guns" as a policy would be a flagrant violation of a constitutional right.
The scary thing is that mentally ill people can intentionally mask their illness in order to pass exams.
Replying to the other comments under this reply: in Canada we check for past history of mental illness but don’t flag gun license applicants just because of that. They need to have a history of being treated due to illness that could lead to violence.
In the interests of keeping things pari passu, how about implementing mental screenings as part of voter registration as well?
It definitely can in many. Just because it doesn't work every time doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
"Gun people" might be skeptical of the 85% number because there are already background checks, with which "non-gun people" by definition are unfamiliar. Is there something preventing the existing system from becoming better naturally (I honestly don't know the answer here)? I would hazard to guess the 15% of dissenters to be wary of the survey-takers' motives, the particulars of how background checks might be governmentally instrumented to be better, stuff like that. Consider that the prior administration floated the idea of barring folks on the no-fly list from possessing guns, which seems an awfully bureaucratically unconstitutional thing after even slight consideration.
That is very well put, far from the rabid madness that usually seems to be conjured up when gun control is discussed. I spent some time studying it to spot the weak point.
I guess it is the phrase "to disarm them", which is somewhat provocative, since no-one would seriously advocate taking away all guns. Even Japan, with just 5% of the gun violence of the US, allows some citizens to have some guns.
Another issue is with your stated statistic of death via mass shooting. This obviously ignores maimings and other non-deaths, and also deaths from guns in non-mass events, such as burglaries, accidents.
But most of all, it ignores the psychological impact from the threat of gun violence.
What happens to a young child's mind from having to participate in active shooter drills? From having adults explain to them that this is a real threat, and that they better be ready for it? No child should have to carry that burden.
And maybe that leads back to some agreement with your point. If the actual danger from guns is as low as you say, then why have these drills at all?
I guess it is the phrase "to disarm them", which is somewhat provocative, since no-one would seriously advocate taking away all guns. Even Japan, with just 5% of the gun violence of the US, allows some citizens to have some guns.
Another issue is with your stated statistic of death via mass shooting. This obviously ignores maimings and other non-deaths, and also deaths from guns in non-mass events, such as burglaries, accidents.
But most of all, it ignores the psychological impact from the threat of gun violence.
What happens to a young child's mind from having to participate in active shooter drills? From having adults explain to them that this is a real threat, and that they better be ready for it? No child should have to carry that burden.
And maybe that leads back to some agreement with your point. If the actual danger from guns is as low as you say, then why have these drills at all?
> no-one would seriously advocate taking away all guns
While I believe this to be true, virtually any sort of "turn in some of your guns" event in the USA would... not be viewed with any nuance at all. Even machine guns were more-or-less exempt from turn-in, provided they were registered by a certain time. Moreover there are already very, very many semi-automatic pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns in circulation--it's not as if a lot of folks have a bolt-action 22 cal rifle and just a few have semi-automatics--the sort of guns that can be fired and reloaded somewhat rapidly, that's what we've got. Setting aside the fact that a rifle is more powerful and aim-able, but harder to conceal, compared to a pistol, I'm not sure what characteristic of a "bad" gun the American government could successfully put forth.
All that said--from whom would you propose to confiscate what guns?
> Another issue is with your stated statistic of death via mass shooting. This obviously ignores maimings and other non-deaths, and also deaths from guns in non-mass events, such as burglaries, accidents.
Well, agreed! Mass shootings and terror attacks inflict many fewer casualties on the American population compared to robberies, gang and drug violence, alcohol and smoking, fatty foods, traffic accidents and DUI, swimming pools, etc. However, it does not seem to me that these other perils are used to buttress the case for banning the instruments of such trouble. I don't mean to be glib, and indeed it is hard to imagine a bad actor using an undoctored swimming pool against innocents, but it does seem to be the case that the electorate lacks the will to stamp out certain risks. And this lack of will is not really related to the measurable impact of the problem.
> What happens to a young child's mind from having to participate in active shooter drills?
We could reflect on the schoolhouse duck-and-cover drills for nuclear war in the 1950s and 1960s--like, isn't contemplating nuclear annihilation and nuclear winter much more terrifying and existentially dreadful than locking the classroom door? Maybe it isn't a good idea to traumatize children with visions of a terrible but statistically very remote fate. On the other hand, local police and school districts must be seen to be doing something, so maybe it is practically unavoidable.
While I believe this to be true, virtually any sort of "turn in some of your guns" event in the USA would... not be viewed with any nuance at all. Even machine guns were more-or-less exempt from turn-in, provided they were registered by a certain time. Moreover there are already very, very many semi-automatic pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns in circulation--it's not as if a lot of folks have a bolt-action 22 cal rifle and just a few have semi-automatics--the sort of guns that can be fired and reloaded somewhat rapidly, that's what we've got. Setting aside the fact that a rifle is more powerful and aim-able, but harder to conceal, compared to a pistol, I'm not sure what characteristic of a "bad" gun the American government could successfully put forth.
All that said--from whom would you propose to confiscate what guns?
> Another issue is with your stated statistic of death via mass shooting. This obviously ignores maimings and other non-deaths, and also deaths from guns in non-mass events, such as burglaries, accidents.
Well, agreed! Mass shootings and terror attacks inflict many fewer casualties on the American population compared to robberies, gang and drug violence, alcohol and smoking, fatty foods, traffic accidents and DUI, swimming pools, etc. However, it does not seem to me that these other perils are used to buttress the case for banning the instruments of such trouble. I don't mean to be glib, and indeed it is hard to imagine a bad actor using an undoctored swimming pool against innocents, but it does seem to be the case that the electorate lacks the will to stamp out certain risks. And this lack of will is not really related to the measurable impact of the problem.
> What happens to a young child's mind from having to participate in active shooter drills?
We could reflect on the schoolhouse duck-and-cover drills for nuclear war in the 1950s and 1960s--like, isn't contemplating nuclear annihilation and nuclear winter much more terrifying and existentially dreadful than locking the classroom door? Maybe it isn't a good idea to traumatize children with visions of a terrible but statistically very remote fate. On the other hand, local police and school districts must be seen to be doing something, so maybe it is practically unavoidable.
Right, and they see their weapons as insurance against being the victims of a socialist famine like the ones that killed 100 million people last century.
If you want to viscerally understand their viewpoint, call to mind the reaction that you have when someone in the conservative camp goes "Look, it's snowing, so much for global warming!" -- and then substitute "snowing" for "school shooting" and "global warming" for "politically-induced mass starvation."
I don't buy this argument, but only because I don't think armed resistance would be effective, and there's a lot that I know I don't know on that front. What I don't believe is that this tradeoff has an obvious undebatable answer.
If you want to viscerally understand their viewpoint, call to mind the reaction that you have when someone in the conservative camp goes "Look, it's snowing, so much for global warming!" -- and then substitute "snowing" for "school shooting" and "global warming" for "politically-induced mass starvation."
I don't buy this argument, but only because I don't think armed resistance would be effective, and there's a lot that I know I don't know on that front. What I don't believe is that this tradeoff has an obvious undebatable answer.
I didn't mean to imply any particular motive to the pro-gun / pro-2A camp. Like, I personally tend to think most live in somewhat rural areas, and value firearms as tools for self-defense and deterrence--in areas where there is zilch, zero chance one could scream or even effectively telephone for help from the police or a neighbor--plus hunting, protecting livestock, and the like. Surely there are some Americans who dream of resisting government oppression, but surely even the able-minded among them understand the pure futility, plus the crushing societal and economic collapse that would come with it.
*so in that sense, the media is juicing its numbers
thats all they're doing
>public is not made aware of this very tragic problem
everyone is quite aware of what the problems are, many view the children murdered during Sandy Hook as the end of the conversation. The decisions were made.
most first world countries have solved these problems, the US meanwhile...
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
thats all they're doing
>public is not made aware of this very tragic problem
everyone is quite aware of what the problems are, many view the children murdered during Sandy Hook as the end of the conversation. The decisions were made.
most first world countries have solved these problems, the US meanwhile...
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Think about this event for 1 minute: He drove for -9- hours. NINE HOURS.
Do you think it would take less than 9 hours to pour some diesel fuel on fertilizer and flatten the entire WalMart?
People will just move on to other weapons: knives, bombs, etc.
Norway has very restrictive gun laws. Breivik managed to get enough fertilizer to make a bomb that was mostly a distraction, but still sent 8 people to grave and injured hundreds.
UK is having a knife problem: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48186035
You are at 10x higher chance of death by vehicle.
The -only- reason it is seen as a tragedy because people feel those deaths were somehow avoidable.
Do you think it would take less than 9 hours to pour some diesel fuel on fertilizer and flatten the entire WalMart?
People will just move on to other weapons: knives, bombs, etc.
Norway has very restrictive gun laws. Breivik managed to get enough fertilizer to make a bomb that was mostly a distraction, but still sent 8 people to grave and injured hundreds.
UK is having a knife problem: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48186035
You are at 10x higher chance of death by vehicle.
The -only- reason it is seen as a tragedy because people feel those deaths were somehow avoidable.
Other countries with stricter gun laws have lower murder rates. So it doesn’t follow that people will necessarily just move on to other weapons.
Also, knife crime in the UK is not higher than the US.
Yes the deaths were avoidable. We know they were because every other first world country doesn’t have this problem in anywhere the same degree.
Also, knife crime in the UK is not higher than the US.
Yes the deaths were avoidable. We know they were because every other first world country doesn’t have this problem in anywhere the same degree.
Are you going to cite anything about knife crime not being a problem in the UK?
How do you explain much lower homicide rates in different US states, many on par or better than "every other first wolrd country?
If you drill down deeper, by county level, or even more granular - the picture becomes much clearer still. You should research it, see what variables drive it, instead of arriving at conclusions without any data.
Why do such discrepancies exist, sometimes literally across the street?
The problem is much more complicated than "guns bad".
How do you explain much lower homicide rates in different US states, many on par or better than "every other first wolrd country?
If you drill down deeper, by county level, or even more granular - the picture becomes much clearer still. You should research it, see what variables drive it, instead of arriving at conclusions without any data.
Why do such discrepancies exist, sometimes literally across the street?
The problem is much more complicated than "guns bad".
Which states and developed countries are you talking about? The EU28 homicide rate is ~1 per 100,000. NH sometimes hits that; no other US state does. There are about 6 US states <= to 2. The only EU states over 2 are Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Japan and South Korea are both under 1.
The UK ‘knife crime’ thing is severely overhyped (in particular, most of the figures you’ll see include mere possession of a knife under certain circumstances). The UK’s intentional homicide rate is middling for Europe and about a fourth that of the US. Homicide rate has risen a little bit over the last few years.
What's your prescription for reducing US homicide death to European levels?
Lithium in the water supply.
Legalize drugs and redirect the money spent on the police state and mass incarceration into social programs for the urban poor.
This wasn't run of the mill homicide.
Every other country in the western world reports mass shootings in roughly the same way - yet shooting happen at a much lower rate per capita.
[deleted]
> By turning every mass shooting into a hysterical emotional maelstrom, you signal a green light to all the other potential shooters that this is how you get attention.
I can see that point. There is also something odd about what shootings get publicized and which don't. Some shooters, seem to be getting more media attention than others.
Is it the manifestos or maybe the number of victims? I remember the Congressional baseball shooting, but I think there was no manifesto so it wasn't talked about as much, even though it involved members of Congress. The Christchurch one was publicized and was very visible, and there was a manifesto. The youtube shooter was a strange case. Given what media likes to do, I would have expected that one to be front page news for a long time since it had a manifesto in her videos and it involved a major tech company. However, it disappeared from the news cycle relatively quickly.
Now, I would rather they all not be publicized as much. There needs to be legislative action about guns, what resources, especially mental health, are available, etc. But, it is probably better if that is handled after some time and not in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
I can see that point. There is also something odd about what shootings get publicized and which don't. Some shooters, seem to be getting more media attention than others.
Is it the manifestos or maybe the number of victims? I remember the Congressional baseball shooting, but I think there was no manifesto so it wasn't talked about as much, even though it involved members of Congress. The Christchurch one was publicized and was very visible, and there was a manifesto. The youtube shooter was a strange case. Given what media likes to do, I would have expected that one to be front page news for a long time since it had a manifesto in her videos and it involved a major tech company. However, it disappeared from the news cycle relatively quickly.
Now, I would rather they all not be publicized as much. There needs to be legislative action about guns, what resources, especially mental health, are available, etc. But, it is probably better if that is handled after some time and not in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
At the risk of staying the obvious, the various media outlets in the US have all by this point joined either the red or blue team and now report only on those incidents which could harm the other team in the eyes of the public.
What do you think is more likely:
1. News media decides how long to keep a story active in the news cycle in order to push a narrative.
2. News media reacts to the attention a story received and keeps popular stories active longer to sell more ads.
1. News media decides how long to keep a story active in the news cycle in order to push a narrative.
2. News media reacts to the attention a story received and keeps popular stories active longer to sell more ads.
Actually not sure. I guess even for 2, why is there more attention received for some vs others? So it's a bit tautological / recursive.
The media is in the middle of the feedback loop, it can both generate attention and react to it. Given that position they push a narrative if it gets more ad views.
The media is in the middle of the feedback loop, it can both generate attention and react to it. Given that position they push a narrative if it gets more ad views.
It's the politics. If it helps the narrative of the left, it gets wall-to-wall coverage. If it hurts the narrative of the left, it goes down the memory hole as fast as possible.
While this may be a contributing factor, it seems obvious that a major problem with these mass shootings is that
The USA Government is doing nothing to even attempt to prevent the next one.
Correct me if I’m wrong, would definitely like to change that opinion.
The USA Government is doing nothing to even attempt to prevent the next one.
Correct me if I’m wrong, would definitely like to change that opinion.
The idea that the problem will go away if we talk as little as possible about it isn't borne out by experience. Why wouldn't you just expect independent media outlets to fill the information vacuum? I hear this argument a lot after every terrorist incident but in ~30 years nobody has ever provided any solid evidence to back it up.
You’d have to establish that they are copycats, definitively.
Hey, now that might actually work. Can't have that
The problem is, mass shootings generate a lot of revenue for media companies in terms of clicks, so when one major online newspapers posts something about it, the rest of them would follow. (Capitalism can really commoditize anything, right?)
samstave(1)
I'm not sure I understand what those here rallying in defense of "free speech" are arguing. Free speech has not been violated. The government did not mandate this. As an individual citizen, I am allowed to say whatever I want under the protection of free speech. But I am not entitled to others providing me a platform for my speech. Other people/companies can't be coerced to provide me such a platform. And even if every person and company refuses to provide me a platform, my rights still aren't being violated, so long as the government isn't mandating it. Its just tough nuts.
As has been explained in this thread multiple times now, Free Speech is a principle, not a law. If, for example, someone in North Korea spoke against their government and was executed for it, that'd be a violation of Free Speech. Arguing "but North Korea doesn't have a law protecting people who speak against the government" would be ridiculous.
Similarly, if a person or organization in the United States is silenced because they were deplatformed by a corporate oligarchy, it's ridiculous to argue "the US doesn't have any law which prevents that, so Free Speech has not been violated".
Free Speech has absolutely been impinged by this decision.
Similarly, if a person or organization in the United States is silenced because they were deplatformed by a corporate oligarchy, it's ridiculous to argue "the US doesn't have any law which prevents that, so Free Speech has not been violated".
Free Speech has absolutely been impinged by this decision.
This is a very strange idea of what Free Speech is. The reason Free Speech is related to government is that government has a monopoly on violence. Government can turn up with guns at your house and stop you speaking in a way that no other body can. What is happening here is very different.
Cloudflare isn't preventing anyone from saying anything. All that is happening is Cloudflare is using it's freedom of association not to associate with this website. This has nothing to do with 8Chan's ability to publish what they want - only their ability to use Cloudflare's services to do so. As the article mentions - because the US has the principle of Free Speech enshrined in law, 8chan has the ability to go and use other services, or to develop the services that Cloudflare provided. This will not impact 8chan's ability to publish whatever they like.
Now there is a theoretical point of view, that if a company has a monopoly - it is effectively able to police speech, but that's absolutely not the case here, as is demonstrated in the past by companies going elsewhere to exercise their right.
What is being proposed as an understanding of Free Speech is not allowing private individuals from refusing to service to you. This would seem to be mandating someone to act - which is a principle quite far away from any law I've heard of.
Cloudflare isn't preventing anyone from saying anything. All that is happening is Cloudflare is using it's freedom of association not to associate with this website. This has nothing to do with 8Chan's ability to publish what they want - only their ability to use Cloudflare's services to do so. As the article mentions - because the US has the principle of Free Speech enshrined in law, 8chan has the ability to go and use other services, or to develop the services that Cloudflare provided. This will not impact 8chan's ability to publish whatever they like.
Now there is a theoretical point of view, that if a company has a monopoly - it is effectively able to police speech, but that's absolutely not the case here, as is demonstrated in the past by companies going elsewhere to exercise their right.
What is being proposed as an understanding of Free Speech is not allowing private individuals from refusing to service to you. This would seem to be mandating someone to act - which is a principle quite far away from any law I've heard of.
Cloudflare may not be a monopoly, but they don't necessarily need to be a monopoly to be able to effectively police speech. A duopoly or oligopoly can be just as effective at that task, provided all competitors have similar rules about what sort of speech they disallow.
Now maybe we're not quite at that point yet (after all, the Daily Stormer did eventually find a CDN that would take them), but we may very well be getting close; there are only so many CDNs big enough to effectively shrug off large-scale DDOS attacks after all.
You also have to consider how difficult it is to match the quality of service provided by Cloudflare, and the hassle involved in switching to a new CDN. Cloudflare's refusal to service some organizations on the basis of ideology might have a chilling effect on Free Speech, even if it's not an insurmountable barrier.
I agree there is a balance between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. The question is: where do we draw the line?
Now maybe we're not quite at that point yet (after all, the Daily Stormer did eventually find a CDN that would take them), but we may very well be getting close; there are only so many CDNs big enough to effectively shrug off large-scale DDOS attacks after all.
You also have to consider how difficult it is to match the quality of service provided by Cloudflare, and the hassle involved in switching to a new CDN. Cloudflare's refusal to service some organizations on the basis of ideology might have a chilling effect on Free Speech, even if it's not an insurmountable barrier.
I agree there is a balance between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. The question is: where do we draw the line?
Nobody has a right to a CDN or a right to DDOS protection. Cloudflare is a private company offering a service in exchange for money. They may deny service to whomever they wish (with exceptions for certain protected classes). Political leanings and ideologies do not constitute a protected class. Neither Cloudflare, nor Google, nor FaceBook, nor Reddit, nor HN for that matter have any legal or moral obligation to grant a platform to anyone. A private platform reserves all rights to the content on their platform. If you have an issue with how that is policed or moderated then you are free to create your own competing service.
You're falling back on the legal argument again. Again: Free Speech is not a law, it's a principle.
Sure, even without a CDN a sufficiently well-funded organization could spend millions of dollars on the infrastructure necessary to resist a powerful DDOS attack. But if that's enough in your mind to satisfy the principle of free speech, then you're essentially saying that it's okay if it costs millions of dollars to speak freely on the internet. I'm not sure that's a good policy.
Sure, even without a CDN a sufficiently well-funded organization could spend millions of dollars on the infrastructure necessary to resist a powerful DDOS attack. But if that's enough in your mind to satisfy the principle of free speech, then you're essentially saying that it's okay if it costs millions of dollars to speak freely on the internet. I'm not sure that's a good policy.
I clearly said no moral obligation. That covers your claim of Free Speech as a principle. A private organization does not owe you their bandwidth.
> then you're essentially saying that it's okay if it costs millions of dollars to speak freely on the internet.
No. Go buy a RaspberryPi for $35. Now you can host your own site and say whatever you would like on the internet. Again, nobody owes you anything. Nobody is obliged to carry my message. You have a right speak freely. You do not have a right to be heard.
> then you're essentially saying that it's okay if it costs millions of dollars to speak freely on the internet.
No. Go buy a RaspberryPi for $35. Now you can host your own site and say whatever you would like on the internet. Again, nobody owes you anything. Nobody is obliged to carry my message. You have a right speak freely. You do not have a right to be heard.
> You have a right speak freely. You do not have a right to be heard.
"You have the right to speak freely as long as you can't effectively do it"? Not much of a right then, is it?
I wonder what would have happened to the civil rights movement or the women's right movement if people with that kind of attitude had existed back then? Those were widely opposed movements back then too.
"You have the right to speak freely as long as you can't effectively do it"? Not much of a right then, is it?
I wonder what would have happened to the civil rights movement or the women's right movement if people with that kind of attitude had existed back then? Those were widely opposed movements back then too.
> "You have the right to speak freely as long as you can't effectively do it"
That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of what I said. Think of it another way. Prior to the internet could TV and radio stations be forced to play an ad they disagree with? Could newspapers and magazines be forced to print ads or op-eds they disagree with?
You cannot force someone else to carry your message. If you are unable to broadcast the message yourself and nobody else is willing to broadcast it for you then that is your own issue. No private entity is responsible for giving you a platform.
That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of what I said. Think of it another way. Prior to the internet could TV and radio stations be forced to play an ad they disagree with? Could newspapers and magazines be forced to print ads or op-eds they disagree with?
You cannot force someone else to carry your message. If you are unable to broadcast the message yourself and nobody else is willing to broadcast it for you then that is your own issue. No private entity is responsible for giving you a platform.
A Raspberry Pi can be trivially overloaded with a simple DOS attack. (Not even DDOS.) If you've got anything remotely controversial to say, I wouldn't count on that being sufficient to keep your site online. The infrastructure necessary to remain online during a coordinated attack isn't cheap; that's why Cloudflare advertises DDOS protection as one of the many services they offer: https://www.cloudflare.com/ddos/
Whether or not a cloud infrastructure company "owes" content-neutral treatment to their customers is a matter which, I think, is up for debate. Particularly in this day and age where the internet has become such an important venue for political speech.
Whether or not a cloud infrastructure company "owes" content-neutral treatment to their customers is a matter which, I think, is up for debate. Particularly in this day and age where the internet has become such an important venue for political speech.
Free Speech doesn’t require a CDN. Lol. It’s not like the First Amendment comes with a 99.999% uptime guarantee.
Some of you are so dense. Free speech is about not being dragged off in the middle of the night and sent to a gulag.
There’s no fine line here, no slippery slope. Everyone on 8chan is free to continue publishing whatever they want. It just won’t be published over a high availability CDN. It also won’t show up in Times Square.
Some of you are so dense. Free speech is about not being dragged off in the middle of the night and sent to a gulag.
There’s no fine line here, no slippery slope. Everyone on 8chan is free to continue publishing whatever they want. It just won’t be published over a high availability CDN. It also won’t show up in Times Square.
There is a fine line, and I think that's easily illustrated with a few hypothetical counterexamples.
If you truly believe that "free speech is about not being dragged off in the middle of the night and sent to a gulag", and that that's all it's about for you, then would you, for example, be okay with a law stating that social media companies in the US are required to automatically filter any content critical of actions taken by the US military, and not display that content to people inside the US?
Yes, that's an extreme example, and yes it'd be illegal under the current US constitution, but it would be consistent with the extremely narrow definition of Free Speech you specified in your previous comment.
So, assuming that's not actually where you draw the line, where do you draw it? How much suppression of speech are you willing to tolerate before you would consider it unacceptable?
If you truly believe that "free speech is about not being dragged off in the middle of the night and sent to a gulag", and that that's all it's about for you, then would you, for example, be okay with a law stating that social media companies in the US are required to automatically filter any content critical of actions taken by the US military, and not display that content to people inside the US?
Yes, that's an extreme example, and yes it'd be illegal under the current US constitution, but it would be consistent with the extremely narrow definition of Free Speech you specified in your previous comment.
So, assuming that's not actually where you draw the line, where do you draw it? How much suppression of speech are you willing to tolerate before you would consider it unacceptable?
Your example is the gulag example. If you don’t do what the law says, stormtroopers come in and take you away. Thats a free speech issue, but that’s not what’s happening here. It’s not even close. It’s not a slippery slope. It’s just… nothing. Nothing is happening here.
I tolerate zero suppression. But that’s not what’s at issue here. We are talking about a CDN company refusing business of someone they don’t like, because it exposes them to bad PR and likely liability as well. No one is required to publish your content. I can post my dick all over Facebook, and that’s fine, because that’s not suppression of free speech. I can’t walk into CNN and demand airtime under a flag of free speech either.
The closest thing we ever had to an issue of free speech on the Internet was when ICANN was handing over domains to the feds over piracy issues. In that case their was a thin line. In that case there was a discussion to be had. Property was being seized by the government and people were being arrested and imprisoned for what some considered speech.
Here there is nothing. Just whiny, uneducated people with no concept of what free speech actually refers to.
I tolerate zero suppression. But that’s not what’s at issue here. We are talking about a CDN company refusing business of someone they don’t like, because it exposes them to bad PR and likely liability as well. No one is required to publish your content. I can post my dick all over Facebook, and that’s fine, because that’s not suppression of free speech. I can’t walk into CNN and demand airtime under a flag of free speech either.
The closest thing we ever had to an issue of free speech on the Internet was when ICANN was handing over domains to the feds over piracy issues. In that case their was a thin line. In that case there was a discussion to be had. Property was being seized by the government and people were being arrested and imprisoned for what some considered speech.
Here there is nothing. Just whiny, uneducated people with no concept of what free speech actually refers to.
No gulag. No stormtroopers. Your message criticizing the military just won't be seen anyone, because the platform you're posting on will censor it.
That's suppression of free speech; regardless of whether it's a government or a corporation that's doing it.
That's suppression of free speech; regardless of whether it's a government or a corporation that's doing it.
You totally misunderstand the way the legal system works in the United States. Let’s go ahead and examine your example.
Say that a law was passed that required Facebook and others to remove posts critical of the US military. In this example, if Facebook fails to comply, people will be arrested.
Facebook would sue the government, saying that the law is unconstitutional as it violates the First Amendment. This would likely become know as something like Facebook et al. vs The United States. Unless we are in a bizarro universe, Facebook would win.
In this example, Facebook’s rights, as a publisher, are the ones being trampled on, not yours. It’s not a people’s case. In this scenario you likely don’t even have standing to sue (debatable, I suppose, but that’s a separate discussion entirely).
It’s worth noting that the closest thing to this scenario was with the ACSS key years ago. Not quite the same, but similar parties involved along a similar line of thinking.
But the issue at hand with Cloudflare isn’t the same. There is no constitutional issue at all. It’s just one business dropping a client.
In fact, the only way this could ever turn into a free speech issue, even in principle, is if a law was passed that forced Cloudflare to continue to host 8chan’s content.
You should really do some reading about what free speech actually means. You are so far off the mark it’s hard to take you seriously.
Say that a law was passed that required Facebook and others to remove posts critical of the US military. In this example, if Facebook fails to comply, people will be arrested.
Facebook would sue the government, saying that the law is unconstitutional as it violates the First Amendment. This would likely become know as something like Facebook et al. vs The United States. Unless we are in a bizarro universe, Facebook would win.
In this example, Facebook’s rights, as a publisher, are the ones being trampled on, not yours. It’s not a people’s case. In this scenario you likely don’t even have standing to sue (debatable, I suppose, but that’s a separate discussion entirely).
It’s worth noting that the closest thing to this scenario was with the ACSS key years ago. Not quite the same, but similar parties involved along a similar line of thinking.
But the issue at hand with Cloudflare isn’t the same. There is no constitutional issue at all. It’s just one business dropping a client.
In fact, the only way this could ever turn into a free speech issue, even in principle, is if a law was passed that forced Cloudflare to continue to host 8chan’s content.
You should really do some reading about what free speech actually means. You are so far off the mark it’s hard to take you seriously.
Again, Free Speech is not a law, it's a principle. The question of whether or not this hypothetical law would be legal under the current version of the US constitution is irrelevant.
To repeat my previous point: assume the same law was passed in North Korea instead of the US. Would the law then be "not a violation of Free Speech" because North Korea has no legal protections for Free Speech?
To repeat my previous point: assume the same law was passed in North Korea instead of the US. Would the law then be "not a violation of Free Speech" because North Korea has no legal protections for Free Speech?
You misunderstand even the principle or ethos of free speech, even by a radical GNU-style standard.
Take a step back, stop being so defensive, and realize you are wrong and you can actually learn something. You seem to care about this, so take it as an opportunity to actually learn what free speech is and what you can do to protect it.
Free speech is not some idea by which all companies much publish all content with an equal hand. That's an absurd standard. That's actually antithetical to free speech ideals, as it FORCES companies endorse speech that they, themselves, don't agree with.
> To repeat my previous point: assume the same law was passed in North Korea instead of the US. Would the law then be "not a violation of Free Speech" because North Korea has no legal protections for Free Speech?
Of course it would. It would be in the US, and it would be in North Korea.
North Korea is a great example, and it's not hypothetical. But in North Korea it is illegal for anyone to be critical of the military—not just asking certain publishers to be more selective about what they publish.
But none of this has anything to do with Cloudflare. Cloudflare is just a business. It's a non-essential, privately owned company that has nothing to do with the government. If someone from 8chan goes into the local Starbucks and starts screaming about killing Hispanics, Starbucks can ask them to leave. That's not a free speech violation.
If this was something like ICANN seizing a domain or the FCC refusing to issue a radio license you could at least make the "slippery slope" case with some kind of loose validity. But we aren't even talking about that. No one has to support your speech. Dell doesn't have to sell you computers for your server farm and Cloudflare doesn't have to sell you CDN services. CNN doesn't have to give you airtime, and Amazon doesn't have to publish your book.
You can build a horrific media empire that endorses and promotes the most disgusting and hateful forms of speech imaginable, but NO ONE has to support you in doing that. And, in fact, no one SHOULD be forced to.
Just look at Alex Jones. No one has arrested him (minus an incident in New York with him literally screaming into someone's face with a megaphone, which was borderline assault) and no one should. But no one has to support him either.
Take a step back, stop being so defensive, and realize you are wrong and you can actually learn something. You seem to care about this, so take it as an opportunity to actually learn what free speech is and what you can do to protect it.
Free speech is not some idea by which all companies much publish all content with an equal hand. That's an absurd standard. That's actually antithetical to free speech ideals, as it FORCES companies endorse speech that they, themselves, don't agree with.
> To repeat my previous point: assume the same law was passed in North Korea instead of the US. Would the law then be "not a violation of Free Speech" because North Korea has no legal protections for Free Speech?
Of course it would. It would be in the US, and it would be in North Korea.
North Korea is a great example, and it's not hypothetical. But in North Korea it is illegal for anyone to be critical of the military—not just asking certain publishers to be more selective about what they publish.
But none of this has anything to do with Cloudflare. Cloudflare is just a business. It's a non-essential, privately owned company that has nothing to do with the government. If someone from 8chan goes into the local Starbucks and starts screaming about killing Hispanics, Starbucks can ask them to leave. That's not a free speech violation.
If this was something like ICANN seizing a domain or the FCC refusing to issue a radio license you could at least make the "slippery slope" case with some kind of loose validity. But we aren't even talking about that. No one has to support your speech. Dell doesn't have to sell you computers for your server farm and Cloudflare doesn't have to sell you CDN services. CNN doesn't have to give you airtime, and Amazon doesn't have to publish your book.
You can build a horrific media empire that endorses and promotes the most disgusting and hateful forms of speech imaginable, but NO ONE has to support you in doing that. And, in fact, no one SHOULD be forced to.
Just look at Alex Jones. No one has arrested him (minus an incident in New York with him literally screaming into someone's face with a megaphone, which was borderline assault) and no one should. But no one has to support him either.
ICANN is great example. ICANN is a private organization, not a government. Are you saying that simply because they're _not_ a government, they should be allowed to censor domains based on their own ideas about what is and isn't acceptable speech?
Yes, ICANN is a bit different because ICANN is effectively a monopoly. But again, see my previous comment explaining why you don't need to be a monopoly to effectively police speech: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20614680
The point is, it doesn't matter who's doing the censoring. Once you reach the point where you're actively hindering people from expressing ideas in a public space (such as the internet), you're impinging Free Speech. Now maybe that's acceptable to a certain extent when the only alternative is to impinge upon a company's freedom of association. That's why I say there's a balance between those two principles. But the question remains: where should the line be drawn?
Yes, ICANN is a bit different because ICANN is effectively a monopoly. But again, see my previous comment explaining why you don't need to be a monopoly to effectively police speech: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20614680
The point is, it doesn't matter who's doing the censoring. Once you reach the point where you're actively hindering people from expressing ideas in a public space (such as the internet), you're impinging Free Speech. Now maybe that's acceptable to a certain extent when the only alternative is to impinge upon a company's freedom of association. That's why I say there's a balance between those two principles. But the question remains: where should the line be drawn?
"Free Speech has absolutely been impinged by this decision."
No, it hasn't. No one has a moral, legal, or ethical responsibility to pay for someone else's speech. The government must tread lightly, but private individuals are under no compulsion to listen to others. 8chan is NOT having their speech rights infringed, they are simply having a business agreement terminated. They are still 100% free to create a website somewhere else, write a book, or protest in the streets.
Do not confuse private property (Cloudflare's servers) with the public square.
No, it hasn't. No one has a moral, legal, or ethical responsibility to pay for someone else's speech. The government must tread lightly, but private individuals are under no compulsion to listen to others. 8chan is NOT having their speech rights infringed, they are simply having a business agreement terminated. They are still 100% free to create a website somewhere else, write a book, or protest in the streets.
Do not confuse private property (Cloudflare's servers) with the public square.
The problem with that argument is that there's no such thing as a "public square" on the internet. Everything on the internet is controlled by a private company in some manner or another. Whether you're talking about DNS, cloud hosting, ISPs, CDNs, or CAs there are always going to be some number of privately controlled intermediaries with the means to censor your speech.
For some of these entities, such as CDNs with enough infrastructure to stand up against large-scale DDOS attacks, there may only be a small number of viable options. What happens if all of those companies collectively decide to censor someone? You've effectively created a corporate oligarchy with the power to decide what sort of speech is and isn't allowed on the internet.
Now again, maybe we're not quite at that point yet (after all, the Daily Stormer did eventually find a CDN that would take them), but we may very well be getting close. You also have to consider that even without a true oligopoly; there's still a chilling effect created when a large percentage of the internet's major infrastructure providers collectively decide to censor certain speech on the basis of ideology.
At what point do you believe freedom of speech outweighs freedom of association? We've already decided freedom from racial discrimination trumps freedom of association, so it's not like this sort of thing would be entirely without precedent.
For some of these entities, such as CDNs with enough infrastructure to stand up against large-scale DDOS attacks, there may only be a small number of viable options. What happens if all of those companies collectively decide to censor someone? You've effectively created a corporate oligarchy with the power to decide what sort of speech is and isn't allowed on the internet.
Now again, maybe we're not quite at that point yet (after all, the Daily Stormer did eventually find a CDN that would take them), but we may very well be getting close. You also have to consider that even without a true oligopoly; there's still a chilling effect created when a large percentage of the internet's major infrastructure providers collectively decide to censor certain speech on the basis of ideology.
At what point do you believe freedom of speech outweighs freedom of association? We've already decided freedom from racial discrimination trumps freedom of association, so it's not like this sort of thing would be entirely without precedent.
"The problem with that argument is that there's no such thing as a "public square" on the internet."
There's also no public square in magazines, newspapers, radio, TV, libraries aren't required to stock your book, nor book stores, no one has to lease you space for a store, etc. You have the right to speak, no one has an obligation to listen or pay attention. No one has an obligation to help you speak, etc. That's what I mean when I said, "do not confuse public square with private property." Just because everyone watches TV and uses the internet does not mean anyone has a RIGHT to express themselves there.
There's also no public square in magazines, newspapers, radio, TV, libraries aren't required to stock your book, nor book stores, no one has to lease you space for a store, etc. You have the right to speak, no one has an obligation to listen or pay attention. No one has an obligation to help you speak, etc. That's what I mean when I said, "do not confuse public square with private property." Just because everyone watches TV and uses the internet does not mean anyone has a RIGHT to express themselves there.
Do you actually know what Cloudflare does? I'm not sure you quite understand what a CDN is.
A CDN isn't necessary. It's a convenience for end users. You don't need a CDN to prevent DDoS. In fact having a CDN is probably the most expensive way to handle DDoS.
A CDN isn't necessary. It's a convenience for end users. You don't need a CDN to prevent DDoS. In fact having a CDN is probably the most expensive way to handle DDoS.
CDNs protect against DDOS by distributing request handling over a wide geographical area, filtering suspicious requests, and caching responses to avoid hammering the origin server.
Cloudflare offers all of that as a service: https://www.cloudflare.com/ddos/
You can reduce the effectiveness of DDOS in other ways, but there's only so much you can do when you're limited to a few servers with limited bandwidth. Ultimately the only way to weather a large, brute force DDOS is by having enough capacity to service all incoming requests, which is something a CDN helps provide.
Cloudflare offers all of that as a service: https://www.cloudflare.com/ddos/
You can reduce the effectiveness of DDOS in other ways, but there's only so much you can do when you're limited to a few servers with limited bandwidth. Ultimately the only way to weather a large, brute force DDOS is by having enough capacity to service all incoming requests, which is something a CDN helps provide.
A CDN doesn’t actually help provide that for a website like 8chan. If the main server goes down, it goes down. Cloudflare will just cache old pages.
8chan wasn’t exactly designed for distributed architecture. Did you even ever use the site?
8chan wasn’t exactly designed for distributed architecture. Did you even ever use the site?
Cloudflare does way more than just cache pages. As I said, they can also filter requests, even going so far in extreme cases as to use a captcha to validate that the one making the request is human before forwarding the request upstream to the origin server.
I've never used 8Chan, but my understanding is that it's a simple forum site, like 4Chan. That seems at a cursory glance to be feasible to run in a distributed manner; though I guess it depends on how the application itself is architected. That's kinda irrelevant though, since as I just explained a well designed CDN like Cloudflare can remove a lot of the need for the site itself to implement a distributed infrastructure. (At least so long as DDOS is the cause of your scaling issue, and not legitimate traffic.)
I've never used 8Chan, but my understanding is that it's a simple forum site, like 4Chan. That seems at a cursory glance to be feasible to run in a distributed manner; though I guess it depends on how the application itself is architected. That's kinda irrelevant though, since as I just explained a well designed CDN like Cloudflare can remove a lot of the need for the site itself to implement a distributed infrastructure. (At least so long as DDOS is the cause of your scaling issue, and not legitimate traffic.)
I'm always amazed at how right wingers are all "property rights, property rights". And when something like this happens, they quickly switch from demanding that the property rights of CloudFlare be observed, to "free speech, free speech" concerning the conservatives on 8chan.
I am far left and thing free speech is the underpinning of any successful democracy. Your bias betrays you.
That's a large brush you're using to paint a group of individuals. I think I would be considered conservative by a lot of the more liberal types here but think that CloudFlare is within their rights to do what they want.
In this case, "property rights", as you put it are at odds with free speech. I don't think it would be ideologically inconsistent to believe that free speech trumps property rights in cases where the two principles conflict.
I also think there's a lot more nuance to this situation than you seem to be implying. I very much doubt there are a significant number of people ("right wingers" or otherwise) who believe property rights are the most important concern in all situations, nor are there many who believe in an absolute right to Free Speech at any cost. (The constitution itself allows for narrow exceptions for both of those rights.)
I also think there's a lot more nuance to this situation than you seem to be implying. I very much doubt there are a significant number of people ("right wingers" or otherwise) who believe property rights are the most important concern in all situations, nor are there many who believe in an absolute right to Free Speech at any cost. (The constitution itself allows for narrow exceptions for both of those rights.)
So CloudFlare gets absolutely no say in what they host and serve on their private property because of "Free Speech"?
Maybe. We've already banned companies from discriminating on the basis of race. Would a limited ban on telecommunications infrastructure companies discriminating on the basis of ideology really be all that bad?
If anything, it would certainly free those companies from having to act as arbiters of moral truth.
If anything, it would certainly free those companies from having to act as arbiters of moral truth.
That would be great, but sadly the companies are not doing it out of their own free will, they are pushed by the government in some way to do that. And so far legislations around the world only move in a direction to make that government involvement more explicit, not enforce more freedom.
I agree. Similarly, I cannot be forced at gunpoint by the government to provide a cake for a gay wedding if I have a moral objection.
Discriminatory business practices should not be conflated with free speech.
What I produce in my business is an expression of myself that I may or may not exchange with another. I have the right to or not to associate with whomever I choose to.
That a crazy person posts a screed somewhere then commits mass murder is not by itself sufficient reason to destroy the forum where they posted their screed. It's not remotely clear to me that 8chan glorified previous mass murders -- of course, I've not looked, but then, Cloudflare doesn't post any evidence of this either. But even 8chan they did, that's essentially what the media is doing every time they give wall-to-wall coverage to any mass murder -- future would be mass murderers may fantasize about being the one the news media talk about next. No one talks about de-platforming CNN. Before we deplatform the 8chans of the world, at the very least we should have some evidence of how they failed to moderate content, and we should give them a chance to fix it.
> No one talks about de-platforming CNN.
Roger Ebert[1], Tristan Harris[2], and others argue that the way CNN (and others) covers these events incentivises further occurrences.
[1]: https://boingboing.net/2012/12/15/roger-ebert-on-how-the-pre...
[2]: I’m having trouble finding the video amongst the flood of news reports from the recent events.
Roger Ebert[1], Tristan Harris[2], and others argue that the way CNN (and others) covers these events incentivises further occurrences.
[1]: https://boingboing.net/2012/12/15/roger-ebert-on-how-the-pre...
[2]: I’m having trouble finding the video amongst the flood of news reports from the recent events.
But do they propose that CNN be deplatformed?
The definition of the word `deplatform` is:
> To prevent someone from utilizing a platform to express their opinion.
CloudFlare is not a platform for expressing opinions. As such, 8chan was not deplatformed... so what point are you really trying to make, here?
> To prevent someone from utilizing a platform to express their opinion.
CloudFlare is not a platform for expressing opinions. As such, 8chan was not deplatformed... so what point are you really trying to make, here?
According to Cloudflare's logic, ISPs should have stopped peering with Facebook after NZ shooter livestreamed there.
Facebook implemented automation to ban any reposts of the NZ footage. Facebook routinely bans extremists groups.
8ch actively caters to white supremacists, by letting /pol/ be the second largest board there and not be actively moderated to combat hate speech. 8ch administrators did nothing to prevent hate speech from becoming a large chunk of their discourse. As such, people were looking towards 8ch's providers to do something about this, as it has been the case on the Internet since forever (ISP not reacting to abuse requests concerning their customers? Okay, we have to contact their upstreams then).
8ch actively caters to white supremacists, by letting /pol/ be the second largest board there and not be actively moderated to combat hate speech. 8ch administrators did nothing to prevent hate speech from becoming a large chunk of their discourse. As such, people were looking towards 8ch's providers to do something about this, as it has been the case on the Internet since forever (ISP not reacting to abuse requests concerning their customers? Okay, we have to contact their upstreams then).
Oh so therefore, 8chan was deplatformed not in connection with this manifesto then, but due to their past record of not banning bad speech prior to this crime?
I don't know. I assume this can be the straw that broke the camel's back.
And I assume you are a "net neutrality" advocate at the same time?
They are not exclusive - this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Perhaps only if commenters glorified it? I'm sure you can find people to do that on FB or anywhere else, and it may take time to moderate such commentary. But no one would deplatform FB or Twitter -- they're too big. This approach means we have a powerful dynamic in place to limit the reach of any social media that isn't already "too big to deplatform".
>they're too big
And therein lies the problem. This sort of behavior is tolerated in Facebook and Twitter simply because they are "large" by some random metric. If FB or Twitter decides one day to mass censor a certain type of content, it somehow isn't a big deal because they are "large"
And therein lies the problem. This sort of behavior is tolerated in Facebook and Twitter simply because they are "large" by some random metric. If FB or Twitter decides one day to mass censor a certain type of content, it somehow isn't a big deal because they are "large"
[deleted]
In fact Facebook said they didn't remove the nz shooter livestream because nobody bothered to report it until very late
I would argue that the actual graphic livestream of a real mass murder is a much much more toxic and dangerous material than any theoretical manifesto. It's not even in the same league. But Facebook is too big to be dropped as a customer!
Is Facebook a customer? I thought they had their own network?
Maybe not, but others could refuse to peer with them.
Pretty sure they are customers of several CDNs.
Please, as if Facebook would be taken down when a few pubescent mongoloids "glorified violence".
Glorification is a matter of free speech, because it is an expression of opinion. That you find it distasteful is fine, using that as a weapon is not.
Either way, Facebook won't be held accountable because it's funded by large investment funds, and HN won't complain because they're in bed together.
The "too big" argument is not a moral argument, that just says "we have money invested in it". If that's acceptable to you you have no morality.
Glorification is a matter of free speech, because it is an expression of opinion. That you find it distasteful is fine, using that as a weapon is not.
Either way, Facebook won't be held accountable because it's funded by large investment funds, and HN won't complain because they're in bed together.
The "too big" argument is not a moral argument, that just says "we have money invested in it". If that's acceptable to you you have no morality.
> of course, I've not looked
So go look, it would not take you much (site down for now though, for obvious reasons). I did it back with the Christchurch terrorist attack and won't do it again it's so vile and that's a euphemism.
So go look, it would not take you much (site down for now though, for obvious reasons). I did it back with the Christchurch terrorist attack and won't do it again it's so vile and that's a euphemism.
How? They're being deplatformed.
That is not what CF or any CDN does, and that's not what "deplatformed" means. If you toss it around like that, it won't be clear that it has a precise meaning and people will think it's a phrase that is thrown around to coerce people to unwillingly associate with people and organizations they don't want to associate with.
How is your CDN abandoning you not deplatforming you? Can they get another CDN? When they do I'll give the site a look-see.
What evidence do you have that they were "crazy"?
Most people who commit mass murders are not "crazy" - they don't have psychosis, they know what they're doing, they plan the attack.
Most people who commit mass murders are not "crazy" - they don't have psychosis, they know what they're doing, they plan the attack.
> What evidence do you have that they were "crazy"?
They murdered dozens of innocent people. No one’s saying they were psychotic, necessarily.
They murdered dozens of innocent people. No one’s saying they were psychotic, necessarily.
In my book anyone who would commit a mass murder is "crazy". I did not call the shooter a schizophrenic, or a psychopath, did I? "Crazy" is a colloquial term, not a medical one. That said, anyone who would kill random innocent people qualifies as a sociopath at the very least.
[deleted]
Users on 8chan (and Kiwifarms and similar sites) very specifically rile up hatred, they are frighteningly good at radicalizing frustrated young men.
They regularly praise previous mass murderers and goad others into doing the same.
They regularly praise previous mass murderers and goad others into doing the same.
So what you are saying is that 8chan has the same content as certain Facebook groups. Why not drop Facebook?
Because it's much easier to succeed (and feel really good afterwards) in bullying the small deformed guy.
I've no idea. I've never visited the site. Elsewhere in this thread it is said that they clearly jest -- I wouldn't jest about such things, but without seeing the content in question I can't say how questionable it is.
There is a very good reason why those manifestos were shared on 8chan, and it's because a significant amount of posters do not post those things in jest.
This post repeatedly refers to 8chan as "lawless" and "unmoderated" but it is neither. As a whole, it is a public website subject to US law, complete with DMCA and search warrant contact forms. The sitewide rule is that all content must comply with US law.
The media also keeps saying 8chan, 8chan, 8chan over and over, when it is really just the one most popular board ("pol") that is being discussed. But there are hundreds of boards on the site for different topics, which are moderated separately and according to their own rules.
It seems like most of the outrageous incitement to violence people have posted on 8chan would be illegal under Brandenburg v. Ohio (speech is illegal if it will lead to imminent lawless action), given the mostly-valid assumption there will be readers of the post who are both radicalized and armed. This seems like the way to take down most of the violent content on 8chan if anyone would think about it for more than 5 seconds.
This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to moral panic and bad PR, not a solution to anything. Cloudflare would have been in a better position to actually change 8chan if they had kept them on and pressured them.
The media also keeps saying 8chan, 8chan, 8chan over and over, when it is really just the one most popular board ("pol") that is being discussed. But there are hundreds of boards on the site for different topics, which are moderated separately and according to their own rules.
It seems like most of the outrageous incitement to violence people have posted on 8chan would be illegal under Brandenburg v. Ohio (speech is illegal if it will lead to imminent lawless action), given the mostly-valid assumption there will be readers of the post who are both radicalized and armed. This seems like the way to take down most of the violent content on 8chan if anyone would think about it for more than 5 seconds.
This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to moral panic and bad PR, not a solution to anything. Cloudflare would have been in a better position to actually change 8chan if they had kept them on and pressured them.
> It seems like most of the outrageous incitement to violence people have posted on 8chan would be illegal under Brandenburg v. Ohio
And yet, no one wants to police that. So... Cloudflare did it themselves.
I mean, look, I get the principled point you're making, but it's on really shaky ground. Either the conduct on that site was garbage that should be removed or it wasn't. And if it was... well, good riddance.
After the third (third!) mass murder advertised on the site, I think the time for principled and careful consideration has passed. Shut the garbage down, then we'll figure out if there's a better way to police this stuff going forward.
And yet, no one wants to police that. So... Cloudflare did it themselves.
I mean, look, I get the principled point you're making, but it's on really shaky ground. Either the conduct on that site was garbage that should be removed or it wasn't. And if it was... well, good riddance.
After the third (third!) mass murder advertised on the site, I think the time for principled and careful consideration has passed. Shut the garbage down, then we'll figure out if there's a better way to police this stuff going forward.
Matthew Prince could have just said "per our terms of service we don't provide services for websites that violate US law and 8chan allows posts that in our opinion incite imminent lawless action, therefore we're terminating their account". Instead he posted this confused essay that clearly shows he understands neither 8chan nor the relevant law, instead making up weird terms and making it entirely vague what their policy will be for terminating accounts in the future.
OK, so 8chan (edit: sorry, should have written "Cloudflare") could have handled this better according to your personal sense of justice or aesthetics or whatever. And... 20 people are dead in El Paso.
It's like we're not even talking about the same thing here. I just don't get your thought process, sorry. You agree that this incitement and radicalization shouldn't have had a forum, I think.
You just... would rather talk about the mechanism by which the forum access was removed than the incitement and radicalization? That's really the hill you're taking your stand on?
It's like we're not even talking about the same thing here. I just don't get your thought process, sorry. You agree that this incitement and radicalization shouldn't have had a forum, I think.
You just... would rather talk about the mechanism by which the forum access was removed than the incitement and radicalization? That's really the hill you're taking your stand on?
Cloudflare is the gateway to 20% of the internet. Their CEO is harping on a vague term he calls "Rule of Law" as he capriciously and personally terminates a customer's account, demonstrating lack of knowledge of key facts in the process. That was my main topic. Reducing radicalization is obviously important but this action isn't really going to help much there anyway.
> he capriciously and personally terminates a customer's account
Oh please, he gave them two (2) (fucking TWO!) mass murders of leniency before he pulled the plug on their CDN access. This was literally a three strikes policy for hate crime shooting sprees, and it's still "capricious" in your eyes? In your opinion, what should the death toll be before a CDN provider can use it as a justification for terminating service?
Sorry, that's just ridiculous.
Oh please, he gave them two (2) (fucking TWO!) mass murders of leniency before he pulled the plug on their CDN access. This was literally a three strikes policy for hate crime shooting sprees, and it's still "capricious" in your eyes? In your opinion, what should the death toll be before a CDN provider can use it as a justification for terminating service?
Sorry, that's just ridiculous.
"8chan committed mass murder" is really stretching guilt-by-association in my opinion.
People use twitter all the time to announce crimes, but everyone knows Twitter is a limited medium and tries to police that content.
But I agree with you. After enough incidents of users announcing mass shootings via the website, they should have set up rules and opened moderator/"janitor" applications to police the content. This is exactly what 4chan did when they grew media attention about bad things happening on their site. 8chan didn't do this because it goes against why the site was created in the first place.
But I agree with you. After enough incidents of users announcing mass shootings via the website, they should have set up rules and opened moderator/"janitor" applications to police the content. This is exactly what 4chan did when they grew media attention about bad things happening on their site. 8chan didn't do this because it goes against why the site was created in the first place.
A man, spreading a false rumor about a restaurant called "Meat", told people on Twitter to burn down that restaurant. He thought his restaurant was responsible for removing a graffiti mural on a building across the street.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/nyregion/crown-heights-ri...
> “If that mural goes down, the restaurant gonna go down next,” read one comment on Ms. Price’s post [ on twitter ] , accompanied by flame emojis.
> turns out that about 10 days before the meeting, Apolinar Severino, the owner of the building housing the mural, had told Mr. Caldwell that he claimed full responsibility for attempting to paint over the image of Mr. Price. Mr. Severino had been advised by a real estate agent to whitewash the entire wall while trying to refinance his mortgage on the property, he said.
It turns out the owner of the building was responsible for painting over part of the graffiti and not the restaurant across the street.
I reported the tweet that called for burning the restaurant across the street down to Twitter, and Twitter did remove that tweet, but didn't ban the user.
There's a better article covering the story with links to the false rumors being spread on Twitter -- many with threats -- in the Brooklyn eagle https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2019/07/25/sean-price-mur...
Maybe I'll go to Twitter's hosting providers and Cloudflare to get all of twitter removed, or at least made a lot slower.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/nyregion/crown-heights-ri...
> “If that mural goes down, the restaurant gonna go down next,” read one comment on Ms. Price’s post [ on twitter ] , accompanied by flame emojis.
> turns out that about 10 days before the meeting, Apolinar Severino, the owner of the building housing the mural, had told Mr. Caldwell that he claimed full responsibility for attempting to paint over the image of Mr. Price. Mr. Severino had been advised by a real estate agent to whitewash the entire wall while trying to refinance his mortgage on the property, he said.
It turns out the owner of the building was responsible for painting over part of the graffiti and not the restaurant across the street.
I reported the tweet that called for burning the restaurant across the street down to Twitter, and Twitter did remove that tweet, but didn't ban the user.
There's a better article covering the story with links to the false rumors being spread on Twitter -- many with threats -- in the Brooklyn eagle https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2019/07/25/sean-price-mur...
Maybe I'll go to Twitter's hosting providers and Cloudflare to get all of twitter removed, or at least made a lot slower.
> I reported the tweet that called for burning the restaurant across the street down to Twitter, and Twitter did remove that tweet
You already got 99% more than the average Twitter report. Twitter really needs a better "this tweet is verifiably fake, here is the proof" option that is acted upon with relative speed.
You already got 99% more than the average Twitter report. Twitter really needs a better "this tweet is verifiably fake, here is the proof" option that is acted upon with relative speed.
Some of their highest profile accounts accounts would get hit, and they wouldn’t be wanting that. It would also make them some powerful enemies.
Isn’t the concern about the gradual radicalization that occurs in these online communities, and not about specific posts that threaten violence or announce impending mass shootings?
And the grandparent's comment about there being boards for other topics is why the radicalization is such a problem (the same thing applies to Reddit and Youtube's recommended video algorithm). The normal content is what attracts people to the site, but once there, they see the radicalized content mixed in with it. This ends up normalizing the radicalized content making it easier to recruit new members. Very few people will go out of their way to go to the Daily Stormer or some other site dedicated specifically to hate. But it is easier to be lured in when that content is just a part of the site.
> The normal content is what attracts people to the site, but once there, they see the radicalized content mixed in with it.
I don't think this argument holds when the boards are compartmentalized. Otherwise you could generalize it to the internet as a whole, where things are also compartmentalized into sites.
I don't think this argument holds when the boards are compartmentalized. Otherwise you could generalize it to the internet as a whole, where things are also compartmentalized into sites.
You are right in a certain aspect that 8chan is more compartmenalized than Reddit or Youtube, but there is still a world of difference in the discoverability of the various boards on 8chan versus the internet at large. A non-radicalized 8chan user can end up on /pol out of mere curiosity and be pulled in. No one visits the Daily Stormer without a predisposition to hate.
Isn't banning/silencing communities like these the real radicalization?
You have an implicit model of how radicalization works which is out of sync with the model others are applying.
The counterexample is that, when racist/fascist/white supremacist content became easier to access through online unmoderated forums such as 4chan, the level of online & offline activity and recruitment became higher.
Secondly, it's hardly news to these communities that they are disliked by others. Have you met an Edgelord?
The counterexample is that, when racist/fascist/white supremacist content became easier to access through online unmoderated forums such as 4chan, the level of online & offline activity and recruitment became higher.
Secondly, it's hardly news to these communities that they are disliked by others. Have you met an Edgelord?
CloudFlare is under no obligation to serve 8chan. There is nothing radical about denying service to unprotected classes of people you don't want in or using your business.
I would agree this is a problem if the US Government was trying to suppress speech.
I would agree this is a problem if the US Government was trying to suppress speech.
They're not being banned or silenced. They're being told "get off my property".
Has it occurred to you that radicalization actually happens offline, perhaps even in childhood, due to some kind of real life events, and nothing to do with internet at all?
All of this rooted in meatspace. The so called "social defeat".
How often do you see successful people that have a fullfilling life go on rampages?
All of this rooted in meatspace. The so called "social defeat".
How often do you see successful people that have a fullfilling life go on rampages?
Radicalization tends to be a function of getting access to a group of like-minded people who agree with your angry/hostile/prejudiced views while simultaneously being socially cut off from moderating influences. The internet is able to connect isolated individuals with that group of like-minded people.
One of the dangers of Internet access to such is people who only know you online may feel more comfortable with encouraging your radicalization than if it was in person because they aren't in immediate danger, nor at high risk of being asked to participate, etc. It can seem inconsequential to agree with extremist statements. People who might hesitate to agree in person may not hesitate to agree on a discussion board.
There are good and bad things that come out of the relative freedom to speak our minds online. Opportunity for radicalization is one of the bad things that comes of it.
One of the dangers of Internet access to such is people who only know you online may feel more comfortable with encouraging your radicalization than if it was in person because they aren't in immediate danger, nor at high risk of being asked to participate, etc. It can seem inconsequential to agree with extremist statements. People who might hesitate to agree in person may not hesitate to agree on a discussion board.
There are good and bad things that come out of the relative freedom to speak our minds online. Opportunity for radicalization is one of the bad things that comes of it.
What makes such people seek out like-minded people, the "radicals"?
The roots are firmly in the meatspace.
The seed was planted well before he know what 8chan was.
The roots are firmly in the meatspace.
The seed was planted well before he know what 8chan was.
Sure, but if he can't find a group in person that will validate and amplify his views and also can't find such online, he will probably remain some run-of-the-mill uncouth jackass without feeling so strongly about it that shooting up a mall seems like a good idea he should totally act upon.
There have been studies. Radicalization is generally the product of a social environment that magnifies certain views and actively encourages people to become more extreme.
There have been studies. Radicalization is generally the product of a social environment that magnifies certain views and actively encourages people to become more extreme.
Sure, the human has to physically exist before they can become radicalized. I don’t really follow the point here. It’s still important to figure out where the actual radicalization happens.
Seems like you're assuming your conclusion as your premise.
I assume the cause of such behavior is something that's known properly as "social defeat".
While such IRL considerations are absolutely a factor I think ascribing things to a single cause is a mistake.
Certainly the radicalization may happen offline. But in the cases at hand, it did not. There is a significant uptick in violence associated with online radicalization, and no corresponding uptick in violence associated with offline radicalization. You can say that the role of the internet is overblown, but the evidence is there.
Besides, it's a sort of weird position to take on an a) online forum b) of tech people that the internet does not have a significant role in facilitating communication that would not otherwise happen.
Besides, it's a sort of weird position to take on an a) online forum b) of tech people that the internet does not have a significant role in facilitating communication that would not otherwise happen.
There has been a significant uptick in everything online over the last 25 years because in that time the internet population has grown from 0.5% of the worlds population to over 55%.
Literature says that the internet does facilitate extremist communication/nucleation, but does not replace the meatspace as the primary radicalization agent. https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/93/5/1233/40982...
Literature says that the internet does facilitate extremist communication/nucleation, but does not replace the meatspace as the primary radicalization agent. https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/93/5/1233/40982...
where is the data? you have something that proves causality of online communication and radicalization?
You make it sound it's almost like terrorism didn't exist before the internet.
You make it sound it's almost like terrorism didn't exist before the internet.
> where is the data?
All of these shooters have manifestos that describe how they came to believe what they believed.
> You make it sound it's almost like terrorism didn't exist before the internet.
No, I don't. I specifically said "uptick." This line of argument makes as much sense as showing up in a comment thread about the Capital One breach and saying "You make it sound it's almost like privacy violations didn't exist before the internet." Of course it did, but not at this scale, and we're talking about scale.
All of these shooters have manifestos that describe how they came to believe what they believed.
> You make it sound it's almost like terrorism didn't exist before the internet.
No, I don't. I specifically said "uptick." This line of argument makes as much sense as showing up in a comment thread about the Capital One breach and saying "You make it sound it's almost like privacy violations didn't exist before the internet." Of course it did, but not at this scale, and we're talking about scale.
Sure, and people may be driven to check out extremist ideology because of IRL emotional injuries or problems, but that doesn't mean the internet aspect is overblown. I've probably met more people through the internet than via casual socialization.
overblown, as in, it is very hard to believe emotional injuries sustained over the internet are as bad as social defeat IRL.
Unlikely. Media technologies are technologies for disseminating ideas. Different technologies lie on different points of the spectrum between one-to-many and many-to-many.
Broadcast television, and radio to a lesser extent, is very close to a one-to-many media. There might be a small handful of national networks that can disseminate ideas, and they can only do so in ways that are easy to detect and control by authorities. In an authoritarian state like the Soviet Union there might be only state-controlled broadcasting and it really was one-to-many. In a free country like the United States, you might end up with 3-4 broadcast networks. That's not enough to get a broad spectrum of opinion, which is why the midcentury Overton window was so narrow compared to today.
Cable and satellite television went closer to many-to-many. (Print is also closer to many-to-many than radio and television, but radio and television are more popular since they don't require the effort of reading or the skill of literacy in order to consume, so the presence of radio and television reduces the impact of print.) This broadens things a bit because then you can watch Fox News, though the biggest reason for Fox News was probably an unmet market niche. The broadcast networks plus CNN, for various reasons (likely the internal biases of the journalists themselves), had drifted to a noticeable center-left bias by the 1990's. This left a massive opportunity for a right-biased news network to capture a rough half of the market that was "underserved" to some extent. Conservative talk radio was a similar story.
Print was somewhat more broad, but even then, there were usually small numbers of "respectable" opinionated magazines you could buy on either side of the spectrum (e.g. National Review, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Weekly Standard, etc.) but publication was a big enough hurdle that these outlets often served as moderating voices (e.g the National Review effectively excluding the John Birch Society or Ayn Rand from the "respectable right").
The internet is an extremely many-to-many platform. I mean, I'm just some random idiot you've probably never met and now you're hearing all of my thoughts about something of national importance. That's pretty fucking insane when you think about it. And just like cable, talk radio, and publishing slightly widen the bounds of the Overton Window compared to the broadcast television oligopoly, the internet has done something potentially even worse. I don't think there is a single Overton Window at all anymore. And the old media can't handle this. In another era, this National Review cover alone (https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/56a21e51c08a80431d8b8...) would have completely ended a Republican candidate. In today's era, that man is the President. Similar forces have normalized people like Bernie Sanders, someone who actually existed for a long time but would never have become a national figure in an earlier era.
And yeah, I really think this is all part of the same mechanism. People like Timothy McVeigh were radicalized in person. There aren't that many of him. There are a lot of small scale domestic terror attacks and at times even entire mobs of people (Charlottesville for one example, Portland antifa for another example) who commit acts of political violence. And the more these kinds of events happen, and are publicized, the more this type of behavior becomes normalized, becomes something within the realm of things people think about as something that someone might do in a given situation.
Broadcast television, and radio to a lesser extent, is very close to a one-to-many media. There might be a small handful of national networks that can disseminate ideas, and they can only do so in ways that are easy to detect and control by authorities. In an authoritarian state like the Soviet Union there might be only state-controlled broadcasting and it really was one-to-many. In a free country like the United States, you might end up with 3-4 broadcast networks. That's not enough to get a broad spectrum of opinion, which is why the midcentury Overton window was so narrow compared to today.
Cable and satellite television went closer to many-to-many. (Print is also closer to many-to-many than radio and television, but radio and television are more popular since they don't require the effort of reading or the skill of literacy in order to consume, so the presence of radio and television reduces the impact of print.) This broadens things a bit because then you can watch Fox News, though the biggest reason for Fox News was probably an unmet market niche. The broadcast networks plus CNN, for various reasons (likely the internal biases of the journalists themselves), had drifted to a noticeable center-left bias by the 1990's. This left a massive opportunity for a right-biased news network to capture a rough half of the market that was "underserved" to some extent. Conservative talk radio was a similar story.
Print was somewhat more broad, but even then, there were usually small numbers of "respectable" opinionated magazines you could buy on either side of the spectrum (e.g. National Review, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Weekly Standard, etc.) but publication was a big enough hurdle that these outlets often served as moderating voices (e.g the National Review effectively excluding the John Birch Society or Ayn Rand from the "respectable right").
The internet is an extremely many-to-many platform. I mean, I'm just some random idiot you've probably never met and now you're hearing all of my thoughts about something of national importance. That's pretty fucking insane when you think about it. And just like cable, talk radio, and publishing slightly widen the bounds of the Overton Window compared to the broadcast television oligopoly, the internet has done something potentially even worse. I don't think there is a single Overton Window at all anymore. And the old media can't handle this. In another era, this National Review cover alone (https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/56a21e51c08a80431d8b8...) would have completely ended a Republican candidate. In today's era, that man is the President. Similar forces have normalized people like Bernie Sanders, someone who actually existed for a long time but would never have become a national figure in an earlier era.
And yeah, I really think this is all part of the same mechanism. People like Timothy McVeigh were radicalized in person. There aren't that many of him. There are a lot of small scale domestic terror attacks and at times even entire mobs of people (Charlottesville for one example, Portland antifa for another example) who commit acts of political violence. And the more these kinds of events happen, and are publicized, the more this type of behavior becomes normalized, becomes something within the realm of things people think about as something that someone might do in a given situation.
> Cloudflare would have been in a better position to actually change 8chan if they had kept them on and pressured them.
So, this was Cloudflare's position as of earlier today: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/04/mass-shoo...
> "It would be the easiest thing in the world and it would feel incredibly good for us to kick 8chan off our network, but I think it would step away from the obligation that we have and cause that community to still exist and be more lawless over time."
> "For us the question is which is the worse evil? Is the worse evil that we kick the can down the road and don’t take responsibility? Or do we get on the phone with people like you and say we need to own up to the fact that the internet is home to many amazing things and many terrible things and we have an absolute moral obligation to deal with that."
So, the question for you and for Matthew Prince-as-of-a-few-hours-ago is, if Cloudflare was in fact in such a better position to actually change 8chan, why didn't they?
So, this was Cloudflare's position as of earlier today: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/04/mass-shoo...
> "It would be the easiest thing in the world and it would feel incredibly good for us to kick 8chan off our network, but I think it would step away from the obligation that we have and cause that community to still exist and be more lawless over time."
> "For us the question is which is the worse evil? Is the worse evil that we kick the can down the road and don’t take responsibility? Or do we get on the phone with people like you and say we need to own up to the fact that the internet is home to many amazing things and many terrible things and we have an absolute moral obligation to deal with that."
So, the question for you and for Matthew Prince-as-of-a-few-hours-ago is, if Cloudflare was in fact in such a better position to actually change 8chan, why didn't they?
I would say that Matthew Prince and associates just wanted to feel better about themselves, avoid further bad PR, and not have things be awkward around town.
i generally oppose silencing (online) speech, even the ugliest of it, because not only does it not quell the violence we wish to avoid, but it can enrage the already marginalized among us who tend to carry the most insult.
as such, even taking down the offending material, while possibly legal, will only escalate the situation, requiring ever more force to control. sure, you may successfully thwart this attempt, but what about the next one? rising stakes eventually lead to a police state undergirded by pervasive surveillance.
this is multi-rooted social problem that's certainly bigger than one company, especially a tech company. it's not even certain that online outlets like 8chan don't lessen real violence by allowing members to find consolation among like-minded people rather than stewing in their anger.
as such, even taking down the offending material, while possibly legal, will only escalate the situation, requiring ever more force to control. sure, you may successfully thwart this attempt, but what about the next one? rising stakes eventually lead to a police state undergirded by pervasive surveillance.
this is multi-rooted social problem that's certainly bigger than one company, especially a tech company. it's not even certain that online outlets like 8chan don't lessen real violence by allowing members to find consolation among like-minded people rather than stewing in their anger.
I think a point of contention over the unmoderated aspect is that compared to it's sister site 4chan which will actively coordinate with authorities and temporarily take the site down whenever evidence is being collected, 8chan appears to treat the authorities with contempt to the point of needing a search warrant. It's creator Fredrick calling for the site's shutdown was the killing strike in my opinion, though the site had /g/ establish a full Tor infrastructure years ago so it's not going to really truly die anytime soon
Speaking of 4chan if I was Hiro right now I would be batting down the hatches and moving most of the moderation force to the problem boards to snipe any incoherent manifestos until this all blows over.
Speaking of 4chan if I was Hiro right now I would be batting down the hatches and moving most of the moderation force to the problem boards to snipe any incoherent manifestos until this all blows over.
Requiring a search warrant seems like due process to me, not contempt. In many other cases handing over data to law enforcement without a warrant is seen as surveillance and a breach of privacy.
>treat the authorities with contempt to the point of needing a search warrant
Everyone must comply with lawful orders—that's the point of the law. Respect is not mandatory (so long as it doesn't interfere with lawful orders); it is earned and can be lost.
If this were not true, the right to avoid self-incrimination would be meaningless.
Everyone must comply with lawful orders—that's the point of the law. Respect is not mandatory (so long as it doesn't interfere with lawful orders); it is earned and can be lost.
If this were not true, the right to avoid self-incrimination would be meaningless.
The thing is that Moot (and probably Hiro too) actively intercepts and forwards mass-shooty type stuff it to the cops instead of waiting for a warrant to avoid this exact situation. Emphasis on intercept, you can't have a media shitstorm decrying you as the axis of evil if the only thing they can find on your site is mass speculation because a mod autosaged the shooter's manifesto 3 minutes after it was posted
Questions:
1. What is "autosaged"? UrbanDictionary was no help… ^__^;
2. By intercept do you mean "notice quickly" or "prevent from arriving/posting"?
1. What is "autosaged"? UrbanDictionary was no help… ^__^;
2. By intercept do you mean "notice quickly" or "prevent from arriving/posting"?
1. Autosage is kinda equivalent to shadowbanning a thread; realistically a mod would just flat delete risky threads of this nature but I just felt like using the lingo
2. Notice quickly and take down; 4chan doesn't really have a way to prevent a post from arriving in the first place aside from simplistic text filters
2. Notice quickly and take down; 4chan doesn't really have a way to prevent a post from arriving in the first place aside from simplistic text filters
> Cloudflare would have been in a better position to actually change 8chan if they had kept them on and pressured them
I call bullshit.
What plan do you have in mind for _Cloudflare_ to create a culture change on _8chan_?
How does this fit into Cloudflare's strategy and competencies as a network provider?
Are you suggesting they have some obligation to provide service and to try and shape the community, or just that they are compelled to provide a commercial service to people who encourage massacres?
You haven't thought through your own suggestion.
I call bullshit.
What plan do you have in mind for _Cloudflare_ to create a culture change on _8chan_?
How does this fit into Cloudflare's strategy and competencies as a network provider?
Are you suggesting they have some obligation to provide service and to try and shape the community, or just that they are compelled to provide a commercial service to people who encourage massacres?
You haven't thought through your own suggestion.
It had already been against Cloudflare's ToS to transmit unlawful content, like child pornography or sex trafficking. These things do not exist on 8chan. I am suggesting that Cloudflare could have clarified or expanded "unlawful content" to include certain types of incitement to violence that are normally considered within 1st amendment bounds.
> This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to moral panic and bad PR
I’m not so sure. We “ban” drug markets and terrorist groups by denying them access to infrastructure all the time. Private businesses get to decide which businesses they provide services to. Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean you get to live in a trash strewn public square, nor on private property that is leeching toxic waste into the surroundings.
I’m not so sure. We “ban” drug markets and terrorist groups by denying them access to infrastructure all the time. Private businesses get to decide which businesses they provide services to. Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean you get to live in a trash strewn public square, nor on private property that is leeching toxic waste into the surroundings.
Drug markets and terrorist groups are against US law while racist speech and broadly advocating the necessity of violence are not. Cloudflare had previously drawn the line at providing services for any US-legal content, then they suddenly changed it after a lot of bad press in a pretty poorly written blog post.
Whats the difference between 8chan /pol/ and a terrorist telegram group? The telegram group probably has fewer people planning attacks on US citizens.
> This post repeatedly refers to 8chan as "lawless" and "unmoderated" but it is neither.
I'd encourage anyone who thinks it's plausible that /pol/ is "moderated" and "lawful" to go read that board for a few minutes. Perhaps then they can comment here on whether there's a problem with the moderation, or the policing, of the board.
I'd encourage anyone who thinks it's plausible that /pol/ is "moderated" and "lawful" to go read that board for a few minutes. Perhaps then they can comment here on whether there's a problem with the moderation, or the policing, of the board.
Have you read the comment fully? 8chan is not just /pol/, it's an amalgation of hundreds of boards with different content and moderation rules.
> Have you read the comment fully?
What response are you expecting here?
As a subset of 8chan, if /pol/ isn't properly moderated or policed, 8chan isn't properly moderated or policed.
If a subset of a thing does not have a particular quality that must be universal for it to be true for that thing, then that thing does not have that quality.
I'm very happy to help you out with this or any other first year undergraduate philosophical logic problems you may be having.
What response are you expecting here?
As a subset of 8chan, if /pol/ isn't properly moderated or policed, 8chan isn't properly moderated or policed.
If a subset of a thing does not have a particular quality that must be universal for it to be true for that thing, then that thing does not have that quality.
I'm very happy to help you out with this or any other first year undergraduate philosophical logic problems you may be having.
Actions like these unite communities under a common threat. Voices of moderation and internal division is reduced as they fight for their common space. The people who are saying "it's us v.s. society at large" are lionized and the people who want to criticize violent or hateful acts are ignored.
The community will find a way around this, there's no doubt. But now they're more radical and more threatened than they used to be. The harder it is to get to the community the more insulated and radical it becomes as fewer outside voices come in. Only the most dedicated continue on, and those are the people you want to deradicalize more than anyone.
These boards have been open to everyone, if others wanted to talk to these people and provide counter arguments they're free to do so. It's the only thing that's going to go a long way in dissolving toxicity in these communities.
The community will find a way around this, there's no doubt. But now they're more radical and more threatened than they used to be. The harder it is to get to the community the more insulated and radical it becomes as fewer outside voices come in. Only the most dedicated continue on, and those are the people you want to deradicalize more than anyone.
These boards have been open to everyone, if others wanted to talk to these people and provide counter arguments they're free to do so. It's the only thing that's going to go a long way in dissolving toxicity in these communities.
Brandenburg v. Ohio is interesting. Technically doesn't it mean that any speech that calls for action against existing law loses protection from First Amendment? I'm sure SC judges will make sane decisions for now but doesn't this door wide open for this possibility? Given most speech needing First Amendment protection is against some law, this SC decision feels very troublesome to me. Especially now that SC judges are appointed strictly to align with government, Brandenburg v. Ohio can be used for any speech against government to be deemed outside of first amendment protection. No?
> Brandenburg v. Ohio is interesting. Technically doesn't it mean that any speech that calls for action against existing law loses protection from First Amendment?
No. From the Wikipedia description of the case, “The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.“
The entire point of the ruling was that the government cannot punish someone for merely advocating against the law. And even dangerous speech is okay if it’s not likely to be acted on. “free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
No. From the Wikipedia description of the case, “The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.“
The entire point of the ruling was that the government cannot punish someone for merely advocating against the law. And even dangerous speech is okay if it’s not likely to be acted on. “free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
“Imminent” and “lawless” are the operable terms. I can legally opine to my hearts content about how it could hypothetically be a good idea to rob every bank in New York but if I’m not inciting anyone to actually specifically do so, that’s not legally imminent. Likewise, if I propose a series of constitutional amendments, the net effect is to legalize or legally mandate some sort of atrocity, there’s a case that I’m not even technically advocating for lawless action.
But the primary value of Brandenburg v. Ohio was in rejecting the early 20th century jurisprudence based on the “clear and present danger” status set by Schenck v. United States.
Schenck and the rulings that followed it gave legal cover to imprison people who advocated for draft resistance as well as effectively banning Communist parties (on the theory upheld in Whitney v. California that communism entails the violent overthrow of the US Constitution). Brandenburg and its successor cases effectively overturned that entire line of legal reasoning in favor of an extremely strict standard that only allows the government to prohibit things like inciting mobs or engaging in criminal conspiracies.
But the primary value of Brandenburg v. Ohio was in rejecting the early 20th century jurisprudence based on the “clear and present danger” status set by Schenck v. United States.
Schenck and the rulings that followed it gave legal cover to imprison people who advocated for draft resistance as well as effectively banning Communist parties (on the theory upheld in Whitney v. California that communism entails the violent overthrow of the US Constitution). Brandenburg and its successor cases effectively overturned that entire line of legal reasoning in favor of an extremely strict standard that only allows the government to prohibit things like inciting mobs or engaging in criminal conspiracies.
Zzz, how many mass murders do you need before you decide there's a structural problem? That's 70 people dead so far this year from people using 8ch as a launching pad for terrorism, and just including the very obvious ones (Christchurch and El Paso). It's rational for Cloudflare to pull the plug and limit their owners' liability.
And no, /pol/ is not the only hive of extremism on 8ch, although it's the best known and although there are many other boards.
And no, /pol/ is not the only hive of extremism on 8ch, although it's the best known and although there are many other boards.
You're complaining about the unfair closing of a bar because drugs were only sold in the toilets area.
That's not how it works anywhere.
That's not how it works anywhere.
Another way to view this would be, "Cloudflare ends support for mass shooting early warning system."
Except the warnings are anonymous, and don't mention who, when, or where.
What's really going on is similar to what we saw with radicalization in extremist Islam forums. A large group of young, usually lonely and frustrated men, disconnected socially, often with no hope of financial status advancement, find solace and community in online forums with like people, and then act to self-reinforce some of the community's worse inclinations, blaming their predicament on other types of people, dehumanizing them. The irony with these forums are, some people on those forums are not racist or pedophiles, but edge-lording on purpose, but other people can't discern the difference and are swept up and manipulated by other people who get off on manipulating people.
When I was a teen in the 80s, I nerdy and disconnected from school, but back then, if you used a computer, you were fairly involved in hacking, and a lot of community revolved around constructive activities, so whatever loneliness or ostracism geeks felt, it was often distracted by optimism and excitement over technology.
It seems these days, you have the online community in these forums, but it is mostly consumptive, not constructive, or rather, what is constructive is memes and racist, xenophobic, extremist screeds.
I really worry about what's happening as more and more people are made idle and out of the labor force, rather than seek face to face community activity, will eventually retreat to their online bunkers?
What's really going on is similar to what we saw with radicalization in extremist Islam forums. A large group of young, usually lonely and frustrated men, disconnected socially, often with no hope of financial status advancement, find solace and community in online forums with like people, and then act to self-reinforce some of the community's worse inclinations, blaming their predicament on other types of people, dehumanizing them. The irony with these forums are, some people on those forums are not racist or pedophiles, but edge-lording on purpose, but other people can't discern the difference and are swept up and manipulated by other people who get off on manipulating people.
When I was a teen in the 80s, I nerdy and disconnected from school, but back then, if you used a computer, you were fairly involved in hacking, and a lot of community revolved around constructive activities, so whatever loneliness or ostracism geeks felt, it was often distracted by optimism and excitement over technology.
It seems these days, you have the online community in these forums, but it is mostly consumptive, not constructive, or rather, what is constructive is memes and racist, xenophobic, extremist screeds.
I really worry about what's happening as more and more people are made idle and out of the labor force, rather than seek face to face community activity, will eventually retreat to their online bunkers?
> What's really going on is similar to what we saw with radicalization in extremist Islam forums. A large group of young, usually lonely and frustrated men, disconnected socially, often with no hope of financial status advancement, find solace and community in online forums with like people, and then act to self-reinforce some of the community's worse inclinations, blaming their predicament on other types of people, dehumanizing them. The irony with these forums are, some people on those forums are not racist or pedophiles, but edge-lording on purpose, but other people can't discern the difference and are swept up and manipulated by other people who get off on manipulating people.
This is something a large number of people don't seem to realize. The parallels between Islamic extremism and this white supremacists extremism should jump out, and both should be approached the same way. It's sick people offering a sort of belonging to disaffected young men.
This is something a large number of people don't seem to realize. The parallels between Islamic extremism and this white supremacists extremism should jump out, and both should be approached the same way. It's sick people offering a sort of belonging to disaffected young men.
Yes, it is, and that’s why the demonization of men’s rights groups is not only counterproductive, but completely irresponsible. You may disagree with specific grievances or talking points, but you shouldn’t discourage groups who feel aggrieved from airing their grievances in a nonviolent way and trying to work within the system to achieve their goals.
There's very interesting psychology research on the topic of radicalization as well as de-radicalization that could come in handy. As well as similar techniques in cult exit counseling.
Seems like Cloudflare CEO can't decide whether he wants to truly be content-neutral.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/cloudflares-ceo-...
Obviously not supporting these sites, but I think an argument can be made for at least being _consistent_ about whether or not you're going to allow only things you find morally reasonable on your service.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/cloudflares-ceo-...
Obviously not supporting these sites, but I think an argument can be made for at least being _consistent_ about whether or not you're going to allow only things you find morally reasonable on your service.
> The problem was that other Cloudflare customers started calling and threatening to cancel their service if Cloudflare didn't cut the Daily Stormer off. "The pressure to take it down just kept building and building," [the CEO] told Ars. [...] "I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet,"
So far he has been a "free speech absolutist" aside from the Daily stormer (economic extremes) and 8chan (public safety extremes). They're just defining what their identity as a cloud provider is. There's nothing morally inconsistent about discovering where your limits and tolerance are.
So far he has been a "free speech absolutist" aside from the Daily stormer (economic extremes) and 8chan (public safety extremes). They're just defining what their identity as a cloud provider is. There's nothing morally inconsistent about discovering where your limits and tolerance are.
> Daily stormer (economic extremes) and 8chan (public safety extremes).
Both actually share a large cross section of users. The Daily Stormer was named after storm troopers. It is a cesspool of white supremacists. The same problem that 8chan's userbase has. I expect we'll see a continued deplatforming of sites which allow that ideology to fester.
Both actually share a large cross section of users. The Daily Stormer was named after storm troopers. It is a cesspool of white supremacists. The same problem that 8chan's userbase has. I expect we'll see a continued deplatforming of sites which allow that ideology to fester.
> named after Storm troopers.
Actually it's named after this publication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Stürmer
Actually it's named after this publication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Stürmer
>So far he has been a "free speech absolutist" _aside_ _from_...
So not a "free speech absolutist"
So not a "free speech absolutist"
Hence the quotes. And if you read the arstechnica article, it's understood the CEO himself realizes he had to make an exception from that position.
You and the poster I responded to are picking nits with absolutes. Aside from pedantics, is there a problem with wanting to go as far as you can with an idea until you feel like you can't?
You and the poster I responded to are picking nits with absolutes. Aside from pedantics, is there a problem with wanting to go as far as you can with an idea until you feel like you can't?
> is there a problem with wanting to go as far as you can with an idea until you feel like you can't?
Lacking integrity is absolutely a problem! This isn't "pedantic", it's a disgrace. I don't recall AWS ever claiming to be pro free speech yet I also don't recall them banning businesses on a Sunday afternoon because Jeff Bezos was in a bad mood.
Lacking integrity is absolutely a problem! This isn't "pedantic", it's a disgrace. I don't recall AWS ever claiming to be pro free speech yet I also don't recall them banning businesses on a Sunday afternoon because Jeff Bezos was in a bad mood.
Good response; I've dwelt on this more.
> I also don't recall them banning businesses on a Sunday afternoon because Jeff Bezos was in a bad mood.
I was trying to be generous by assuming the real reason was economic pressure, but yes the way this is worded makes it sound very unprofessional.
> Lacking integrity is absolutely a problem! This isn't "pedantic", it's a disgrace.
AWS can be the honey badger b/c they can afford to not give a crap. I get the impression Cloudflare doesn't have the same luxury yet. I very much admire Lavabit for folding the company on a moral stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit, but not everyone can afford to send employees packing for their belief. You are correct, he compromised, but let's admit 99% of us have limits.
> I also don't recall them banning businesses on a Sunday afternoon because Jeff Bezos was in a bad mood.
I was trying to be generous by assuming the real reason was economic pressure, but yes the way this is worded makes it sound very unprofessional.
> Lacking integrity is absolutely a problem! This isn't "pedantic", it's a disgrace.
AWS can be the honey badger b/c they can afford to not give a crap. I get the impression Cloudflare doesn't have the same luxury yet. I very much admire Lavabit for folding the company on a moral stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit, but not everyone can afford to send employees packing for their belief. You are correct, he compromised, but let's admit 99% of us have limits.
That's a pretty warped view, 8chan is the support system for radicals which in all likelyhood gives them the motivation to commit mass murder since they have an audience to play to and support for their demented views.
As the article states, it's very likely 8chan is just going to use a competitors service so it's unlikely to cause them much disruption, but at least Cloudflare isn't going to feel terrible for providing Internet services to the cesspit that formed the mind of the next radical that's going to commit mass murder and announce it there.
As the article states, it's very likely 8chan is just going to use a competitors service so it's unlikely to cause them much disruption, but at least Cloudflare isn't going to feel terrible for providing Internet services to the cesspit that formed the mind of the next radical that's going to commit mass murder and announce it there.
Motivation is part of it, but there's also an extensive practical support system that provides advice on technique, target selection, troubleshooting and so on.
That will not, of course, go away even if 8chan were to collapse under LOIC fire later tonight, but it will undermine the infrastructure and hinder recruiting.
That will not, of course, go away even if 8chan were to collapse under LOIC fire later tonight, but it will undermine the infrastructure and hinder recruiting.
This. Having this content out in the open means we can monitor it. I totally get why Cloudflare would not want to do business with 8Chan, but every step towards pushing 8Chan and it's members underground is less visibility into the kind of people who operate on the site.
Less visibility for those not already on it looking to join in too though. If it gets forced so far underground that law enforcement can't figure out a way in I don't see how some disaffected youth somewhere could either.
It's not that it would go too underground for law enforcement to find it, it's that it would be limited to terrorist cell networks that mass shooters don't even post in.
>If it gets forced so far underground that law enforcement can't figure out a way in I don't see how some disaffected youth somewhere could either.
You massively overestimate law enforcement interest and ability, and massively underestimate the technical abilities of teenagers.
You massively overestimate law enforcement interest and ability, and massively underestimate the technical abilities of teenagers.
Having it out in the open also attracts the users in the first place.
How exactly is this stopping them?
They didn't post this on Twitter or FB already but every news media person found his manifesto quickly - just like they always do. There will be another 8chan to fill that void soon enough.
They didn't post this on Twitter or FB already but every news media person found his manifesto quickly - just like they always do. There will be another 8chan to fill that void soon enough.
> How exactly is this stopping them?
It's not necessary for an action to completely stop something bad from happening to be worth doing. It's OK if it just makes it harder.
It's not necessary for an action to completely stop something bad from happening to be worth doing. It's OK if it just makes it harder.
So you think people who engaged in fringe ideologies will be slowed down by having likeminded people banned and deplatformed from popular social media and chan forums? And not instead just pushing them further and further into their ideological bubbles (complete with a new self-fulfilled victim complex) on platforms where they are the only ones and they get to police their own wrongthink?
Even ISIS seemed to have an extensive social media identity despite countless attempts to prevent them from having any platform. Which included plenty of DDOS'ing too.
I’m sure some level of banning and administration makes sense on content sites (not so sure about DNS/WAF hosts) but I’m curious at what point it becomes “feel good” slacktivism while these guys just hop onto the next forum.
Even ISIS seemed to have an extensive social media identity despite countless attempts to prevent them from having any platform. Which included plenty of DDOS'ing too.
I’m sure some level of banning and administration makes sense on content sites (not so sure about DNS/WAF hosts) but I’m curious at what point it becomes “feel good” slacktivism while these guys just hop onto the next forum.
> So you think people who engaged in fringe ideologies will be slowed down by having likeminded people banned and deplatformed from popular social media and chan forums?
Yep!
And, more importantly, by making it even marginally harder to find this shit online, we can dramatically decrease the number of people who get exposed to, and radicalized by, it.
Yep!
And, more importantly, by making it even marginally harder to find this shit online, we can dramatically decrease the number of people who get exposed to, and radicalized by, it.
[deleted]
Yeah, absolutely. It's a numbers game, just the same as bombing your opponent's barracks or airfields in a conventional war. It doesn't wipe out their capacity but it degrades their infrastructure and communications.
I’m sure some level of banning and administration makes sense on content sites (not so sure about DNS/WAF hosts) but I’m curious at what point it becomes “feel good” slacktivism while these guys just hop onto the next forum.
They do, but it's not a smooth transition and sudden forced migration presents an infiltration opportunity because there's an avalanche of new user IDs with no way to verify them. Of course there are ways around this, like challenge/response phrases, callbacks to famous threads that people would remember, user IDs that can be checked back against contemporary screenshots etc., but it's pretty leaky.
I’m sure some level of banning and administration makes sense on content sites (not so sure about DNS/WAF hosts) but I’m curious at what point it becomes “feel good” slacktivism while these guys just hop onto the next forum.
They do, but it's not a smooth transition and sudden forced migration presents an infiltration opportunity because there's an avalanche of new user IDs with no way to verify them. Of course there are ways around this, like challenge/response phrases, callbacks to famous threads that people would remember, user IDs that can be checked back against contemporary screenshots etc., but it's pretty leaky.
>There will be another 8chan to fill that void soon enough.
8chan totally still exists. All CloudFlare did was essentially erase the link between their IP and "8chan.org".
It took them probably 15 minutes to "go back up", if they hadn't already been abandoning CF anyway.
8chan totally still exists. All CloudFlare did was essentially erase the link between their IP and "8chan.org".
It took them probably 15 minutes to "go back up", if they hadn't already been abandoning CF anyway.
It was all over Twitter yesterday because it was short enough to render as 4 image files.
Yes, but 8ch users have been expecting this since Christchurch, and in any case chan culture has a long history of people on one site raiding an other and causing it to collapse with DDOS or contraband or whatever. It's not hard for people who regularly monitor it to figure out where people will move to.
[deleted]
This sounds flippant, but in all seriousness: Has that been working out?
They state in the notice that 8Chan will likely just use a Cloudflare competitor, so you're in luck I suppose.
Yeah, the NSA reads all of our internet traffic but they don't pick up on this?
It's not their job?
And you really, _really_, don't want it to be.
And you really, _really_, don't want it to be.
Did you read the killer's message? It amounted to "Tomorrows the day!" With no actionable information otherwise.
Perhaps the authorities will closely monitor people who make obscure & dramatic claims online. There's probably an effective scoring system & NLP in place anyways. We think "social credit" only applies to China...
I don't get it, either. Even New Zealand deep-state spy bureaucrats followed around a pro-democracy protestor just to win some favor with the Fijian government. These systems are already abused like this. The Intercept runs a series called Trial and Terror where they pick up on people like this so we know they are doing it. How is NZ following around a pro-democracy protestor and not the NZ shooter? Let's hope it is incompetence. Source, btw: https://theintercept.com/2016/08/14/nsa-gcsb-prism-surveilla...
> Let's hope it is incompetence
Indeed. The scary proposition is that it's competence.
Indeed. The scary proposition is that it's competence.
Warnings are only effective if people act on them.
Right, and in order for that to happen they have to be actionable.
If you have a place in which the common discourse includes hundreds of people saying "i'm going to murder someone tomorrow" in a mostly anonymous format, it's not really something you can follow up on without opening up an entire can of first amendment issues (I say this as a very pro-big government belief structure).
8chan's very nature prevents it from being useful.
If you have a place in which the common discourse includes hundreds of people saying "i'm going to murder someone tomorrow" in a mostly anonymous format, it's not really something you can follow up on without opening up an entire can of first amendment issues (I say this as a very pro-big government belief structure).
8chan's very nature prevents it from being useful.
Has a mass shooting ever been prevented due to 8chan?
They don't tend to advertise the means by which they stop terrorist activities that are still in use, to be honest. If you had the best honey trap in the world, would you go on the television and announce it?
At least one. On balance it would be hard to argue 8chan being easily accessible reduces violence, though.
“Trying to destroy an ant nest with a leaf blower”, like when Reddit shut down some of their more cesspooly subs.
There was a study on that which suggests that pithy quips might not be the best source of advice:
http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
Political *chan culture drives mass shootings in the first place by radicalizing antisocial people more. You'd likely have fewer mass shootings you'd need early warning about in the first place.
Cloudflare is censoring comments like hell.
I don't trust their "private" DNS service anymore. I will use Quad9.
And what about the Las Vegas shooting? Ban CNN, New York Times, MSNBC ...etc..etc.,,Twitter, and thousands of websites, plenty of celebrities....? You people are totalitarian mtfckrs!
This decision is yet another distraction. It's attempting to treat an ephemeral symptom in a rapidly evolving landscape of digital identity and communications. Things are only getting faster, easier, more connected, more distributed, and more encrypted. There is no going back.
Until we collectively acknowledge that it's real humans behind these actions and create modern ways to identify and prevent them, a DDoS/CDN company turning off their service is about the most inconsequential change of all. Making some internet comments go away solves nothing.
Until we collectively acknowledge that it's real humans behind these actions and create modern ways to identify and prevent them, a DDoS/CDN company turning off their service is about the most inconsequential change of all. Making some internet comments go away solves nothing.
>Until we collectively acknowledge that it's real humans behind these actions and create modern ways to identify and prevent them
Surely this has no downsides at all. For example, you can rest easy because YOUR ideas and YOUR opinions will never stray off the “approved” line.
... how is it people in tech can’t see past their own noses on things like this?
Surely this has no downsides at all. For example, you can rest easy because YOUR ideas and YOUR opinions will never stray off the “approved” line.
... how is it people in tech can’t see past their own noses on things like this?
because the line of reasoning you are using has been repeated over and over and over.... but it's not exactly working out well. Words have a lot of power, and we already limit what people can say through libel laws. Much of the hate speech going on is really just libel to a group of people. No one really wants to police speech, but we already know untruths targeted at individuals can be devstating and we have created laws in most countries around that. It hasn't resulted in mass censorship of "YOUR ideas, and YOUR opinions" unless they are untrue ideas about other people that you think you can put out into the public space. America has this as their corporate slogan "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Liberty cannot outweigh Life and pursuit of happiness. You need to balance all 3 of those, in fact, without rules everyones liberties are reduced.
We don't allow people to drive anyway they like on the roads, we have basic set of rules that allow everyone a lot more freedom to go where they want, violation of those rules tends to cause harm, and if it was total "freedom" then it would be chaos. If we cannot work out what those are for speech( and we already have some )so that everyone gets more effective freedoms, then more harm will keep happening.
We don't allow people to drive anyway they like on the roads, we have basic set of rules that allow everyone a lot more freedom to go where they want, violation of those rules tends to cause harm, and if it was total "freedom" then it would be chaos. If we cannot work out what those are for speech( and we already have some )so that everyone gets more effective freedoms, then more harm will keep happening.
Under your interpretation, would I be allowed to say that it’s evident that there are (nontrivial, sometimes cognitive) innate group differences between the sexes, or between racial groups? If you’re convinced that such a statement would simply be “libelous”, I can’t get on board with your idea. As far as I can tell, the current state of affairs is this: the science suggests rather strongly that there are indeed innate differences both between the sexes and among various racial groups; despite this, any statement to that effect is loudly denounced as “pseudoscience”. In other words, I believe that the current popular consensus regarding innate group differences is factually incorrect, but also believed in very strongly. So if that’s your angle, I think that your idea has reached its “dystopia scenario”—truthful speech being prohibited because it is falsely deemed libelous—right out of the gate.
no, I don't think want to ban the truth as we know it via evidence.
I'm not precisely defining what the law is, in NZ we have hate speech laws. Everyone still goes around with their own unique ideas, sometimes shitty ideas..... like when they mistakenly conflate genetic sex and gender identity, or talk about race as a scientific concept when really that's quite an ambiguous term ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) ). Its not even about the "truth" so much, I'm an atheist, but I believe in religious freedom and peoples right to believe in things I believe to be completely false. It's about making sure groups of people, especially minorities are free to live their lives according to their beliefs (not necessarily without criticism ).
NZ Law society did a pretty good summary recently
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/practice-resources/practice-ar...
I'm not precisely defining what the law is, in NZ we have hate speech laws. Everyone still goes around with their own unique ideas, sometimes shitty ideas..... like when they mistakenly conflate genetic sex and gender identity, or talk about race as a scientific concept when really that's quite an ambiguous term ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) ). Its not even about the "truth" so much, I'm an atheist, but I believe in religious freedom and peoples right to believe in things I believe to be completely false. It's about making sure groups of people, especially minorities are free to live their lives according to their beliefs (not necessarily without criticism ).
NZ Law society did a pretty good summary recently
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/practice-resources/practice-ar...
>I'm not precisely defining what the law is, in NZ we have hate speech laws.
Which is another way to say you do not have free speech.
Which is another way to say you do not have free speech.
I'm definitely not on the "approved" line, but that's not what I'm talking about though.
Politics have little to do with it. Any base ideology can be extrapolated to a violent end and the signs are all the same. Recognizing those signs is where attention should be placed. Unfortunately the media and general consensus will be on political hysteria and surface outrage instead of investigating the root causes.
Politics have little to do with it. Any base ideology can be extrapolated to a violent end and the signs are all the same. Recognizing those signs is where attention should be placed. Unfortunately the media and general consensus will be on political hysteria and surface outrage instead of investigating the root causes.
>YOUR ideas and YOUR opinions will never stray off the “approved” line
Perhaps they will, but there should still be a line. There will continue to be political mechanisms in place to shift it.
Perhaps they will, but there should still be a line. There will continue to be political mechanisms in place to shift it.
That line is already in the legal system, and the ISP, and probably a couple other places along the way. It shouldn’t be at a content middleman too.
CF needs to stay out of it because they are no setting a precedent to be the gatekeepers of “what is good”.
CF needs to stay out of it because they are no setting a precedent to be the gatekeepers of “what is good”.
It's funny, these discussions go around and around in circles on HN.
Really, we should all just reference Popper's Paradox of Tolerance[1].
A just, tolerant society should tolerate anything other than intolerance. Yes, this isn't as simple as "freedom of speech", but it makes a lot of sense.
Popper's words argue this as well as anyone:
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Really, we should all just reference Popper's Paradox of Tolerance[1].
A just, tolerant society should tolerate anything other than intolerance. Yes, this isn't as simple as "freedom of speech", but it makes a lot of sense.
Popper's words argue this as well as anyone:
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Very unpopular opinion.
The internet should be free for everyone and no provider should have the ability to cut off services.
The problem is not the platform but the people, hate the player not the game.
You should be legally required to do business with any customer?
At some level does a person not have the right to say, "I don't like you and won't take your money?"
Sure, the US and others have protected classes that limit the reasons you can refuse to do business with someone but those are more to do with people in those classes being unfairly burdened and facing difficulty living tier day-to-day lives.
At some level does a person not have the right to say, "I don't like you and won't take your money?"
Sure, the US and others have protected classes that limit the reasons you can refuse to do business with someone but those are more to do with people in those classes being unfairly burdened and facing difficulty living tier day-to-day lives.
> You should be legally required to do business with any customer?
No you shouldn't be. But this should also be treated fairly.
Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom.
Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers".
A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry.
Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.
No you shouldn't be. But this should also be treated fairly.
Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom.
Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers".
A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry.
Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.
Your statement about Section 230 is a little unclear, so to clarify - what you are expressing is what you want the law to be, not what it actually is.
“Platform” vs “publisher” is not part of the actual Section 230, which allows platforms to keep the protection while doing all the active censoring and moderating that they want. There’s a good summary on Wikipedia.
“Platform” vs “publisher” is not part of the actual Section 230, which allows platforms to keep the protection while doing all the active censoring and moderating that they want. There’s a good summary on Wikipedia.
> When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230.
That's ridiculous. Every single platform, perhaps excluding 8chan, moderates their content. Whatever reasons for that moderation are really dependent on the platform.
What separates a publisher from a platform is authorship; Cloudflare, Facebook, etc claim no authorship over their content. But a newspaper is exactly the opposite, they proudly proclaim their authorship since that's the point.
With cloudflare, it's even less relevant because they aren't moderating content at all -- they're simply choosing their customers -- and that is different again.
That's ridiculous. Every single platform, perhaps excluding 8chan, moderates their content. Whatever reasons for that moderation are really dependent on the platform.
What separates a publisher from a platform is authorship; Cloudflare, Facebook, etc claim no authorship over their content. But a newspaper is exactly the opposite, they proudly proclaim their authorship since that's the point.
With cloudflare, it's even less relevant because they aren't moderating content at all -- they're simply choosing their customers -- and that is different again.
I don't think dropping someone as a customer on your platform meets the bar for exercising editorial control over content. CF specifically dropped one customer because they were trying to imply that being hosted by CF was an endorsement of their views.
This would be an unproductive outcome. There's really no point in allowing CDNs to be sued for the content they distribute except as a mechanism to force them to take unsavory customers to maintain their ability to not be sued. Why is it a problem that in your view, platforms can 'enjoy' the benefits of both?
Why can't a platform not endorse the content of their customers while also not doing business with people they don't like? It doesn't seem to be a contradiction -- a freelancer who refuses an offer to build a neo-nazi site is not suddenly endorsing the content that lives on all the other sites they built.
This would be an unproductive outcome. There's really no point in allowing CDNs to be sued for the content they distribute except as a mechanism to force them to take unsavory customers to maintain their ability to not be sued. Why is it a problem that in your view, platforms can 'enjoy' the benefits of both?
Why can't a platform not endorse the content of their customers while also not doing business with people they don't like? It doesn't seem to be a contradiction -- a freelancer who refuses an offer to build a neo-nazi site is not suddenly endorsing the content that lives on all the other sites they built.
But you can't deny a business (whether it's a platform or a publisher) the right to choose not to enable bad actors
Go open an ice-cream shop and refuse to serve Asian people because you dont like them.
You can refuse a serve an Asian person. You just can't refuse to serve Asian people in general.
And you refuse him based on what? The Axiom of Choice? Because if you refuse him for being Asian and you are consistent you have to refuse all Asians. Because if you refuse 8chan because some killers used the service you will have to refuse Facebook, Twitter, All major Hollywood Studios, the Catholic Church, the GOP, the DP, the Saudi Arabia government and thousands of more organizations which directly or indirectly had a role in many crimes.
You don't seem to understand. You can refuse to do business with someone because you don't like the color of their tie.
In many countries, there are specific protected classes and you can't refuse their business just because they are a member of that class. Confusing these concepts does not help the argument.
In many countries, there are specific protected classes and you can't refuse their business just because they are a member of that class. Confusing these concepts does not help the argument.
> You should be legally required to do business with any customer?
Ceteris Paribus? Yes, absolutely, this should be a foundational rule of society. And here, Ceteris Paribus means paying your hosting bills on time and obeying the law.
Ceteris Paribus? Yes, absolutely, this should be a foundational rule of society. And here, Ceteris Paribus means paying your hosting bills on time and obeying the law.
[deleted]
How do you filter spam if you can't moderate at all? HN only exists as a service because it's quite carefully moderated.
By treating it fairly.
Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom.
Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers".
A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry.
Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.
Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom.
Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers".
A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry.
Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.
That is not what CDA 230 does. It even allows a website that mostly publishes its own content (like a paper) also publish user comments, without being held liable for them.
> This "publisher" v. "platform" concept is a totally artificial distinction that has no basis in the law. News publishers are also protected by Section 230 of the CDA. All CDA 230 does is protect a website from being held liable for user content or moderation choices. It does not cover content created by the company itself. In short, the distinction is not "platform" or "publisher" it's "content creator" or "content intermediary." Contrary to Coaston's claims, Section 230 equally protects the NY Times and the Washington Post if it chooses to host and/or moderate user comments. It does not protect content produced by those companies itself, but similarly, Section 230 does not protect content produced by Facebook itself.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t...
The section is actually quite clear if you take the time to read it:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected".
An interactive computer service means anything that smells like a website, and here it says they may block or filter anything at all they find objectionable. It's quite explicit. It does not restrict its protections to "platforms", but to any provider of internet services that host third-party content.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
> This "publisher" v. "platform" concept is a totally artificial distinction that has no basis in the law. News publishers are also protected by Section 230 of the CDA. All CDA 230 does is protect a website from being held liable for user content or moderation choices. It does not cover content created by the company itself. In short, the distinction is not "platform" or "publisher" it's "content creator" or "content intermediary." Contrary to Coaston's claims, Section 230 equally protects the NY Times and the Washington Post if it chooses to host and/or moderate user comments. It does not protect content produced by those companies itself, but similarly, Section 230 does not protect content produced by Facebook itself.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t...
The section is actually quite clear if you take the time to read it:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected".
An interactive computer service means anything that smells like a website, and here it says they may block or filter anything at all they find objectionable. It's quite explicit. It does not restrict its protections to "platforms", but to any provider of internet services that host third-party content.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
You posted this exact thing above, there was no need to copy/paste it a second time.
Twitter and Google (& YouTube) have systematically removed ISIS content and redirected these people to messages/sites that are designed to disrupt and deprogram their ideology. They’ve done this effectively for years. They choose not to apply this approach to white supremacy.
https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1158032847560675328
https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1158032847560675328
> They choose not to apply this approach to white supremacy.
"[...] the measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the very least, their supporters."
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-t...
"[...] the measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the very least, their supporters."
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-t...
Honestly, they should have done exactly that. Flag their content and ban them. Then go to the capitol. And when some politician asks, "why was I banned?" Tell them honestly, your statements were determined to be extremist by the same algorithm that bans Al Qaeda and ISIS from posting. Then sit back and watch the real fireworks go off.
Just because they have a political title does not mean we have to respect anything that comes out of their mouth. Call a spade a spade and be done with them.
Just because they have a political title does not mean we have to respect anything that comes out of their mouth. Call a spade a spade and be done with them.
I don't think it is a good idea to replace political discourse with algorithms. You can't just throw up your hands and blame the algorithm when somebody complains to you.
That is already happening, unfortunately.
One problem with giving up our principles to own the <other tribe> is that these plans can backfire pretty badly:
https://twitter.com/auerbachkeller/status/900376181458911232
https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/241981/googles-new-hate-spe...
https://twitter.com/auerbachkeller/status/900376181458911232
https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/241981/googles-new-hate-spe...
Seems like the type of thing you'd find in a dystopian YA novel. Remembering back to being a kid, a lot of them have that kind of setup for disenfranchising the ideology the hero/heroine ends up aligning themselves to, and establishing the group of villainous adults. Actually, I think this exact plot point happens in the Dreamfall series.
> Honestly, they should have done exactly that. Flag their content and ban them. Then go to the capitol. And when some politician asks, "why was I banned?" Tell them honestly, your statements were determined to be extremist by the same algorithm that bans Al Qaeda and ISIS from posting. Then sit back and watch the real fireworks go off.
> Just because they have a political title does not mean we have to respect anything that
A big company like Google would want to be on the repubs good side because the Republican party is the ones who support mega corporation like them
> Just because they have a political title does not mean we have to respect anything that
A big company like Google would want to be on the repubs good side because the Republican party is the ones who support mega corporation like them
kingkawn(5)
CloudFlare - the service we're talking about here - have consistently chosen not to remove ISIS content. They have taken a very clear stance that is the exact opposite of the one you're describing.
Do people really use Google to try to get to Isis content? I would have thought that was a quick way to get yourself investigated.
Why is this the concern of Cloudflare?
If it does something illegal, the law can close it down.
If it doesn't, it's should be absolutely no concern of Cloudlfare to police it.
That's more dystopian than a wacko shooter posting their message there. They could have posted it anywhere, or just posted it on their profile, send it to the news, etc.
If it does something illegal, the law can close it down.
If it doesn't, it's should be absolutely no concern of Cloudlfare to police it.
That's more dystopian than a wacko shooter posting their message there. They could have posted it anywhere, or just posted it on their profile, send it to the news, etc.
And now they have the responsibility of policing every website that uses their service to avoid tacitly supporting controversial content.
Right, suddenly CF cares about 'law'.
Scam (lots of phishing and fake webshops), spam, piracy, illegal pornography, it's all chilling on CF's network en masse. When they get notified about this, do you think they terminate that client? No, they will just come up with some dogmatic story [1] and ignore every call to action/cooperation.
"we are rebuilding the Internet, and we don't believe that we or anyone else should have the right to tell people what content they can and cannot publish online."
Yes, ladies and gentleman, he said it. In 2012 Mr Prince was trying to build a proprietary internet. These days he would never say that again. I mean, it's just laughable that you feel zero responsibility over your clients. Hence they publicly deny this now of course.
CloudFlare: it would be great if you start actively participating in abuse prevention, instead of behaving like an offshore/bulletproof provider behind red 'n blue curtains.
[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/thoughts-on-abuse/
Scam (lots of phishing and fake webshops), spam, piracy, illegal pornography, it's all chilling on CF's network en masse. When they get notified about this, do you think they terminate that client? No, they will just come up with some dogmatic story [1] and ignore every call to action/cooperation.
"we are rebuilding the Internet, and we don't believe that we or anyone else should have the right to tell people what content they can and cannot publish online."
Yes, ladies and gentleman, he said it. In 2012 Mr Prince was trying to build a proprietary internet. These days he would never say that again. I mean, it's just laughable that you feel zero responsibility over your clients. Hence they publicly deny this now of course.
CloudFlare: it would be great if you start actively participating in abuse prevention, instead of behaving like an offshore/bulletproof provider behind red 'n blue curtains.
[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/thoughts-on-abuse/
You're missing the point brought up in both blog posts: If CF removes these sites, they literally won't go offline. They'll just stop using CF. The content is still there.
CF forwards DMCA complaints to the website host so they can deal with the illegal content. CF already uses Safe browsing (or perhaps another system) to flag domains[0] that might be phishing/malware related. Illegal porn is something the sites themselves have to remove since (as said above) removing the site from CF only saves face for CF and doesn't change the content being on the service[1].
0: https://community.cloudflare.com/t/your-domain-has-been-susp...
1: to add, CF doesn't allow video files to be directly proxied on their network (when the main point of your site/service is serving these video files), you either need to use CF stream or have your video files on a separate non-proxied subdomain. If something illegal is stored on CF stream or Workers KV, they can take it down via the abuse form since they're the host of that content.
CF forwards DMCA complaints to the website host so they can deal with the illegal content. CF already uses Safe browsing (or perhaps another system) to flag domains[0] that might be phishing/malware related. Illegal porn is something the sites themselves have to remove since (as said above) removing the site from CF only saves face for CF and doesn't change the content being on the service[1].
0: https://community.cloudflare.com/t/your-domain-has-been-susp...
1: to add, CF doesn't allow video files to be directly proxied on their network (when the main point of your site/service is serving these video files), you either need to use CF stream or have your video files on a separate non-proxied subdomain. If something illegal is stored on CF stream or Workers KV, they can take it down via the abuse form since they're the host of that content.
> 8chan [...] have proven themselves to be lawless and that lawlessness has caused multiple tragic deaths
Quite the strong and matter-of-fact opinion, stated as accepted fact, about a direct cause here.
Quite the strong and matter-of-fact opinion, stated as accepted fact, about a direct cause here.
I am really sick of the high horse that this company thinks they are on because of their pseudo-neutrality.
What should normally happen if you come across some criminal or reprensible content, is that it's possible to figure out who owns the IP space,and if it's not already a criminal organisation decide to aid the ISP in running a reputable business and send them an abuse notice. This has the effect that bad actors need to move to bad networks, which you can quarantine at your own network boundary - I get to make a decision as private citizen on what is allowed on my network.
That is a process that works.
Cloudflare obfuscates the real IP space, which means that the best outcome I can achieve from them is that they will forward my abuse complaint to possibly the mob, which is not a move I am willing to make.
In this way they are not just a DDOS protection service, they are business protection for criminals. And because of their size and because they allow them to hide behind their IPs it makes it impossible for me to make a private decision about what to not allow on my networks.
If they are so happy about hosting the vomit that the internet has to offer, why not assign an IP block to the easily identifiable garbage that exists.
What should normally happen if you come across some criminal or reprensible content, is that it's possible to figure out who owns the IP space,and if it's not already a criminal organisation decide to aid the ISP in running a reputable business and send them an abuse notice. This has the effect that bad actors need to move to bad networks, which you can quarantine at your own network boundary - I get to make a decision as private citizen on what is allowed on my network.
That is a process that works.
Cloudflare obfuscates the real IP space, which means that the best outcome I can achieve from them is that they will forward my abuse complaint to possibly the mob, which is not a move I am willing to make.
In this way they are not just a DDOS protection service, they are business protection for criminals. And because of their size and because they allow them to hide behind their IPs it makes it impossible for me to make a private decision about what to not allow on my networks.
If they are so happy about hosting the vomit that the internet has to offer, why not assign an IP block to the easily identifiable garbage that exists.
Well, they're at least making their position clear here. They are not a government or a public forum. As such, they can decide who and what they will support on the internet. Can't argue with their decision on that point.
Does CF enjoy publisher protections for the content that moves through their servers? Because if they do, and they “curate” opinions they don’t like, that’s an issue.
Cloudflare happily provides hosting for al-Shabab, Hamas, the Taliban, the PLF, the PKK, al-Quds Brigades, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. They don't give one good God-damn about hatred or murder; they care about negative media attention affecting their bottom line. Not that they're not entitled to only care about that, but pretending it's any other reason makes them liars and hypocrites.
My only concern here is that they're giving less than a day's notice, which is really uncalled for, and shows a certain lack of professionalism.
(Their service terms https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/ allow them to do this, but that doesn't make it a smart idea.)
(Their service terms https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/ allow them to do this, but that doesn't make it a smart idea.)
This is a very complex situation and a lot of factors need to be considered. Everyone seems keenly aware that 8chan was a place where hateful ideologies could fester and spread, and nobody wants that. But it seems few people are aware of the fact that cutting people off from society usually results in feelings of social rejection that drive people deeper into isolation, bitterness and hatred. Being socially rejected, or believing such, is fairly strongly coorelated with mass murderer psychology.[1][2] This action could actually have the opposite effect of what was intended.
There is also an effect similar to martyrdom where whenever some subgroup of society is mistreated they gain in power. Many see being cut-off as over-the-top and thus a mistreatment, irrespective of the fact that the group has a clearly evil ideology. There is a risk this action will embolden their cause, as a natural instinct to protect the mistreated and come to the defense of the underdog kicks in. Read some of the other comments and you'll see what I mean. This comment itself is admittedly partially motivated by my instinct to come to the defense of the mistreated (granted the obviousness that the murdered and their families are clearly the most mistreated).
Like I said, this is complicated. The simple ideological answers are simply not good enough.
So the hard question is this: how do you prevent the spread of their ideology without excising them from (online) society? I believe it is possible, but it is going to take a more nuanced approach going forward. We could start by not labelling people as racists or white supremacists. We should reserve these labels for actions, words and ideologies, not people. Attack the ideas, not the people. Deplatform (censor) the posts (if you control the platform), don't ban the accounts. Throttle accounts of repeat abusers as necessary. And always be willing to talk.
BTW I always feel queasy posting things like this to HN because I know some people will utterly reject me and downvote me, but I feel this point is just too important.
[1] Katherine Newman, https://www.livescience.com/21787-predicting-mass-shootings.... [2] James Knoll, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/saving-normal/201405...
There is also an effect similar to martyrdom where whenever some subgroup of society is mistreated they gain in power. Many see being cut-off as over-the-top and thus a mistreatment, irrespective of the fact that the group has a clearly evil ideology. There is a risk this action will embolden their cause, as a natural instinct to protect the mistreated and come to the defense of the underdog kicks in. Read some of the other comments and you'll see what I mean. This comment itself is admittedly partially motivated by my instinct to come to the defense of the mistreated (granted the obviousness that the murdered and their families are clearly the most mistreated).
Like I said, this is complicated. The simple ideological answers are simply not good enough.
So the hard question is this: how do you prevent the spread of their ideology without excising them from (online) society? I believe it is possible, but it is going to take a more nuanced approach going forward. We could start by not labelling people as racists or white supremacists. We should reserve these labels for actions, words and ideologies, not people. Attack the ideas, not the people. Deplatform (censor) the posts (if you control the platform), don't ban the accounts. Throttle accounts of repeat abusers as necessary. And always be willing to talk.
BTW I always feel queasy posting things like this to HN because I know some people will utterly reject me and downvote me, but I feel this point is just too important.
[1] Katherine Newman, https://www.livescience.com/21787-predicting-mass-shootings.... [2] James Knoll, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/saving-normal/201405...
Its important that a company distances themselves from this type of behaviour but even slightly spinning it as action against something is disingenuous at best. So much more needs to happen to really address these problems and Im fairly confident a cdn isnt the make or break for shootings in America.
Like I stated here[1], it seems a bit hypocritical for them to cancel service to 8chan when some of the large sites have been complicit also.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20607635
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20607635
So Cloudflare went from hosting everything that's not illegal, to kicking people out who claim that Cloudflare supports their ideology, to kicking people out with less than a day's notice on a Sunday if a forum attracts user-generated content that Cloudflare doesn't like - and the rules for content that they don't tolerate may change on similarly short notice with no warning before they decide to terminate your account (most likely based on "has enough media outrage happened").
Also, they stated that they were "cooperating around monitoring potential hate sites on our network", which makes me wonder what kind of monitoring we're talking about here, and whether and where else they share traffic that they're proxying.
Regardless of what you think about 8chan (I'm not familiar with the site but there seems to be consensus that it's a cesspool), these points are interesting to note.
Also, they stated that they were "cooperating around monitoring potential hate sites on our network", which makes me wonder what kind of monitoring we're talking about here, and whether and where else they share traffic that they're proxying.
Regardless of what you think about 8chan (I'm not familiar with the site but there seems to be consensus that it's a cesspool), these points are interesting to note.
Most companies have similar polices for much milder infractions. Amazon kicks out customers all the time based on random algorithms. So does Google. And Apple. At least cloudflare clearly has human review and even writes a long blog post to explain their decision. And we're talking about a site that incites violence. So I'd say cloudflare has at least a much more transparent policy than most internet companies. As far as timeline, it's about on par. One day you're in, the next you're out. That's the norm these days. I'm not saying it's not fucked up but until we start regulating these companies, this is what we're stuck with.
Definitely a bit of a shock to me. I really like Cloudflare. But I'm not sure I really like this move.
Personally, I'm both shocked and disappointed over the support people in this thread are giving to Cloudflare over this. This is both ridiculous and unprofessional.
Same old story. Silence them instead of listening to them, speaking to them, learning from them.
You can learn from a baby. Silencing people leads nowhere.
You can learn from a baby. Silencing people leads nowhere.
What could one possibly have to learn from these right wing extremism (and many other such groups)? The ideas, beliefs, and everything else they promote has been consistently been established as nothing but baseless drivel. Some ideas shouldn't be endlessly debated, they should be pushed out of the discussion and prevented from having their toxic ideas spread.
I'm not a fan of 8chan, but if the person posted his manifesto to Hacker News, would hacker news have been shut down?
> the suspected terrorist gunman appears to have been inspired by the forum website known as 8chan
Is this because he posted his manifesto on 8chan or other sources point to 8chan as the source of his extremism?
Is this because he posted his manifesto on 8chan or other sources point to 8chan as the source of his extremism?
Coudflare CEO retracts what he said he would not do again:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/cloudflares-ceo-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/technology/8chan-cloudfla...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/cloudflares-ceo-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/technology/8chan-cloudfla...
"I promise I wont' do it again" - Guy who does it again.
FBI's Phoenix field office in May of this year, published a memo that asserts and discusses "anti-government, identity base, and fringe political conspiracy theories very likely motivate some domestic extremists to commit criminal or violent activity"
And in its appendix it lists QAnon as one such fringe political conspiracy theories.
https://www.scribd.com/document/420379775/FBI-Conspiracy-The...
(page 8)
So what's Twitter going to do when people tweet or retweet anti-government, identity based, fringe conspiracy theories or theorists, given the FBI considers at the very least that such things are very likely to motivate domestic terrorism? And are only heads of state going to be allowed to do that?
Q and movement followers, having moved to 8chan because 4chan was compromised, surely will consider the FBI memo, Cloudfare's decision, just move evidence of "deep state" fighting back. In the outlook section of the FBI report, it expects these conspiracy theories to spread, and foster more violence, leading up to the 2020 election.
There are other groups listed in the FBI report. 8chan isn't one of them. But the FBI field office in Nevada issued a search warrant for 8chan in Reno regarding the Poway Synagogue shooting.
And in its appendix it lists QAnon as one such fringe political conspiracy theories.
https://www.scribd.com/document/420379775/FBI-Conspiracy-The...
(page 8)
So what's Twitter going to do when people tweet or retweet anti-government, identity based, fringe conspiracy theories or theorists, given the FBI considers at the very least that such things are very likely to motivate domestic terrorism? And are only heads of state going to be allowed to do that?
Q and movement followers, having moved to 8chan because 4chan was compromised, surely will consider the FBI memo, Cloudfare's decision, just move evidence of "deep state" fighting back. In the outlook section of the FBI report, it expects these conspiracy theories to spread, and foster more violence, leading up to the 2020 election.
There are other groups listed in the FBI report. 8chan isn't one of them. But the FBI field office in Nevada issued a search warrant for 8chan in Reno regarding the Poway Synagogue shooting.
Given:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2019/08/04/the-el-p...
I believe Cloudflare's action is necessary to try to stem the tide here. Sometimes ... just sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2019/08/04/the-el-p...
I believe Cloudflare's action is necessary to try to stem the tide here. Sometimes ... just sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
Easy way out literally noone in the US wants or will support:
Get a legal definition of well regulated militia, get it to not map to the national guard or some homebred terrorist group via some ritual like the pledge or whatever, and police the crap out of the gun sales to groups outside this definition.
By the Constitution's own legitimacy it's the government's choice to forego this control under those terms, and it musts be the government's choice to tighten this control up.
Why is it legal for me to own an elephant gun but illegal to strap it to a drone? For this exact reason: Definitions were established, and strapping guns to drones was deemed a dick move.
Same here, define legitimate civillian militias and take all the guns off the hands of every other random guy.
Couple years after that maybe we could start having the discussion of why you need armed death squads on your home turf but hey at least the ease of access for the general public is out, and with it a large part of the reason why the US os the only place where this happens day in and day out.
Get a legal definition of well regulated militia, get it to not map to the national guard or some homebred terrorist group via some ritual like the pledge or whatever, and police the crap out of the gun sales to groups outside this definition.
By the Constitution's own legitimacy it's the government's choice to forego this control under those terms, and it musts be the government's choice to tighten this control up.
Why is it legal for me to own an elephant gun but illegal to strap it to a drone? For this exact reason: Definitions were established, and strapping guns to drones was deemed a dick move.
Same here, define legitimate civillian militias and take all the guns off the hands of every other random guy.
Couple years after that maybe we could start having the discussion of why you need armed death squads on your home turf but hey at least the ease of access for the general public is out, and with it a large part of the reason why the US os the only place where this happens day in and day out.
>Why is it legal for me to own an elephant gun but illegal to strap it to a drone?
It's not federally illegal to attach firearms to drones, so long as you do so within FAA guidelines for flying self-built vehicles low to the ground on your own property.
It's not federally illegal to attach firearms to drones, so long as you do so within FAA guidelines for flying self-built vehicles low to the ground on your own property.
" they have proven themselves to be lawless and that lawlessness has caused multiple tragic deaths."
What insane nonsense. Whatever motivates mass murderers caused the deaths, not where they posted. They get rewarded with tons of attention from all forms of media, too. Just kill a minimum number of people to get the popularity in the corporate and social media they otherwise wouldn't ever earn. They revel in it. 8chan disappearing doesn't change that.
I've always favored all the mass media agreeing to not even mention the killers names, achievements, etc in favor of just belittling or dismissing them. Focus on everyone else in the tragedy instead. Make sure the abusers or killers get nothing out of it. Meanwhile, they'll get plenty across the media with Cloudfare getting some good PR not supporting one of the sites a few wrote on. My prediction: more people will do mass killings since this wasn't a causal factor or even help stop them.
What insane nonsense. Whatever motivates mass murderers caused the deaths, not where they posted. They get rewarded with tons of attention from all forms of media, too. Just kill a minimum number of people to get the popularity in the corporate and social media they otherwise wouldn't ever earn. They revel in it. 8chan disappearing doesn't change that.
I've always favored all the mass media agreeing to not even mention the killers names, achievements, etc in favor of just belittling or dismissing them. Focus on everyone else in the tragedy instead. Make sure the abusers or killers get nothing out of it. Meanwhile, they'll get plenty across the media with Cloudfare getting some good PR not supporting one of the sites a few wrote on. My prediction: more people will do mass killings since this wasn't a causal factor or even help stop them.
That's an unstable equilibrium.
Good luck thought policing thousands upon thousands of journalists, each of them has an incentive to defect and get more eye balls that competition, and make more money and name for themselves.
Never going to happen, until we have full blown censorship and you only read double-plus good happy time stories.
Is that what you really want?
Good luck thought policing thousands upon thousands of journalists, each of them has an incentive to defect and get more eye balls that competition, and make more money and name for themselves.
Never going to happen, until we have full blown censorship and you only read double-plus good happy time stories.
Is that what you really want?
"Good luck thought policing thousands upon thousands of journalists"
Except you're ignoring the fact that the corporate media already does that. It seems to work well enough, too. It helps that "journalists" are mostly a thing of the past with today's reporters often just doing the minimum to check things when they're not just repeating whatever the current fad is. That's extremely popular, too. Most stories are whatever people in target demographic are either what people want to say yes to or hate on. We're already there.
Except you're ignoring the fact that the corporate media already does that. It seems to work well enough, too. It helps that "journalists" are mostly a thing of the past with today's reporters often just doing the minimum to check things when they're not just repeating whatever the current fad is. That's extremely popular, too. Most stories are whatever people in target demographic are either what people want to say yes to or hate on. We're already there.
Except they seem to be fanning the fire instead of supressing.
It's all about eyeballs.
It's all about eyeballs.
Very well written and cogent post. But as they point out, the internet is designed to be open and free. And this type of hateful content will still have a platform. There's sadly nothing that can be done about that. You can always suppress and control speech, but the people who want to hear it will also always find a way to seek it out.
Why should we censor hateful speech? Do you mean violent speech?
Whenever I come across hateful speech I usually chuckle, roll my eyes, and move on.
Which is the response that is arguably the most mature and best for society. Unfortunately, not everyone reacts that way.
> Cloudflare is not a government... [we do not have] the political legitimacy to make determinations on what content is good and bad... Questions around content are real societal issues that need politically legitimate solutions. We will continue to engage with lawmakers around the world as they set the boundaries of what is acceptable in their countries through due process of law. And we will comply with those boundaries when and where they are set.
This is a horrifying and immoral position to take. Governments are the entities that have no legitimacy to restrict speech or "make determinations on what content is good and bad". Man requires free speech because the freedom to think is essential to man's existence. The role of government is to protect man's rights so that he may think, evaluate ideas, and live a productive life.
This is a horrifying and immoral position to take. Governments are the entities that have no legitimacy to restrict speech or "make determinations on what content is good and bad". Man requires free speech because the freedom to think is essential to man's existence. The role of government is to protect man's rights so that he may think, evaluate ideas, and live a productive life.
I don’t disagree in principle, but historically speaking that has not typically been the role of governments.
I'm a strong defendant of Internet freedom, but before attacking Cloudflare on this one, let's please read this one-paragraph Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Why can't law enforcement take a more active role in policing this site rather than leaving it to corporations? It's a known catalyst of terrorism at this point, so they know exactly where to look and surely have the resources to investigate suspicious posters.
Disappointingly, the last time an incident like this happened, an FBI agent accidentally revealed himself to be actively fuelling the fire by participating in a smear campaign against Russia (https://ceinquiry.wordpress.com/2019/06/17/fbi-8chan/). Looks like law enforcement are watching, but are just making problems worse? Baffling.
Disappointingly, the last time an incident like this happened, an FBI agent accidentally revealed himself to be actively fuelling the fire by participating in a smear campaign against Russia (https://ceinquiry.wordpress.com/2019/06/17/fbi-8chan/). Looks like law enforcement are watching, but are just making problems worse? Baffling.
This is great news.
There will be lots of people who are frustrated by this. They may say that Cloudflare shouldn't remove content unless they are legally required. Or that a CDN like Cloudflare is a platform layer, deep in the stack, and that it shouldn't be making decisions based on content. That they are a essentially a utility, and that they should provide the the same service to everyone.
But at the end of the day, companies are run by people. And those people should consider the positive and negative concequences of the services they provide. It is the moral thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is the courageous thing to do.
That doesn't mean they must block every potentially bad actor. And they don't need to block based explicitly on content. Here, the line was drawn at "platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design." But when situations arise that cause decision makers at an organization to re-consider providing their services to their customers, they should take that opportunity to re-evaluate. They should ask, "Do we want to be hosting this?"
In this case, they said "No."
Maybe some other customers will leave, afraid of being kicked off next. They should take that into account. If you think your service is sufficiently like 8Chan, you should probably leave Cloudflare. Or if you think Cloudflare's decision was arbitrary and that worries you, you should leave.
But maybe others will be happy that their CDN doesn't need to be associated with hosting 8Chan's content. I know I feel that way.
Maybe the goodwill you receive will lead to more financial success. But you'll probably never know. In all likelihood, so long as your customers aren't leaving in droves after you kick someone off your platform, you'll never know if the decision was the right financial decision.
You'll probably never know if it was a net positive or negative on your balance sheet. But you might sleep better at night. And maybe sites that enable the propagate hate will find it a little bit harder to survive. And I think that's great.
There will be lots of people who are frustrated by this. They may say that Cloudflare shouldn't remove content unless they are legally required. Or that a CDN like Cloudflare is a platform layer, deep in the stack, and that it shouldn't be making decisions based on content. That they are a essentially a utility, and that they should provide the the same service to everyone.
But at the end of the day, companies are run by people. And those people should consider the positive and negative concequences of the services they provide. It is the moral thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is the courageous thing to do.
That doesn't mean they must block every potentially bad actor. And they don't need to block based explicitly on content. Here, the line was drawn at "platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design." But when situations arise that cause decision makers at an organization to re-consider providing their services to their customers, they should take that opportunity to re-evaluate. They should ask, "Do we want to be hosting this?"
In this case, they said "No."
Maybe some other customers will leave, afraid of being kicked off next. They should take that into account. If you think your service is sufficiently like 8Chan, you should probably leave Cloudflare. Or if you think Cloudflare's decision was arbitrary and that worries you, you should leave.
But maybe others will be happy that their CDN doesn't need to be associated with hosting 8Chan's content. I know I feel that way.
Maybe the goodwill you receive will lead to more financial success. But you'll probably never know. In all likelihood, so long as your customers aren't leaving in droves after you kick someone off your platform, you'll never know if the decision was the right financial decision.
You'll probably never know if it was a net positive or negative on your balance sheet. But you might sleep better at night. And maybe sites that enable the propagate hate will find it a little bit harder to survive. And I think that's great.
>That doesn't mean they must block every potentially bad actor.
Unfortunately obligatory "I don't support 8chan".
I dislike this idea that people can stomp their feet and demand CloudFlare kick off "bad actors".
Who is to say the bad actor of tomorrow won't be the "good actor" of today. CloudFlare and other internet utilities should remain apolitical tools that leave law enforcement to law enforcement (even that is a slippery slope, but I'd much prefer an open internet that isn't open to individual whims of what is right and wrong)
Unfortunately obligatory "I don't support 8chan".
I dislike this idea that people can stomp their feet and demand CloudFlare kick off "bad actors".
Who is to say the bad actor of tomorrow won't be the "good actor" of today. CloudFlare and other internet utilities should remain apolitical tools that leave law enforcement to law enforcement (even that is a slippery slope, but I'd much prefer an open internet that isn't open to individual whims of what is right and wrong)
It's for each privately controlled platform to decide.
If you want tools that are open for everyone, create a public utility that must comply with the first amendment.
If you want tools that are open for everyone, create a public utility that must comply with the first amendment.
>It's for each privately controlled platform to decide.
Fair enough. People are lame and should just admit what they actually are (not apolitical) rather than hyping themselves up as such.
Humans suck, hah.
Fair enough. People are lame and should just admit what they actually are (not apolitical) rather than hyping themselves up as such.
Humans suck, hah.
Create and maintain "the Great American Message Board" the same way the government funds PBS. Sounds like a great idea to me.
Sad fact is, you can't expect any platform to do anything, assuming that it's not illegal for them to do and cost of doing it is less than the cost of not doing it.
If you're a platform, and your people say we'll lose 100 million if we do thing X or we'll lost 20 million if we do thing Y, the correct choice is do thing Y. You're still losing, but you're losing less.
Welcome to capitalism in the internet outrage era. Burning Nikes and demanding that Chik-fil-a not open on your campus are the decisions megacorps PR departments have to deal with. They don't care about you, singular human, and your views. They care about the net effect on their bottom line.
Sad fact is, you can't expect any platform to do anything, assuming that it's not illegal for them to do and cost of doing it is less than the cost of not doing it.
If you're a platform, and your people say we'll lose 100 million if we do thing X or we'll lost 20 million if we do thing Y, the correct choice is do thing Y. You're still losing, but you're losing less.
Welcome to capitalism in the internet outrage era. Burning Nikes and demanding that Chik-fil-a not open on your campus are the decisions megacorps PR departments have to deal with. They don't care about you, singular human, and your views. They care about the net effect on their bottom line.
> Or if you think Cloudflare's decision was arbitrary and that worries you, you should leave.
I am not entirely sure whether this statement carries moral judgment of those who see it as arbitrary or not. Would you mind clarifying if you intend to pass judgment or not?
Edit: It seems I communicated my point poorly. My last sentence is not intended as a swipe at the parent poster. It's simply a request for clarification. I desired to understand parent's point rather than mischaracterize it.
I am not entirely sure whether this statement carries moral judgment of those who see it as arbitrary or not. Would you mind clarifying if you intend to pass judgment or not?
Edit: It seems I communicated my point poorly. My last sentence is not intended as a swipe at the parent poster. It's simply a request for clarification. I desired to understand parent's point rather than mischaracterize it.
I'd rather companies did this, than governments.
Like how some companies won't service porn-related ventures.
It's fine if a company doesn't want to make their money doing this, but it shouldn't just be, "Oh something bad happened... time to react..." They should take philosophic stances, "I don't want to help with un-moderated user content. Show me your moderation policy and plan, and then we can do business..."
What bugs me is that the Cloudflare CEO flip-flopped on this like 8 times. They have no coherent policy, other than, "Don't give us bad press before our IPO." Shitty.
Like how some companies won't service porn-related ventures.
It's fine if a company doesn't want to make their money doing this, but it shouldn't just be, "Oh something bad happened... time to react..." They should take philosophic stances, "I don't want to help with un-moderated user content. Show me your moderation policy and plan, and then we can do business..."
What bugs me is that the Cloudflare CEO flip-flopped on this like 8 times. They have no coherent policy, other than, "Don't give us bad press before our IPO." Shitty.
In China, there would be no 8Chan at all because if any post is related to massive shooting (probably not shooting because it's not that achievable in China, you get the idea), the post will be arrested and the website will be taken down immediately, and the website owner will be seriously questioned.
But I guess that's not what you want.
On one hand, this seems to be a praiseworthy deed, and they took all the credit. On the other hand, it shows corporations are wielding too much power, which probably they can wielding it to other factions they don't like.
But I guess that's not what you want.
On one hand, this seems to be a praiseworthy deed, and they took all the credit. On the other hand, it shows corporations are wielding too much power, which probably they can wielding it to other factions they don't like.
A lot of not-so-subtle support for 8chan leaking into this thread.
Cloudfare aren't a government. They aren't a democracy. I don't know why some people seem to think they should act any differently.
If you own a notice board in the real world, and someone put something horrible on it, you would take it down. This is no different.
Cloudfare aren't a government. They aren't a democracy. I don't know why some people seem to think they should act any differently.
If you own a notice board in the real world, and someone put something horrible on it, you would take it down. This is no different.
The problem is that Cloudflare keeps trying to position themselves as not being in the business of deciding what can be on the internet, but they have twice made the decision to do so. Also, since you mentioned it and hence made this disclaimer obligatory: I have zero sympathy for 8chan, and I don't agree with the views espoused there.
Cloudflare has also come out directly in support of "net neutrality" (https://blog.cloudflare.com/tag/net-neutrality/).
Broadly speaking, there's (at least) two forms of net neutrality:
1) Different classes of traffic will be treated identically and not throttled indiscriminately (VOIP vs web content vs bittorrent etc.)
2) Content cannot be arbitrarily restricted by a technical provider.
If there was substantial abuse with their platform based upon technical reasons in case 1, I could see that as cause for termination.
Their arguments against denying service to 8chan are based upon case 2. Given where Cloudflare sits in the internet infrastructure layer, their supporting a pro-net neutrality position enforced upon ISPs while not applying that standard to themselves strikes me as more than a tad hypocritical.
Broadly speaking, there's (at least) two forms of net neutrality:
1) Different classes of traffic will be treated identically and not throttled indiscriminately (VOIP vs web content vs bittorrent etc.)
2) Content cannot be arbitrarily restricted by a technical provider.
If there was substantial abuse with their platform based upon technical reasons in case 1, I could see that as cause for termination.
Their arguments against denying service to 8chan are based upon case 2. Given where Cloudflare sits in the internet infrastructure layer, their supporting a pro-net neutrality position enforced upon ISPs while not applying that standard to themselves strikes me as more than a tad hypocritical.
They are making it crystal clear that they "do not take this decision lightly."
Not everything has to be so black and white.
Not everything has to be so black and white.
Unfortunately the greater population will see it as black and white. Cloudflare has repeatedly worked with gray-area sites and stood by their principles that they were neutral and would only respond to law enforcement. Their previous choice with the Dailystormer can be seen as an exception, especially with supporting material that the site was also blaming Cloudflare.
Making the choice twice now calls into question hundreds of other properties they work with, and may open the floodgates for all that criticism they have shielded against so far.
Making the choice twice now calls into question hundreds of other properties they work with, and may open the floodgates for all that criticism they have shielded against so far.
[deleted]
That is exactly it. Once they have expressed a private moral judgement about what they consider acceptable they have opened themselves up to being accountable for all the other content they do allow.
Most providers make hundreds or thousands of decisions like this per year. Cloudflare doing it twice ever in 10 years of existence, both times in response to ideologically-inspired mass murder and platforms that stoked the flames (intentionally in the first case and by negligence/refusal in this case), doesn't really mean much.
As long as they can be sued for liable the way any other publisher can I have no problem with them pulling 8chan. If they're going to selectively hide behind section 230 to promote their political agenda then I do, they can't have it both ways and I hope congress clamps down on this.
The EU might also hold them liable for tracking content of sites they proxy if they aren't careful.
Do you complain when liberal writers don't get hosted on Fox News? Or when liberal guests don't get as much air time as conservatives? Do you want congress to clamp down and make all sides get equal air time and newspaper time? This 'everyone should host my political agenda and his agenda....ad infinitum, all equally in time and space', is not just ridiculous but impossible. They're a private company doing the same as CNN or Fox, deciding not to host what they don't agree with.
The better analogy about notice boards matching the current situation is that third parties offended by the content demand the content to be removed.
I get the mourning about senseless death, but this is basically killing the messenger. And I do indeed believe that people trying to get these platforms shut down don't really care about it too much and have different motives. Maybe just trying to prove a point.
> A lot of not-so-subtle support for 8chan leaking into this thread.
I hope I am not supple about when I say that I think the move is idiotic.
I get the mourning about senseless death, but this is basically killing the messenger. And I do indeed believe that people trying to get these platforms shut down don't really care about it too much and have different motives. Maybe just trying to prove a point.
> A lot of not-so-subtle support for 8chan leaking into this thread.
I hope I am not supple about when I say that I think the move is idiotic.
The problem is that a company named Noticeboardflare has practically monopolized protection of noticeboards, and that if you do not have their approval, your noticeboard is impractical to operate.
> Noticeboardflare has practically monopolized protection of noticeboards
Your opening premise isn't even true. CF has nothing near a monopoly on CDNs.
Your opening premise isn't even true. CF has nothing near a monopoly on CDNs.
Well yes, and ultimately noticeboardflare has the right to do whatever the hell they want.
And if your noticeboard is inciting nearly weekly mass homicides, maybe the noticeboard you're trying to support is a shitty noticeboard.
And if your noticeboard is inciting nearly weekly mass homicides, maybe the noticeboard you're trying to support is a shitty noticeboard.
> you're trying to support
This isn't about "supporting" someone's views. This is about simply allowing one to speak. Otherwise Google should be held liable for every single illegal thing that happens on their platform (and there are ton of those).
This isn't about "supporting" someone's views. This is about simply allowing one to speak. Otherwise Google should be held liable for every single illegal thing that happens on their platform (and there are ton of those).
I don’t think Cloudflare is trying to claim liability (that would be a bad move on their part), but just that they want no part of that kind of behavior. They don’t want to take money from or enable that kind of behavior in any way.
Why shouldn’t they have that choice?
Why shouldn’t they have that choice?
[deleted]
Is there any data to support that this has a net positive effect, other than imaginary feel good points?
Correction: Cloudfare wasn't a government until the moment they started governing.
The problem is we live in a digital society, and comparing Cloudflare to a notice board is wildly reductionist.
They are utility though. Have you thought about that people support neutrality/common carrier style behavior with 8chan existing being the acceptable price to pay and not 8 chan itself?
They are not a utility. At all. They are not comparable to your water or your electricity in any way.
They are comparable to a self-storage place you might keep your boat. Or an office you might rent to house your business. But they are not anything like a utility.
They are comparable to a self-storage place you might keep your boat. Or an office you might rent to house your business. But they are not anything like a utility.
Generally, utilities have a regional pseudo-monopoly. It’s unlikely more than one entity runs electric or phone lines to your house, say. CDNs aren’t really utilities, and most of them have long been pretty picky (most won’t deal in porn, say).
They host and indirectly disseminate media, just like a news network. Do you expect Fox or CNN to host views they don't find acceptable? If we're going to accept that biased media is legal (news networks) then biased media is legal (Cloudflare), although you'd have a harder time making a case of bias against Cloudflare in comparison to the former.
Fox and CNN are indeed liable for what they display because they are publishers. They control the content.
That's kind of the point.
Cloudflare and social media co's naturally want to be protected as a platform. If they start controlling the content in an ad hoc it's a lot harder for them to claim that.
That's kind of the point.
Cloudflare and social media co's naturally want to be protected as a platform. If they start controlling the content in an ad hoc it's a lot harder for them to claim that.
A common carrier is a specific thing. They're not one.
At some point, the price is unacceptable in light of the benefits conferred.
And Cloudflare isn't a utility. I agree with Cloudflare's decision. I hope whichever host 8chan runs to will do the same. Free speech is not a suicide pact.
And Cloudflare isn't a utility. I agree with Cloudflare's decision. I hope whichever host 8chan runs to will do the same. Free speech is not a suicide pact.
Really bad on you cloudflare. I did't visit the chans since what feels like a lifetime and probably don't approve of the content at hand (getting worse since 200x...), but that isn't the topic here. Are you dropping Facebook as a customer if you find objectionable content? Probably not.
And while I believe you wouldn't do that randomly to other customers, I won't recommend your sevice again. It is just not your decision to make and pretty much the exact opposite that I require from a service like yours.
And while I believe you wouldn't do that randomly to other customers, I won't recommend your sevice again. It is just not your decision to make and pretty much the exact opposite that I require from a service like yours.
Why do they keep mentioning the shooting in Dayton, Ohio? At this point in time, the Dayton shooting seems to be a completely unrelated incident with no ties to politics.
[deleted]
Quick question for everyone who's on board with this.
Do we actually KNOW that banning "hate speech" results in less hateful actions in the short and long term as well?
I'll wait.
Do we actually KNOW that banning "hate speech" results in less hateful actions in the short and long term as well?
I'll wait.
Actually yes, it has been shown effective:
http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
>We find that the ban worked for Reddit. More accounts than expected discontinued using the site; those that stayed drastically decreased their hate speech usage—by at least 80%. Though many subreddits saw an influx of r/fatpeoplehate andr/CoonTown “migrants,” those subreddits saw no significant changes in hate speech usage. In other words,other subreddits did not inherit the problem. We conclude by reflecting on the apparent success of the ban,discussing implications for online moderation, Reddit and internet communities more broadly
http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
>We find that the ban worked for Reddit. More accounts than expected discontinued using the site; those that stayed drastically decreased their hate speech usage—by at least 80%. Though many subreddits saw an influx of r/fatpeoplehate andr/CoonTown “migrants,” those subreddits saw no significant changes in hate speech usage. In other words,other subreddits did not inherit the problem. We conclude by reflecting on the apparent success of the ban,discussing implications for online moderation, Reddit and internet communities more broadly
You think the platform from which hate is banned is a wide enough context to judge success?
I guess if you ban hate speech on reddit you will be successful on reddit. Do we think people who are banned take up religion and become good samaritans?
I guess if you ban hate speech on reddit you will be successful on reddit. Do we think people who are banned take up religion and become good samaritans?
Looks like "the competitor" mentioned in the article is "BitMitigate": https://bitmitigate.com [1]
[1]: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/seattles-bitmitigate-now-prote...
[1]: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/seattles-bitmitigate-now-prote...
However Walmart will keep selling weapons and ammo.
What's happening is that 8chan is indirectly costing Cloudflare money by hurting their brand and their employees' morale.
Rather than refusing sketchy clients, companies should factor these costs in their pricing.
Conversely, universally loved entities (e.g. Greenpeace) should be be offered lower prices.
This would create an incentive for companies to be better.
This would create an incentive for companies to be better.
8Chan announces downtime on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/infinitechan/status/1158207781427695616
And 8Chan is back online:
https://8ch.net/
So uh, why is everyone focusing on cloudflare?
If you really want to take down 8chan, why not reach out to their colo provider? https://www.digitalrealty.com/data-centers/san-francisco/200...
If you really want to take down 8chan, why not reach out to their colo provider? https://www.digitalrealty.com/data-centers/san-francisco/200...
Sorry but a company saying they won’t put up with your bullshit is not in any way censorship. If a company hates puppies and they stop hosting sites with puppies that’s also not censorship. Go learn how to build your own service and put your bullshit there. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. 8chan exorcised their freedom of speech, and now there are albeit small consequences. That’s how the system is supposed to work.
People inevitably trot out counter examples that they believe will “own” my “libtard” views like the whole bakery thing. Should the bakery have had to make the cake for the gay customers? Nope. Their a business and can refuse service for whatever reason. Turns out there were some legal things involved. Guess what. Consequences.
We have a tenuous and often brittle social contract. The social contract decides what is and what isn’t ok. And once you break the contract there are often consequences. That’s not censorship. That’s existing in a society. Companies and people that don’t like those consequences are free to exit this society and begin their own at any time. But guess what. There’s consequences to that, too. The only real question is if they can be adults about it and accept those consequences. And in most cases they can’t.
People inevitably trot out counter examples that they believe will “own” my “libtard” views like the whole bakery thing. Should the bakery have had to make the cake for the gay customers? Nope. Their a business and can refuse service for whatever reason. Turns out there were some legal things involved. Guess what. Consequences.
We have a tenuous and often brittle social contract. The social contract decides what is and what isn’t ok. And once you break the contract there are often consequences. That’s not censorship. That’s existing in a society. Companies and people that don’t like those consequences are free to exit this society and begin their own at any time. But guess what. There’s consequences to that, too. The only real question is if they can be adults about it and accept those consequences. And in most cases they can’t.
Once a service becomes a commodity it should be treated as public service an be subjected to free speech laws. There are even interesting cases in the US promoting this ruling:
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
"Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
"sooner than later they will change their definition of morality and we all gonna pay with our freedom"
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
"Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
"sooner than later they will change their definition of morality and we all gonna pay with our freedom"
And what about the websites that Cloudflare's Project Galileo protects against certain governments' Rule of Law? Presumably they aren't shutting that project down, which means they're still making arbitrary judgement calls about which Rules of Law are legitimate and which aren't.
This is a reasonable move for cloudflare. I can see how keep hosting this website will bring it trouble in the future.
You can't ban language because some use it to lie. The censorship idea has eerie cumulative logic built in. Today we ban a site, tomorrow a race. I'd also like to point out that in the context of declining economies the structures that have ensured democratic processes are inevitably declining with it.
Remember when we used to believe that "the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it?"
A lot of the plot, but my guess the main reason is upcoming Cloudflare IPO[1]. Сan't blame them for for doing that.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/cloudflare-plans-to-ipo-in-s...
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/cloudflare-plans-to-ipo-in-s...
I have opinions on this topic, but they are unconventional and so almost no one is going to align with or find resonance in the ideas I'd express.
Anyway, when it comes to online communities, almost no one does it right, and so not only is the consensus wrong, but so are all known examples.
Anyway, when it comes to online communities, almost no one does it right, and so not only is the consensus wrong, but so are all known examples.
it seems like a marketing message about cloudflare... I'm sure most people don't know what "cloudflare" is, how it relates to a message board like "8chan", and most people don't even know what 8chan is, and some people probably know more about 8chan than cloudflare. It would be like Firestone issuing a report saying they are not going to be selling tires to the guy that drove the car to commit the violence, because if they didnt sell him the tires, he wouldnt be able to drive to the mall to commit the violence... when in reality, this is just a marketing message for Firestone about selling tires.
How come Twitter is not is trouble for enabling (or being A loudspeaker for) people that riles up other people, fuels their fire and so on.
Trying to understand this from a ethics and philosophical perspective. Appreciate your comments.
Trying to understand this from a ethics and philosophical perspective. Appreciate your comments.
People are constantly calling out Twitter and Jack Dorsey for the horrible aspects of the platform.
You know the answer, for the same reason Facebook wont be accountable or if you want to get political , the strident members of both parties, or some of the lunatics of the press. Yes, some people shit on them, but I dont see a deplatforming along the corner for the truly powerful.
I understand why Cloudflare wants to get rid of this hot potato right now, but it comes across as opportunistic and hypocritical.
I understand why Cloudflare wants to get rid of this hot potato right now, but it comes across as opportunistic and hypocritical.
Twitter does not have a single point of failure, a person who has done this kind of thing before.
I think they are and have been for quite some time. It seems to come up a lot. They've made some Terms of Service changes, and banned some people. I saw an article just today or yesterday criticizing them for their decision to handle right wing extremists differently from other terrorist groups.
A big issue is that we are seeing enthusiasm for censorship. So I hope that people will do some research into the history and current use of censorship.
The other difficult problem is that people think that their country is an exception to all other countries and history with regards to censorship and everything else.
One other issue: corporations that have as much or more centralized power as governments. In line with the rest of my comment, one reason this is problematic is because it is much easier for governments to assert control over individual companies. And those policies (sometimes good or sometimes very bad) affect masses of people.
It really seems to me that we are moving towards a more homogeneous global political system that honestly appears to be modeled after the Chinese one and will probably be controlled from there.
The other difficult problem is that people think that their country is an exception to all other countries and history with regards to censorship and everything else.
One other issue: corporations that have as much or more centralized power as governments. In line with the rest of my comment, one reason this is problematic is because it is much easier for governments to assert control over individual companies. And those policies (sometimes good or sometimes very bad) affect masses of people.
It really seems to me that we are moving towards a more homogeneous global political system that honestly appears to be modeled after the Chinese one and will probably be controlled from there.
[deleted]
Why is CloudFlare having to deal with this rather than their ISP?
Also the argument that Cloudflare is just a network provider is bunk. It works on people who think server less computing doesn't use servers. CF uses servers that store files, for minutes hours, days weeks at a time and serves them directly to the browser. The same as any web server.
I think because CloudFlare is a US company and the other is not...
I am disappointed by Cloudflare. They are involving themselves in politics like any other company. Let authorities do their job, don't jump in and get involved. Please!
Isn’t this all predicated on a manifesto that surfaced before the dust even settled? Also saw reports the manifesto was a hoax. Everyone needs to slow the hell down.
Essentially. Mass shootings have turned into a political spectacle at this point. It is it’s own version of a left versus right blood sport now, where everyone is quick to keep a score.
The media and entertainment industries specifically, since they own the eyes and ears of America, want to desperately pin every shooting on white conservatives. Any iota of evidence, verified or not, will get blasted into the aether as a boastful victory dance. Then they blast it 24/7 and glamorize it, and we get more copycats looking for desperate attention being further fueled by it.
Case in point, look how the media handled the shooter that was a Bernie supporter. Violence, compelled by a difference set of hateful ideas and language, but it was given a day or two and buried. No knee jerk reactions, no 24/7 parade of glorification and filth, just buried.
It’s rather perverse and grotesque.
The media and entertainment industries specifically, since they own the eyes and ears of America, want to desperately pin every shooting on white conservatives. Any iota of evidence, verified or not, will get blasted into the aether as a boastful victory dance. Then they blast it 24/7 and glamorize it, and we get more copycats looking for desperate attention being further fueled by it.
Case in point, look how the media handled the shooter that was a Bernie supporter. Violence, compelled by a difference set of hateful ideas and language, but it was given a day or two and buried. No knee jerk reactions, no 24/7 parade of glorification and filth, just buried.
It’s rather perverse and grotesque.
Nearly every mass killer in the last 10 years has posted an angry rant on Facebook or Twitter.
A couple may have posted on 8chan.
Guess which platform is being criticized for allowing hate?
A couple may have posted on 8chan.
Guess which platform is being criticized for allowing hate?
I'd like to see eastdakotas many comments on HN saying "this will never happen again" next to whatever he will be saying to justify this one.
Check the Disqus comments on the article. You will quickly realize the problem is way more than what it appears to be. Some of it is here as well...
I think it would be fitting if 8chan moved to radwareddoscloud.com which is the NRA's cloud protection service.
Why does Cloudflare feel the need to take action here? Only a minority believe that 8chan is the culprit in creating these gunmen, and fewer people have called for Cloudflare specifically to shutdown 8chan.
By staying idle the conversation would've moved onto gun control, but now they're going to make this round of shootings all about online community policy which IMHO is a futile scapegoat.
By staying idle the conversation would've moved onto gun control, but now they're going to make this round of shootings all about online community policy which IMHO is a futile scapegoat.
See here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/04/three-m...
There is an article in the Washington Post about how they're not taking action, and quotes from activists about how they need to take action. Their general counsel had to answer questions from a journalist (on a weekend!) about whether they were taking action. That constitutes significant pressure.
Further, as the article helpfully mentions, they took action before. After you take action once, a failure to take action a second time stops being a principled "we never take action", and starts being, at least partially, a defence of the target. If you drop the Daily Stormer but not 8chan, you're saying, implicitly, that 8chan is not as bad as the Daily Stormer.
This may or may not be true, but it's absolutely not a discussion a company wants to have in the national media in the context of the aftermath of a mass shooting.
> By staying idle
Arguably that was never an option. Today, it's absolutely not an option.
There is an article in the Washington Post about how they're not taking action, and quotes from activists about how they need to take action. Their general counsel had to answer questions from a journalist (on a weekend!) about whether they were taking action. That constitutes significant pressure.
Further, as the article helpfully mentions, they took action before. After you take action once, a failure to take action a second time stops being a principled "we never take action", and starts being, at least partially, a defence of the target. If you drop the Daily Stormer but not 8chan, you're saying, implicitly, that 8chan is not as bad as the Daily Stormer.
This may or may not be true, but it's absolutely not a discussion a company wants to have in the national media in the context of the aftermath of a mass shooting.
> By staying idle
Arguably that was never an option. Today, it's absolutely not an option.
I see, they've put themselves in a tough position indeed. I'm still sorry the conversation have gone this way.
> Why does Cloudflare feel the need to take action here?
The linked article gives their reason.
The linked article gives their reason.
> Only a minority believe that 8chan is the culprit in creating these gunmen
I seriously doubt this, even amongst people who were aware of 8chan before today's spate of articles. After them, I'm pretty sure that 99% of people aware of 8chan blame it for this stuff. Which is also why Cloudflare needs to take action, because it becomes endangered itself.
The founder is saying that it should shut down in the NYT; if that's not a demand for a response, I don't know what is.
edit: I agree that it's a scapegoat, I read militia newsletters circulating in the early 90s, and I'm a collector of old John Bircher stuff. Angry white people will find and act out this model no matter what; it's part of the fabric of the US (and the rest of the West.)
And I'm not saying this hypothetically, those newsletters were in the air leading to OKC. It's actually a good sign that these remain loner shootings by the socially rejected; race riots and pogroms are basically when this happens, but other people on the verge decide to join in. When one of these mass shootings happens, and two or three other people who don't know the shooter come and help, that will be the scary transition for me.
I seriously doubt this, even amongst people who were aware of 8chan before today's spate of articles. After them, I'm pretty sure that 99% of people aware of 8chan blame it for this stuff. Which is also why Cloudflare needs to take action, because it becomes endangered itself.
The founder is saying that it should shut down in the NYT; if that's not a demand for a response, I don't know what is.
edit: I agree that it's a scapegoat, I read militia newsletters circulating in the early 90s, and I'm a collector of old John Bircher stuff. Angry white people will find and act out this model no matter what; it's part of the fabric of the US (and the rest of the West.)
And I'm not saying this hypothetically, those newsletters were in the air leading to OKC. It's actually a good sign that these remain loner shootings by the socially rejected; race riots and pogroms are basically when this happens, but other people on the verge decide to join in. When one of these mass shootings happens, and two or three other people who don't know the shooter come and help, that will be the scary transition for me.
Is it just a scapegoat though? Allowing these groups of disaffected people does seem to be a significant part of mass killings.
There were a lot of ISIS inspired attacks until ISIS was destroyed. Which effectively shut down the community.
This entire age of frequent mass shootings coincides with the internet and media coverage in general.
I personally believe that this has more to do with the notoriety and following these attacks inspire than gun laws, which have always been very weak.
A lot of these attacks are similar to streaking imo, which basically stopped when the media coverage stopped.
There were a lot of ISIS inspired attacks until ISIS was destroyed. Which effectively shut down the community.
This entire age of frequent mass shootings coincides with the internet and media coverage in general.
I personally believe that this has more to do with the notoriety and following these attacks inspire than gun laws, which have always been very weak.
A lot of these attacks are similar to streaking imo, which basically stopped when the media coverage stopped.
Political discussion happens all the time on Hacker News, but you don't see many mass shooters from HN. Culture of the online communities matters a lot (and moderation). I don't think chans create gunmen per se, but they assist to radicalize antisocial young men.
I don't think anything is gained from political discussion on *chans. Free speech is important, and no company should be legally punished for providing these spaces, but that doesn't mean discouraging them from existing is wrong.
I don't think anything is gained from political discussion on *chans. Free speech is important, and no company should be legally punished for providing these spaces, but that doesn't mean discouraging them from existing is wrong.
For the sake of posterity I would like to point out that 8chan is also the website that Qanon posts on.
Total garbage statements: being a huge ISP doesn't mean using that power to moderate the Internet
Hey! You're not allowed to say those magic words! - Brilliant, I completely changed my mind now.
> we are terminating 8chan as a customer
Probably a good idea, if only to send the message that there is a limit to how much garbage you can allow people to dump on your site before the neighbors decide to do whatever it takes stop the terrible smell.
> The Rule of Law requires policies be transparent and consistent.
That's great! Most tech companies seem to prefer the Rule of Men where they try to fix problems behind the scenes with obscured methods and inconsistent (and often arbitrary) policies.
> Cloudflare is not a government.
While technically true, as your control of infrastructure approaches monopoly, you tend to acquire more and more government-like traits. At a functional level, "is a government" is not a Boolean value.
> that does not give us the political legitimacy to make determinations on what content is good and bad
That's true, but your success in the market ("a result of that, a huge portion of the Internet now sits behind our network") gives you a lot of power to make that kind of determination. If that power isn't managed carefully (e.g. with a consistent and transparent Rule of Law), it is easy to accidentally use that power in dangerous or irresponsible ways. The fact that you're even talking about a Rule of Law means you're already acting far more responsibly than most big tech companies.
> We will ... engage with lawmakers ... as they set the boundaries of what is acceptable ... through [their] due process of law. And we will comply with those boundaries when and where they are set.
(I'm interpreting "[their] due process of law" as referring to the lawmaker's process, not something implemented internal to Cloudflare. If this is incorrect, ignore this section)
Engaging with lawmakers (and other relevant organizations) is incredibly important. I would expect any company that wants to act lawfully to comply with legislated regulations. It is also important to realize that governments are often slow. You cannot simply abdicate responsibility to the government when you de facto have significant power over and involvement with a problem.
> We ... have an obligation to help propose solutions
Yes, proposing solutions is part of that obligation. If you really are concerned with creating Rule of Law, then you also have to act in ways consistent with that goal. If you're going beyond the limits of an uninvolved/neutral "common carrier" and terminating a customer for reasons unrelated to the technical services you provide, you need to make sure you have and follow your own "due process", while the lawmaker's solution is still pending and/or incomplete.
> What's hard is defining the policy that we can enforce transparently and consistently going forward.
I agree that this is very hard. It's also an obligation you accepted when you decided to take responsibility (and profits) for a large piece of infrastructure that many people now rely on. This is where transparency can help a lot; it's a lot easier to ask for forgiveness for a mistake if you have a reputation of openly explaining your reasoning.
Probably a good idea, if only to send the message that there is a limit to how much garbage you can allow people to dump on your site before the neighbors decide to do whatever it takes stop the terrible smell.
> The Rule of Law requires policies be transparent and consistent.
That's great! Most tech companies seem to prefer the Rule of Men where they try to fix problems behind the scenes with obscured methods and inconsistent (and often arbitrary) policies.
> Cloudflare is not a government.
While technically true, as your control of infrastructure approaches monopoly, you tend to acquire more and more government-like traits. At a functional level, "is a government" is not a Boolean value.
> that does not give us the political legitimacy to make determinations on what content is good and bad
That's true, but your success in the market ("a result of that, a huge portion of the Internet now sits behind our network") gives you a lot of power to make that kind of determination. If that power isn't managed carefully (e.g. with a consistent and transparent Rule of Law), it is easy to accidentally use that power in dangerous or irresponsible ways. The fact that you're even talking about a Rule of Law means you're already acting far more responsibly than most big tech companies.
> We will ... engage with lawmakers ... as they set the boundaries of what is acceptable ... through [their] due process of law. And we will comply with those boundaries when and where they are set.
(I'm interpreting "[their] due process of law" as referring to the lawmaker's process, not something implemented internal to Cloudflare. If this is incorrect, ignore this section)
Engaging with lawmakers (and other relevant organizations) is incredibly important. I would expect any company that wants to act lawfully to comply with legislated regulations. It is also important to realize that governments are often slow. You cannot simply abdicate responsibility to the government when you de facto have significant power over and involvement with a problem.
> We ... have an obligation to help propose solutions
Yes, proposing solutions is part of that obligation. If you really are concerned with creating Rule of Law, then you also have to act in ways consistent with that goal. If you're going beyond the limits of an uninvolved/neutral "common carrier" and terminating a customer for reasons unrelated to the technical services you provide, you need to make sure you have and follow your own "due process", while the lawmaker's solution is still pending and/or incomplete.
> What's hard is defining the policy that we can enforce transparently and consistently going forward.
I agree that this is very hard. It's also an obligation you accepted when you decided to take responsibility (and profits) for a large piece of infrastructure that many people now rely on. This is where transparency can help a lot; it's a lot easier to ask for forgiveness for a mistake if you have a reputation of openly explaining your reasoning.
Worth noting cloudflare leadership has been fighting this war for years and this is just a small battle.
Can you tell us when @Cloudflare will be holding its next "How to Protect Nazi Extremists" workshop? You guys seem to be the experts. 10:25 AM - 14 Aug 2017
The recent string of violence has forced their hand here.
https://twitter.com/ncweaver/status/1124091916520497153
https://twitter.com/klarajk/status/1122625367490146304
https://twitter.com/Riverseeker/status/1122612031234945024
https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1123592717341200384
https://twitter.com/NathanBLawrence/status/10562868097418199....
https://twitter.com/NJDemocrat/status/897147112273608705
https://twitter.com/InvestMib/status/1123308004873515015
https://twitter.com/jwz/status/1124415034610860033
Can you tell us when @Cloudflare will be holding its next "How to Protect Nazi Extremists" workshop? You guys seem to be the experts. 10:25 AM - 14 Aug 2017
The recent string of violence has forced their hand here.
https://twitter.com/ncweaver/status/1124091916520497153
https://twitter.com/klarajk/status/1122625367490146304
https://twitter.com/Riverseeker/status/1122612031234945024
https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1123592717341200384
https://twitter.com/NathanBLawrence/status/10562868097418199....
https://twitter.com/NJDemocrat/status/897147112273608705
https://twitter.com/InvestMib/status/1123308004873515015
https://twitter.com/jwz/status/1124415034610860033
Tech people seem to get the most worked up when someone shushes them.
Seeing a service censoring a morally-bad community makes me feel sad. How is the executive power (police, intelligence) supposed to monitor extremists if they become forced to move to encrypted, censorship-resistant chats outside of the internet?
I think this paragraph is worth the article:
We continue to feel incredibly uncomfortable about playing the role of content arbiter and do not plan to exercise it often. Some have wrongly speculated this is due to some conception of the United States' First Amendment. That is incorrect. First, we are a private company and not bound by the First Amendment. Second, the vast majority of our customers, and more than 50% of our revenue, comes from outside the United States where the First Amendment and similarly libertarian freedom of speech protections do not apply. The only relevance of the First Amendment in this case and others is that it allows us to choose who we do and do not do business with; it does not obligate us to do business with everyone.
We continue to feel incredibly uncomfortable about playing the role of content arbiter and do not plan to exercise it often. Some have wrongly speculated this is due to some conception of the United States' First Amendment. That is incorrect. First, we are a private company and not bound by the First Amendment. Second, the vast majority of our customers, and more than 50% of our revenue, comes from outside the United States where the First Amendment and similarly libertarian freedom of speech protections do not apply. The only relevance of the First Amendment in this case and others is that it allows us to choose who we do and do not do business with; it does not obligate us to do business with everyone.
It's ridiculous that this is remotely controversial. "Freedom of speech?" How about the freedom to not obligatorily aid the organizing of white supremacist hate groups? Slippery slope's ass.
So rather than quietly update their language to allow for better analysis and detection of malignant content by 3rd parties, they're pushing the problem into the darker corners of the internet.
Not a great plan.
Not a great plan.
Good riddance. Everybody who willingly or not provides platform for hate speech is an accomplice. I hope to see the day they will be punished same as the guy that pulled the trigger.
why not disconnect facebook too,they've been a platform for quite a number of these
[deleted]
> The unresolved question is how should the law deal with platforms that ignore or actively thwart the Rule of Law? That's closer to the situation we have seen with the Daily Stormer and 8chan. They are lawless platforms.
This doesn't make a lot of sense. They are suggesting that it's the fact that 8chan is unmoderated that is a problem, and they'll similarly refuse service to any unmoderated discussion platform?
I actually totally approve of them refusing 8chan as a customer.
I don't think this is really the reason, or a good reason. Articulating the real/good reason is hard. I'm not sure I can do it either.
But when they say "The Rule of Law requires policies be transparent and consistent" -- that obligation is actually incumbent upon THEM, cloudflare. What is their own transparent and consistent policy that led to this? The implication is that... any unmoderated discussion forum would be banned, but they don't go out and say it, which isn't quite "transparent".
And I don't think they really mean that (so it's not "consistent" either). An unmoderated discussion forum that wasn't being used to egg on mass murder, they probably wouldn't ban. I think the possible "consistent" approach here would be simply admitting that they dont' want as customers sites whose owners seem to have no problem with them being used to egg on mass murder.
As they said in another statement quoted by media, a site that has "repeatedly proven itself to be a cesspool of hate." This is more honest, and really no less vague, than dancing around talking about "actively thwarting the Rule of Law" (I really don't know what that means; I'm not sure you can really "actively thwart the rule of law" without being in the government). And I personally agree it is a fine reason to refuse someone as a customer, that they've repeatedly proven themselves to be a cesspool of hate.
They are correct that the first ammendment in fact gives them the right to refuse as customers entities whose actions they find abhorent and whose business they don't wish to aid. The principle of "transparent and consistent" requires them to try harder than they are to explain what their standards are in an honest way. (It can be a process, I'm not totally sure what they should be either, even though I totally support refusing 8chan as a customer).
I think calling an unmoderated discussion forum "actively thwarting the Rule of Law" (in all caps nonetheless!), then calling for government discipline of such, is something you gotta back up with more reasoning than they did here, and is not in fact necessary for them to justify denying service to 8chan. They're trying to get out of actually explaining their reasoning/motivation (what is required for THEM to be "consistent and transparent") by hand-waving about all-capitals Rule of Law.
This doesn't make a lot of sense. They are suggesting that it's the fact that 8chan is unmoderated that is a problem, and they'll similarly refuse service to any unmoderated discussion platform?
I actually totally approve of them refusing 8chan as a customer.
I don't think this is really the reason, or a good reason. Articulating the real/good reason is hard. I'm not sure I can do it either.
But when they say "The Rule of Law requires policies be transparent and consistent" -- that obligation is actually incumbent upon THEM, cloudflare. What is their own transparent and consistent policy that led to this? The implication is that... any unmoderated discussion forum would be banned, but they don't go out and say it, which isn't quite "transparent".
And I don't think they really mean that (so it's not "consistent" either). An unmoderated discussion forum that wasn't being used to egg on mass murder, they probably wouldn't ban. I think the possible "consistent" approach here would be simply admitting that they dont' want as customers sites whose owners seem to have no problem with them being used to egg on mass murder.
As they said in another statement quoted by media, a site that has "repeatedly proven itself to be a cesspool of hate." This is more honest, and really no less vague, than dancing around talking about "actively thwarting the Rule of Law" (I really don't know what that means; I'm not sure you can really "actively thwart the rule of law" without being in the government). And I personally agree it is a fine reason to refuse someone as a customer, that they've repeatedly proven themselves to be a cesspool of hate.
They are correct that the first ammendment in fact gives them the right to refuse as customers entities whose actions they find abhorent and whose business they don't wish to aid. The principle of "transparent and consistent" requires them to try harder than they are to explain what their standards are in an honest way. (It can be a process, I'm not totally sure what they should be either, even though I totally support refusing 8chan as a customer).
I think calling an unmoderated discussion forum "actively thwarting the Rule of Law" (in all caps nonetheless!), then calling for government discipline of such, is something you gotta back up with more reasoning than they did here, and is not in fact necessary for them to justify denying service to 8chan. They're trying to get out of actually explaining their reasoning/motivation (what is required for THEM to be "consistent and transparent") by hand-waving about all-capitals Rule of Law.
Yea, that ought to do it.
Now 8ch.net is down.
American logic: let's ban websites, not army-grade weapon.
Feels like trying to treat symptoms rather than the illness...
That'll fix'er.
so much for being pro-NetNeutrality
Nice PR
That site supported a Nazi in his efforts to highten his terrorist attack.
Who is going to deplatform Facebook and Twitter? After all plenty of shooters have used them too. Before the usual: " But 8chan is a cesspool of bla bla" Probably it is, but, either the users are doing something ilegal in the site and you close it if the owners refuse to comply with a legal request, or they are not doing anything illegal so they have to be left alone.
For the "Free Speech is freedom from government prohibition and this is a private company" brigade. I dont want to live in a world where colored people is being prohibited to enter a night venue, or gay people cannot order a simple cake, or YES, dudes who think their race is more superior being able to blabber their nonsense online as long as it is nothing illegal. After all similar sentiments are expressed (veiled or openly) from many powerful spheres and nobody does nothing.
For the "Free Speech is freedom from government prohibition and this is a private company" brigade. I dont want to live in a world where colored people is being prohibited to enter a night venue, or gay people cannot order a simple cake, or YES, dudes who think their race is more superior being able to blabber their nonsense online as long as it is nothing illegal. After all similar sentiments are expressed (veiled or openly) from many powerful spheres and nobody does nothing.
People of color, and LGBT are demographics. White supremacy is an ideology (a reprehensible one at that). People choose their ideology, not their race, or sexuality. They are not the same thing. Third party businesses should not feel any obligation to do business with "dudes who blabber" about the murdering and hate of others.
I think this is shaky ground. Plenty of people think LGBT "choose" their sexuality (though I do not). White supremacists, religious people etc think their beliefs reflect objective reality, which is clearly not something they can choose.
I think making "you chose this" a valid reason to censor/attack/etc. something opens the door to some pretty dangerous things, since it's not difficult to accuse things of being a choice that aren't.
> Plenty of people think LGBT "choose" their sexuality
Right. Even this assumption is loaded with ideology both ways. I.e. either they choose or do not choose. Neither is correct.
Right. Even this assumption is loaded with ideology both ways. I.e. either they choose or do not choose. Neither is correct.
Can you explain why you're taking conservative bigots seriously?
What about communists, anarchists, marxists, mormons, people who believe there are genetically based cognitive differences based on sex/race. What about people who are against abortion, against weed legalization, what about people who consider cops to be a civilian death squad used by the rich to oppress the poor. What about people who think the US Army is an occupation force in every place but America. Is OK to discriminate some of them? All of them? None? Are you going to manage the API so the apps can be built to see who is worthy or not?
I think it's okay to discriminate or moderate against a set of beliefs if you can show that the spread beliefs lead to the widespread harm of others.
> I think it's okay to discriminate or moderate against a set of beliefs if you can show that the spread beliefs lead to the widespread harm of others.
Does that also work if you can show that it doesn't cause widespread harm in every country with stricter gun regulations?
Seriously if you make statements like that, you ought to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
Does that also work if you can show that it doesn't cause widespread harm in every country with stricter gun regulations?
Seriously if you make statements like that, you ought to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
Doesn't almost every religious group fall under it then?
No, I wouldn't equate the teachings of ISIS with my neighborhood mosque. Religions have many variations under the larger umbrella.
The point is, who’s gonna be the arbiter of what’s absolute good and what’s absolute bad? What happens if people disagree? Where is the line?
If you find something like 8chan and point it out to Cloudflare, should they ban it? If they say no that’s not as bad, well why is their value judgment worth more than that of other people? If they say okay, then anyone can get anything they judge to be as bad as 8chan ‘banned’ from it.
If you find something like 8chan and point it out to Cloudflare, should they ban it? If they say no that’s not as bad, well why is their value judgment worth more than that of other people? If they say okay, then anyone can get anything they judge to be as bad as 8chan ‘banned’ from it.
> Is OK to discriminate some of them?
If they promote violence and racism. Yes.
> Will you manage the API?
If I thought it would help, sure.
If they promote violence and racism. Yes.
> Will you manage the API?
If I thought it would help, sure.
People choose their religion, too.
Do they? A key aspect of religion is believing that your beliefs reflect objective reality, e.g. there really is a God that did all this stuff, there really were prophets that performed these specific miracles and said these specific things etcetera.
Saying that believing in what you think is objective reality is a choice gives off some strong 1984 vibes.
I think it depends on how you categorize the act of "choosing". It could be cognitive and evidence (more traditional idea of "choosing") based or it could be faith and/or feelings-based (it's not clear if this is "choosing").
There are a thousand religions/sects in the world. Most of them are exclusive (as in the 1st Commandment). You have to make a choice to affiliate yourself with one of them (although not everyone chooses to be specific to one denomination).
I don't think it's reminiscent of "1984" to say that people choose their religion. I think people choose who they want to be around and that tends to be among the largest predictors of religious affiliation.
There are a thousand religions/sects in the world. Most of them are exclusive (as in the 1st Commandment). You have to make a choice to affiliate yourself with one of them (although not everyone chooses to be specific to one denomination).
I don't think it's reminiscent of "1984" to say that people choose their religion. I think people choose who they want to be around and that tends to be among the largest predictors of religious affiliation.
This is a good argument, but it falls apart when you confront the fact that religious beliefs have no basis in objective reality and are thus entirely unbound from it. People convert all the time, religious beliefs are frequently inherently contradictory, et c.
When your beliefs about objective reality include a bunch of made up delusional shit to satisfy oneself emotionally, it’s pretty straightforward to swap one set of fairy tales that didn’t happen for another set of fairy tales that didn’t happen. No harm, no foul.
When your beliefs about objective reality include a bunch of made up delusional shit to satisfy oneself emotionally, it’s pretty straightforward to swap one set of fairy tales that didn’t happen for another set of fairy tales that didn’t happen. No harm, no foul.
> People choose their ideology
How do you figure that works? Do we wake up, fully equipped with a developed mind but zero preferences and experiences and then ponder which of the available ideologies we would like to subscribe to?
How do you figure that works? Do we wake up, fully equipped with a developed mind but zero preferences and experiences and then ponder which of the available ideologies we would like to subscribe to?
Yes naturally people of color, and LGBT folk can't ascribe to an ideology. Naah .. that's nonsense. They're immune.
Each group will have its own ideologues, its own agenda.
Each group will have its own ideologues, its own agenda.
lgbt fanatics aren't much more sane than any other extremists yet they don't have any issues with being on twitter, facebook or reddit. (emphasis on _fanatics_). Widespread propaganda about kids sexualization/abuse and genitalia mutilation on these platform is A-ok and a cause for celebration.
You literally can't express any opinions going against the current flow of ideas without being labelled as hostile (alt-right, nazi, white privileged, whatever the word of the day is, &c.), no matter how valid the point you're making is (even here on HN you can’t have serious discussions about issues like the gender pay gap or immigration). It really isn't a surprise that these loners end up on sketchy websites once they're ridiculed/banned/shut off everywhere else. If you're a man feeling like a girl you'll find a community telling you you should chop off your genitals and ingest a truck load of hormones, if you’re a POC feeling unaccepted they'll tell you it's because of how racist society is [0], if you’re a girl and aren’t successful it’s due to the patriarchy [0], but oh boy if you’re a white man feeling empty inside no one gives a flying fuck about what you have to say.
Anyone thinking these shootings are due to 8chan is a fool, plain and simple, the issues are rooted much more deeply, especially in the US culture, and they've been running for a while. I’d even argue that the root cause of modern white supremacy is very close to the root cause of religious terrorism. But see, no one wants to even consider it through that lens, it's much easier to dismiss it entirely and talk about non-issues ("they're mentally ill", "just an angry loner", "if only he was dating", &c.). Now we can spend days talking about cloudflare, but that's mostly a waste of time, you don't put a bandaid on a broken leg and expects it to heal.
https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism-is-not-about-Terror
---
“These young people find themselves at a time in their life when they are looking to the future with the hope of engaging in meaningful behavior that will be satisfying and get them ahead. Their objective circumstances including opportunities for advancement are virtually nonexistent; they find some direction for their religious collective identity but the desperately disadvantaged state of their community leaves them feeling marginalized and lost without a clearly defined collective identity”
for the individuals who become active terrorists, the initial attraction is often to the group, or community of believers, rather than to an abstract ideology or to violence” ---
[0] Just to be clear I'm not implying these things don't exists or that they're non-issues.
You literally can't express any opinions going against the current flow of ideas without being labelled as hostile (alt-right, nazi, white privileged, whatever the word of the day is, &c.), no matter how valid the point you're making is (even here on HN you can’t have serious discussions about issues like the gender pay gap or immigration). It really isn't a surprise that these loners end up on sketchy websites once they're ridiculed/banned/shut off everywhere else. If you're a man feeling like a girl you'll find a community telling you you should chop off your genitals and ingest a truck load of hormones, if you’re a POC feeling unaccepted they'll tell you it's because of how racist society is [0], if you’re a girl and aren’t successful it’s due to the patriarchy [0], but oh boy if you’re a white man feeling empty inside no one gives a flying fuck about what you have to say.
Anyone thinking these shootings are due to 8chan is a fool, plain and simple, the issues are rooted much more deeply, especially in the US culture, and they've been running for a while. I’d even argue that the root cause of modern white supremacy is very close to the root cause of religious terrorism. But see, no one wants to even consider it through that lens, it's much easier to dismiss it entirely and talk about non-issues ("they're mentally ill", "just an angry loner", "if only he was dating", &c.). Now we can spend days talking about cloudflare, but that's mostly a waste of time, you don't put a bandaid on a broken leg and expects it to heal.
https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism-is-not-about-Terror
---
“These young people find themselves at a time in their life when they are looking to the future with the hope of engaging in meaningful behavior that will be satisfying and get them ahead. Their objective circumstances including opportunities for advancement are virtually nonexistent; they find some direction for their religious collective identity but the desperately disadvantaged state of their community leaves them feeling marginalized and lost without a clearly defined collective identity”
for the individuals who become active terrorists, the initial attraction is often to the group, or community of believers, rather than to an abstract ideology or to violence” ---
[0] Just to be clear I'm not implying these things don't exists or that they're non-issues.
> Widespread propaganda about kids sexualization/abuse and genitalia mutilation on these platform is A-ok and a cause for celebration.
Citation needed.
I see Facebook/Twitter/Reddit in the unenviable role as having to police minimum local standards across the world's largest online community. They also have to do it while running a publicly traded company in the USA, which means they need to optimize for minimum moderation costs.
> You literally can't express any opinions going against the current flow of ideas without being labelled as hostile
s/going against the current flow of ideas //
I straddle the line between US liberal/conservative depending on the issue. I've been labeled lot of things by both the majority opinion holders and minority opinion holders. It doesn't matter. People need to put on their big boy/girl/whatever pants and realize it doesn't matter what you are labeled. People call you far worse behind your back... the internet just allows you to hear it and reduces peoples' social filters.
> Anyone thinking these shootings are due to 8chan is a fool, plain and simple
Citation needed.
I treat {4Chan, 8Chan, 9Gag, etc} as a proxy for "long tail opinion holders" who gather in the same place.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that being a social outlier with no outlet for discourse/self-importance/identity/hope is strongly correlated with those extremism/terrorism, but that doesn't preclude 8Chan from being part of that process of extremification.
I listened to a podcast over the weekend about a Philipino guy who worked as a Facebook moderator. He quit for many reasons, but among them PTSD, nightmares, attraction to sexual images of children, attraction to bestiality, etc. He might well have had those same tendencies before he moderated for Facebook, but the exposure to that content was what accelerated his problems.
The Chans are an exposure channel. They probably help in popularizing fringe ideas, but they also attract window shoppers looking for identity and an ideology that social misfits might be willing to try on. Shutting down the window shopping isn't nothing (although I will admit I don't know that it can be done while preserving the intent of the principle of Free Speech).
Citation needed.
I see Facebook/Twitter/Reddit in the unenviable role as having to police minimum local standards across the world's largest online community. They also have to do it while running a publicly traded company in the USA, which means they need to optimize for minimum moderation costs.
> You literally can't express any opinions going against the current flow of ideas without being labelled as hostile
s/going against the current flow of ideas //
I straddle the line between US liberal/conservative depending on the issue. I've been labeled lot of things by both the majority opinion holders and minority opinion holders. It doesn't matter. People need to put on their big boy/girl/whatever pants and realize it doesn't matter what you are labeled. People call you far worse behind your back... the internet just allows you to hear it and reduces peoples' social filters.
> Anyone thinking these shootings are due to 8chan is a fool, plain and simple
Citation needed.
I treat {4Chan, 8Chan, 9Gag, etc} as a proxy for "long tail opinion holders" who gather in the same place.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that being a social outlier with no outlet for discourse/self-importance/identity/hope is strongly correlated with those extremism/terrorism, but that doesn't preclude 8Chan from being part of that process of extremification.
I listened to a podcast over the weekend about a Philipino guy who worked as a Facebook moderator. He quit for many reasons, but among them PTSD, nightmares, attraction to sexual images of children, attraction to bestiality, etc. He might well have had those same tendencies before he moderated for Facebook, but the exposure to that content was what accelerated his problems.
The Chans are an exposure channel. They probably help in popularizing fringe ideas, but they also attract window shoppers looking for identity and an ideology that social misfits might be willing to try on. Shutting down the window shopping isn't nothing (although I will admit I don't know that it can be done while preserving the intent of the principle of Free Speech).
You are literally comparing "the chans" to the vile shit Facebook moderators have to endure?? The latter is about an order of magnitude worse, it's literally the worst of Facebook, a constant pressure hose of horrors. People don't need fucking black and white filters to be able to browse 4chan and you don't get PTSD from it. That Facebook moderation feed does.
It's kind of sick, seeing Americans here all ignore the elephant in the room and go "yeah it might be that website" :facepalm:
A whole communications platform just got censored by a private US company (who should NOT have that power), that's pretty big thing. Maybe we should talk about that.
That shooting happened because of America's gun laws and the general way it's been squeezing the life and joy out of its lower and middle class populations. There's some really bleak shit going on there, lives are empty, people are hopeless and fear the future. That's it. The whole world knows it and sees it. Nothing really relevant for HN, either.
> The Chans are an exposure channel. They probably help in popularizing fringe ideas, but they also attract window shoppers looking for identity and an ideology that social misfits might be willing to try on. Shutting down the window shopping isn't nothing (although I will admit I don't know that it can be done while preserving the intent of the principle of Free Speech).
Yeah but no. These "chans" are international places. People outside the US also go ideological window-shopping or hang out around fringes. But somehow the worst we got was, I think years ago .. when a guy (physically) broke into a live news broadcast with a fake gun and then .. nothing much happened and he was taken away. He claimed he was doing it for a hacker collective, or something.
I'm not really sure what site inspired this dude again, but imagine Cloudfare banning it over this.
The difference seems clear as day/night to me, no?
That situation in the live news studio had one glaringly obvious thing missing from it, that saved it from possibly becoming a tragedy and it wasn't a fucking website.
Take away the website, however, and there is a chance this guy would not have gotten inspired by something else, MAYBE--but you still got all those other mass shootings to deal with, USA. I'm totally looking forward reading about the drop in gun violence now that Cloudflare did something about it. I get it, they felt powerless and someone had to do something. But they better hope that the results of their actions were indeed worth the means. It's a pretty brazen act of censorship, that IMHO doesn't weigh up at all to the limited effect it'll have on fringe crazies bouncing hateful ideas off one another.
It's kind of sick, seeing Americans here all ignore the elephant in the room and go "yeah it might be that website" :facepalm:
A whole communications platform just got censored by a private US company (who should NOT have that power), that's pretty big thing. Maybe we should talk about that.
That shooting happened because of America's gun laws and the general way it's been squeezing the life and joy out of its lower and middle class populations. There's some really bleak shit going on there, lives are empty, people are hopeless and fear the future. That's it. The whole world knows it and sees it. Nothing really relevant for HN, either.
> The Chans are an exposure channel. They probably help in popularizing fringe ideas, but they also attract window shoppers looking for identity and an ideology that social misfits might be willing to try on. Shutting down the window shopping isn't nothing (although I will admit I don't know that it can be done while preserving the intent of the principle of Free Speech).
Yeah but no. These "chans" are international places. People outside the US also go ideological window-shopping or hang out around fringes. But somehow the worst we got was, I think years ago .. when a guy (physically) broke into a live news broadcast with a fake gun and then .. nothing much happened and he was taken away. He claimed he was doing it for a hacker collective, or something.
I'm not really sure what site inspired this dude again, but imagine Cloudfare banning it over this.
The difference seems clear as day/night to me, no?
That situation in the live news studio had one glaringly obvious thing missing from it, that saved it from possibly becoming a tragedy and it wasn't a fucking website.
Take away the website, however, and there is a chance this guy would not have gotten inspired by something else, MAYBE--but you still got all those other mass shootings to deal with, USA. I'm totally looking forward reading about the drop in gun violence now that Cloudflare did something about it. I get it, they felt powerless and someone had to do something. But they better hope that the results of their actions were indeed worth the means. It's a pretty brazen act of censorship, that IMHO doesn't weigh up at all to the limited effect it'll have on fringe crazies bouncing hateful ideas off one another.
Daishiman(1)
> For the "Free Speech is freedom from government prohibition and this is a private company" brigade. I dont want to live in a world where color people is being prohibited to enter a night venue, or gay people cannot order a simple cake, or YES, dude who think their race is more superior being able to blabber their nonsense online as long as it is nothing illegal. After all similar sentiments are expressed (veiled or openly) from many powerful spheres and nobody does nothing.
> Nothing illegal
I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech.
There are more fundamental fish to fry. 1 Violation of terms of service should categorically be NOT a criminal matter. 2 I strongly believe possession (given we meet safe storage provisions) should never be illegal. ...
I also agree with you that people blabber all the time but when multiple unrelated people take the next step seemingly after reading...
> Nothing illegal
I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech.
There are more fundamental fish to fry. 1 Violation of terms of service should categorically be NOT a criminal matter. 2 I strongly believe possession (given we meet safe storage provisions) should never be illegal. ...
I also agree with you that people blabber all the time but when multiple unrelated people take the next step seemingly after reading...
> I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech.
You know where that phrase came from? It was coined in Schenck v. United States[1], where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr convicted the defendant for publishing pamphlets opposing the draft in the first world war.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
You know where that phrase came from? It was coined in Schenck v. United States[1], where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr convicted the defendant for publishing pamphlets opposing the draft in the first world war.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
I'll admit. I didn't know the origin. I don't know whether I'd have supported or opposed this verdict but I can't support the administration's supposed vigorous enforcement.
I think laws are not absolute. We frequently allow prohibited acts because common sense and decency. If you're at a light and it turns yellow, you should stop but not if there's a car close behind you and you're more likely to get in a wreck by stopping rather than speeding up.
I oppose the draft as it exists. It is wrong and immoral to have a draft of only "able-bodied" people of one gender. The draft, if one exists, should be for everyone. No body gets an exemption regardless of their personal belief or body condition. They don't all have to fight. There are plenty of opportunities (I'd imagine) to serve without ever being in a hand to hand combat. Either have a draft of all adults regardless of any other exemptions or don't have one at all.
I'll try to avoid the phrase going forward.
I think laws are not absolute. We frequently allow prohibited acts because common sense and decency. If you're at a light and it turns yellow, you should stop but not if there's a car close behind you and you're more likely to get in a wreck by stopping rather than speeding up.
I oppose the draft as it exists. It is wrong and immoral to have a draft of only "able-bodied" people of one gender. The draft, if one exists, should be for everyone. No body gets an exemption regardless of their personal belief or body condition. They don't all have to fight. There are plenty of opportunities (I'd imagine) to serve without ever being in a hand to hand combat. Either have a draft of all adults regardless of any other exemptions or don't have one at all.
I'll try to avoid the phrase going forward.
I see your point, but violation of TOS has to be a very clearly defined situation and it is rarely is, at the end it can be ambiguously interpreted to kick anyone if you have the right lawyers, so we are back to step 1.
I suspect GP was referring to Computer Fraud & Abuse Act where 1 ToS violation is a federal crime.
Ah OK, My bad then, thanks!
> I think at some point it goes up against the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" exemption of free speech.
I would like to point out (not necessarily to parent) that this was an example of speech that was not protected by 1A in a case where a man was prosecuted by the government for trying to tell young Americans that they don't need to join the draft for WW1.
Also important: yelling fire in a crowded theater is entirely protected speech if you don't believe it to be false.
I would like to point out (not necessarily to parent) that this was an example of speech that was not protected by 1A in a case where a man was prosecuted by the government for trying to tell young Americans that they don't need to join the draft for WW1.
Also important: yelling fire in a crowded theater is entirely protected speech if you don't believe it to be false.
It's like the paper mill refusing to sell paper!
I love how everybody is having a cow over a website where the rhetoric isn't really all that much worse than a 'mainstream' site like twitter. For example in twitter you can find guys who call for children to be fed into wood chippers because they wear Maga hats and hundreds/thousands of people including corporate accounts like Burger King cheering assaulting people. And they almost all receive absolutely no punishment. And not a single one of all the sensitive bearded men pouring their hearts out in righteous fury at 8chan here seem to care. And I'm pretty sure a ton of killers use twitter.
When I was a child I used to think the ideals of freedom of expression were ingrained in this society. But apparently all it takes is the MSM running a few hitpieces and the 'intellectuals' are all 'lol 1st Amendment technically applying to government means it is not only permitted but great that all censorship is now offloaded to megacorporate oligarchies! fuck free speech!'
When I was a child I used to think the ideals of freedom of expression were ingrained in this society. But apparently all it takes is the MSM running a few hitpieces and the 'intellectuals' are all 'lol 1st Amendment technically applying to government means it is not only permitted but great that all censorship is now offloaded to megacorporate oligarchies! fuck free speech!'
I'm not an 8chan user, in fact, I am not a fan of the chans.
I'm also not a fan of Twitter, and for similar underlying reasons.
On the chans it feels like everything is a joke of a joke, you're not 100% able to tell if someone is saying something intentionally stupid/rude to elicit a response. Coupled with the anonymous nature of the platform, and you can assume that it's one or two people trolling a thread and put it out of your mind. Because of that, you end up with the contra of mainstream opinion. And, yeah, it might have the ability to galvanise and individual (both for and against the rhetoric, because many people reject, powerfully, that kind of rhetoric and become champions of the other side).
I find the exact opposite is true of twitter. Instead of assuming it's one or two people who are trolling with the extreme of a mainstream opinion, it's -obviously- a mob, many people with verified badges are quick to jump on people for "wrongthink" and are exceedingly happy to extol their virtues and denounce the non-virtuous. Often they get so reinforced by their following that they become cancerous to the cause and have the same effect as the 4channers and 8channers (causing people to be galvanised for, and against their cause).
I see twitter and 4/8chan as two sides of the same coin, causing division in society.
I'm also not a fan of Twitter, and for similar underlying reasons.
On the chans it feels like everything is a joke of a joke, you're not 100% able to tell if someone is saying something intentionally stupid/rude to elicit a response. Coupled with the anonymous nature of the platform, and you can assume that it's one or two people trolling a thread and put it out of your mind. Because of that, you end up with the contra of mainstream opinion. And, yeah, it might have the ability to galvanise and individual (both for and against the rhetoric, because many people reject, powerfully, that kind of rhetoric and become champions of the other side).
I find the exact opposite is true of twitter. Instead of assuming it's one or two people who are trolling with the extreme of a mainstream opinion, it's -obviously- a mob, many people with verified badges are quick to jump on people for "wrongthink" and are exceedingly happy to extol their virtues and denounce the non-virtuous. Often they get so reinforced by their following that they become cancerous to the cause and have the same effect as the 4channers and 8channers (causing people to be galvanised for, and against their cause).
I see twitter and 4/8chan as two sides of the same coin, causing division in society.
Not everything on the chans is a joke which is why they like to pretend that it is. It's basic obfuscation. Very often, a long running joke will pick up genuine ardent supporters and the original joke becomes lost or forgotten. It's a peculiar process to watch.
The chans relationship with social media like Twitter is like Agent Smith is to Neo, a balancing of the equation. Twitter for instance has become so emotionally charged and blood hungry that any opposition to the rhetoric has become equally as charged. It's very dangerous when full-time contrarians become martyrs.
Like yourself, I just try and keep my distance from it all and observe from a distance.
The chans relationship with social media like Twitter is like Agent Smith is to Neo, a balancing of the equation. Twitter for instance has become so emotionally charged and blood hungry that any opposition to the rhetoric has become equally as charged. It's very dangerous when full-time contrarians become martyrs.
Like yourself, I just try and keep my distance from it all and observe from a distance.
Well your wrong in that some of us do in fact think Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube amongst others should be held accountable for not only allowing this stuff, but also promoting it (whether intentional or not). CloudFlare made the decision to drop 8chan thus this discussion is about that. That should be no surprise.
This is just not true. Twitter puts way more effort into blocking and controlling what goes on its platform then "we like living on the edge" 8chan. At this point, there was community that kept scores and celebrated shoot outs.
At this point, even original 8chan creator called to close 8chan.
At this point, even original 8chan creator called to close 8chan.
Oh so 8chan indeed moderates but not enough? Whats enough moderation by your standard and why should we go with that and not a more lenient one? So we should not only censor direct threats of violence we should also censor allegedly 'celebratory' posts that don't include a threat at all? Do you have any scientific proof that simply 'celebratory' posts cause violence too? Or are we just removing them because they're disgusting? You are aware that bad actors can and probably have come to stir up shit on 8chan to take it down right? Are you going to shut down a whole site because of these few people and they don't have the resources for all the whizbang algorithms that big sites like twitter uses to quickly remove posts but leave up tons of violent leftwing posts nobody care about?
PS 8chan for the most part is hardly edgey. There are a few eccentric groups in the subboards like all communities but in away its actually more like how the old internet used to be before, everything right of communism was 'far right'.
PS 8chan for the most part is hardly edgey. There are a few eccentric groups in the subboards like all communities but in away its actually more like how the old internet used to be before, everything right of communism was 'far right'.
voidwtf(1)
So much hypocrisy. When war mongering governments like US, Russia use Cloudflare for war propaganda websites that enable their wars and killings of lots and lots of people it doesn't bother Matthew Prince. Or when websites behind Cloudflare promote and sell lethal weapons that are the actual reason behind mass shootings even being possible, still doesn't bother him. But no, a dissident free speech activist website is somehow necessary to censor and blame for this, how convenient. Gotta love covert government censorship and covert government-corporate partnership.
"dissident free speech activist website" is a pretty darn charitable description of 8chan, and certainly not what makes it unique. Are there even a significant number of free-speech absolutists at 8chan, or do they just want their particular kind of chicanery to be unrestricted? By what objective, rational standard should 8chan be completely unregulated while that's not the case for sites dealing (for example) in drugs or sex?
this should be the top comment
> When war mongering governments like US, Russia use Cloudflare for war propaganda websites that enable their wars and killings of lots and lots of people
Do you have a source for that?
Do you have a source for that?
I do and many. Here's one example I remember off the top of my head of a Russian war propaganda website hosted by Cloudflare https://rusvesna.su/ and it's much worse than those mass shootings glorifications. Cloudflare definitely received complaints, but no action. Because why would they actually care about people dying if it doesn't serve their political agenda?
Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent and the website is the New York Times among others.
Did I just get downvoted for asking for source? Really? I know political subjects are always controversial on HN but I expected better from here.
"It does nothing to address why portions of the population feel so disenchanted they turn to hate."
To me this seems like the broader context that's necessary to actually decrease hate and hate related attacks. These are real people online posting things that really express their feelings about society. A ton of trolling too, of course. But these people aren't just going to go away or get healthy.
Maybe censorship is a good measure to reduce attacks, as it's harder for these individuals to organize and promote each other to act. But then again maybe this response is just the obvious thing corporate entities have to do to wipe their hands of it while we further decentralize hate and make it harder to monitor.
I don't know. I don't have the data and I'm certainly not advocating anything nor saying somethings bad. To me the conversation just doesn't intuitively lead me to believe that were attacking the right problem.
To me this seems like the broader context that's necessary to actually decrease hate and hate related attacks. These are real people online posting things that really express their feelings about society. A ton of trolling too, of course. But these people aren't just going to go away or get healthy.
Maybe censorship is a good measure to reduce attacks, as it's harder for these individuals to organize and promote each other to act. But then again maybe this response is just the obvious thing corporate entities have to do to wipe their hands of it while we further decentralize hate and make it harder to monitor.
I don't know. I don't have the data and I'm certainly not advocating anything nor saying somethings bad. To me the conversation just doesn't intuitively lead me to believe that were attacking the right problem.
Rice Purity Test is one of its time enduring survey that incorporates inquiries on different parts of life, for example, medications, indecencies, and violations.
https://eduflex.info/rice-purity-test/
https://eduflex.info/rice-purity-test/
For effective gun control, there needs to be effective border control.
1428 comments and no one points out that the QAnon movement used 8chan for communications.
OK, but where does it stop now?
What kind of free speech are we exactly advocating here? The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they're violating your freedom of speech. Popper taught us that we can't be tolerant towards intolerants, if we really want to protect our tolerant rule of law.
You can still have freedom of speech while implementing moderation to make sure that hate speech, bigotry and fake news don't spread - because if those things spread then they leak into the real world as death. 8chan has been shut down not only because it hosted hate communities, but because it refused to apply any moderation there.
However, the problem is not 8chan alone. It's good to shut down websites where hate speech proliferates without constraints, but a couple of days or weeks later new *chan websites are likely to pop up to replace them, or maybe they'd make a Telegram group. The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech.
You can still have freedom of speech while implementing moderation to make sure that hate speech, bigotry and fake news don't spread - because if those things spread then they leak into the real world as death. 8chan has been shut down not only because it hosted hate communities, but because it refused to apply any moderation there.
However, the problem is not 8chan alone. It's good to shut down websites where hate speech proliferates without constraints, but a couple of days or weeks later new *chan websites are likely to pop up to replace them, or maybe they'd make a Telegram group. The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech.
Nationalistic flamewar will get you banned here. Please don't post like this to HN again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they're violating your freedom of speech. Popper taught us that we can't be tolerant towards intolerants, if we really want to protect our tolerant rule of law.
Everything you just said is essentially untrue when it comes to government censorship of speech in the US. Hate speech is certainly protected by the first amendment, with only a few narrow exceptions. Personally addressed, face-to-face insults, if deemed likely to start an imminent fight is not constitutionally protected.
(This is sometimes called the "fighting words" exception, and it's much narrower than you might think. The law is quite clear that just because the words might yield a violent reaction, they're still protected. Cantwell v. Connecticut involved anti-Catholic "hate speech", as we'd now term it, expressed in public in a neighbourhood that was 90% Catholic, enraged many listeners, and almost started some violence. Still protected.)
> You can still have freedom of speech while implementing moderation to make sure that hate speech, bigotry and fake news don't spread
Only if done, as here, by private organisations. Regulating bigotry on message boards is the precise thing type of things that the first amendment prevents.
There is no hate speech exception in the constitution. Hate speech is generally an example of what is most protected.
Everything you just said is essentially untrue when it comes to government censorship of speech in the US. Hate speech is certainly protected by the first amendment, with only a few narrow exceptions. Personally addressed, face-to-face insults, if deemed likely to start an imminent fight is not constitutionally protected.
(This is sometimes called the "fighting words" exception, and it's much narrower than you might think. The law is quite clear that just because the words might yield a violent reaction, they're still protected. Cantwell v. Connecticut involved anti-Catholic "hate speech", as we'd now term it, expressed in public in a neighbourhood that was 90% Catholic, enraged many listeners, and almost started some violence. Still protected.)
> You can still have freedom of speech while implementing moderation to make sure that hate speech, bigotry and fake news don't spread
Only if done, as here, by private organisations. Regulating bigotry on message boards is the precise thing type of things that the first amendment prevents.
There is no hate speech exception in the constitution. Hate speech is generally an example of what is most protected.
I'm sorry, but how can anyone say "what kind" of free speech...? Don't you see that labeling or discriminating between "free speech of type A, allowed" and "free speech of type B, disallowed" defeats the whole notion of "free"? Somehow people tend to think that their own discrimination isn't, while others is.
There is a clear (and working) distinction between free speech of type A and of type B in other countries. In Germany, just as an example, you are free to express your OPINION (type A), but not to express false facts (type B). If you express false facts, knowingly, and those false facts have damaging effects you are fully liable for compensation.
Simple example: if a person wrongly claims, that some local artisan's business is insolvent, and the artisan can prove that a potential customer withdrew an order for that reason, the person who spread the fake news has to pay for the artisan's loss. Entirely.
Talking someone into commiting a crime is never treated as free speech, either.
So, this is the legal construct in Germany:
- you are free to have any opinion you like ("Meinungsfreiheit") and
- you are free to express those opinions to the public ("Redefreiheit")
Free speech, here, is limited to opinion. There is no such thing as "i am free to lie, blame, insult, taunt, threaten, defame, verbally harass, berate, incite etc..." with the excuse of free speech.
In Germany, if you say: "The president of the United States suffers from narcissistic personality disorder", AND you cannot prove this as a fact, and the POTUS goes after you for that statement, you will have to compensate for the damages of that claim (this will become very expensive, if the POTUS can prove that he lost reelections because of that statement). If you say: "To my conviction (in my opinion/I believe), the president of the United States suffers from narcissistic personality disorder", this would be completely legal in Germany.
And yes, the distinction matters!
Simple example: if a person wrongly claims, that some local artisan's business is insolvent, and the artisan can prove that a potential customer withdrew an order for that reason, the person who spread the fake news has to pay for the artisan's loss. Entirely.
Talking someone into commiting a crime is never treated as free speech, either.
So, this is the legal construct in Germany:
- you are free to have any opinion you like ("Meinungsfreiheit") and
- you are free to express those opinions to the public ("Redefreiheit")
Free speech, here, is limited to opinion. There is no such thing as "i am free to lie, blame, insult, taunt, threaten, defame, verbally harass, berate, incite etc..." with the excuse of free speech.
In Germany, if you say: "The president of the United States suffers from narcissistic personality disorder", AND you cannot prove this as a fact, and the POTUS goes after you for that statement, you will have to compensate for the damages of that claim (this will become very expensive, if the POTUS can prove that he lost reelections because of that statement). If you say: "To my conviction (in my opinion/I believe), the president of the United States suffers from narcissistic personality disorder", this would be completely legal in Germany.
And yes, the distinction matters!
This reminds me of an actual Soviet joke:
"Pres. Reagan: Mr. Brezhnev, in the USA we have free speech- anybody can say in public: President Reagan is a fool!"
"Secretary Brezhnev: Pres. Reagan, in the USSR, we also have free speech- anybody can say in public: President Reagan is a fool!"
"Pres. Reagan: Mr. Brezhnev, in the USA we have free speech- anybody can say in public: President Reagan is a fool!"
"Secretary Brezhnev: Pres. Reagan, in the USSR, we also have free speech- anybody can say in public: President Reagan is a fool!"
But that is not how it works universally in Europe. In France for example, you can be condemned for stating objective facts under hate speech laws. For example one journalist was condemned for saying that minorities were over-represented in jail, because they were over-represented in crime. The judge stated that although that was factually true, it would also have a discriminatory impact on the minorities, & the journalist was thus condemned.
I did not talk for Europe, just Germany. And I do not approve the suppression of facts. Sorry for France.
(Would be interesting to know the details of that lawcase. I investigated some of those incidents in Germany and in most cases they turned out to be quite different from the initial aggregations that I read in public).
(Would be interesting to know the details of that lawcase. I investigated some of those incidents in Germany and in most cases they turned out to be quite different from the initial aggregations that I read in public).
I believe what the parent comment refers to is the condemnation of Eric Zemmour in 2011. The details are a bit different though substantially in the same spirit. Zemmour argued on TV that (a) the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab and therefore that (b) racial profiling by the police was justified. The court rejected the accusation of racial defamation for claiming (a) but argued that since (b) was discriminatory under French law, condoning racial profiling publicly was advocating for discrimination and he was sentenced for that. One of first results on google if you want to dig more:
https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/eric-zemmour-condamne-pour-pr...
https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/eric-zemmour-condamne-pour-pr...
(I do not speak french, so I am referring only to your post)
The logical relation between (a) and (b) is the important detail here.
If the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab, this does not logically conclude, that the majority of blacks and arabs are drug dealers!
The only logical reasoning for racial profiling would be, if there was a significantly higher probability to catch a drug dealer if you randomly pick someone from that group.
The math:
Let's assume a population consisting of 20 percent group A and 80 percent group B. 0,1 percent of the population is drug dealers. 60 percent of the drug dealers belong to group A, 40 percent belong to group B. Group A therefore makes the majority of drug dealers.
With the majority of drug dealers in group A and only 20 percent share of the population, there is a six times higher probability that a random pick of group A will be a positive hit. In absolute numbers: the chance to make a positive random hit in group A is 0,3 percent, in group B it is 0,05 percent.
But: the likelihood to make a negative hit in group A is 99,7 percent (99,95 percent in group B), so even with a six times higher probability for a positive hit, the overall change for a positive hit - on a random basis - in both groups is still extremely small.
The small chance to catch a drug dealer on a random pick out of a population (not regarding race) does not qualify for an effective police procedure – to begin with. The small difference in probability of 0,25 percent between the groups does not qualify for racial profiling either. Any other visible attribute of a person that correlates with drug dealing with a higher value than 0,25 percent (clothing, cars, peer groups, haircut, jewelry, behaviour, slang, provenance and and and) is a better qualifier for random picks than racial profiling.
So, back to the case:
- France has good reasons, to forbid racial profiling under its law. It IS discriminatory, because you cannot define 99,7 percent of a group by 0,3 percent of that group.
- (b) does not conlude from (a), as it does not significantly rise the success rate, but at the same time feeds prejudices and harasses innocent people.
- Insisting on (b) clearly shows the will to ignore data and a will to feed prejudices and having innocent people harassed, so government decides to stop this behaviour.
Did they really sentence him for (b), or was he rather obliged not to repeat that statement?
The logical relation between (a) and (b) is the important detail here.
If the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab, this does not logically conclude, that the majority of blacks and arabs are drug dealers!
The only logical reasoning for racial profiling would be, if there was a significantly higher probability to catch a drug dealer if you randomly pick someone from that group.
The math:
Let's assume a population consisting of 20 percent group A and 80 percent group B. 0,1 percent of the population is drug dealers. 60 percent of the drug dealers belong to group A, 40 percent belong to group B. Group A therefore makes the majority of drug dealers.
With the majority of drug dealers in group A and only 20 percent share of the population, there is a six times higher probability that a random pick of group A will be a positive hit. In absolute numbers: the chance to make a positive random hit in group A is 0,3 percent, in group B it is 0,05 percent.
But: the likelihood to make a negative hit in group A is 99,7 percent (99,95 percent in group B), so even with a six times higher probability for a positive hit, the overall change for a positive hit - on a random basis - in both groups is still extremely small.
The small chance to catch a drug dealer on a random pick out of a population (not regarding race) does not qualify for an effective police procedure – to begin with. The small difference in probability of 0,25 percent between the groups does not qualify for racial profiling either. Any other visible attribute of a person that correlates with drug dealing with a higher value than 0,25 percent (clothing, cars, peer groups, haircut, jewelry, behaviour, slang, provenance and and and) is a better qualifier for random picks than racial profiling.
So, back to the case:
- France has good reasons, to forbid racial profiling under its law. It IS discriminatory, because you cannot define 99,7 percent of a group by 0,3 percent of that group.
- (b) does not conlude from (a), as it does not significantly rise the success rate, but at the same time feeds prejudices and harasses innocent people.
- Insisting on (b) clearly shows the will to ignore data and a will to feed prejudices and having innocent people harassed, so government decides to stop this behaviour.
Did they really sentence him for (b), or was he rather obliged not to repeat that statement?
I agree with your math, but I disagree with your conclusions. The difference may look small but it compounds very quickly. If you make 1000 controls of individuals from population B, the likelihood that you never make a bust is 61%. If you make 1000 controls of population A, the likelihood you never make a bust is only 5%. If you are a policeman, clearly you are going to opt for population A if you want to make a bust.
In this case he was sentenced to a suspended fine of €1,000 and to damages of €9,000 to various pressure groups.
I agree with your position on the moral implications of racial profiling and I am not advocating it. But whether one supports racial profiling or not, merely discussing the merits should not constitute an offense, I think this is clearly violating free speech. And if we cannot disagree publicly with existing laws, why do we even bother having a parliament to change those laws?
In this case he was sentenced to a suspended fine of €1,000 and to damages of €9,000 to various pressure groups.
I agree with your position on the moral implications of racial profiling and I am not advocating it. But whether one supports racial profiling or not, merely discussing the merits should not constitute an offense, I think this is clearly violating free speech. And if we cannot disagree publicly with existing laws, why do we even bother having a parliament to change those laws?
[...]But whether one supports racial profiling or not, merely discussing the merits should not constitute an offense,[...]
This is such a double-edged sword. In the first impulse, I would say, of course you can discuss the merits of racial profiling (as we did in this thread) and it should not constitute an offense. But you can wrap anything in a "discussion". We could also "discuss" the merits of eliminating religious minorities in concentration camps and I think this should constitute an offense. Free speech, all to often, is taken as an excuse.
I have no idea how such a differentiation can be put into law in a fair way for everyone.
For me personally, I have very clear criteria. Most importantly, I distinguish between discussion and discourse, in the sense, that discussion is just talking and discourse is a rational, sane exchange of arguments, following common sense and logic. I enjoyed very much the discourse with you about the merits of racial profiling, because it was not driven by prejudice, whinery or political agenda, we sticked to the facts, came to (not so much) contrary conclusions and this is absolutely fine.
In the case of Eric Zemmour I do not like the semantic aggregation in the community:
- he demanded something unconstitutional (racial profiling).
- in his attempt to justify the demanded unconstitutional measurement, he quoted a fact, but failed to prove the causality between the fact and the demand (he did not even try. He mistook the fact as the causality - a common mistake).
- he gets sentenced for demanding something unconstitutional.
- His followers publish their aggregation in the form: although the fact was true, he was sentenced, therefore it is not possible to say the truth in France.
This is not what happened.
His case is not about "telling the truth gets you punished". His case is: "should our society accept, for the ideal of free speech, that someone demands unconstitutional measurements, like racial profiling or putting minorities in concentration camps". I absolutey agree, that this last question is debatable!! I have no final answer for myself! But this is not, how the causa Zemmour was laid on the table in this thread.
This is such a double-edged sword. In the first impulse, I would say, of course you can discuss the merits of racial profiling (as we did in this thread) and it should not constitute an offense. But you can wrap anything in a "discussion". We could also "discuss" the merits of eliminating religious minorities in concentration camps and I think this should constitute an offense. Free speech, all to often, is taken as an excuse.
I have no idea how such a differentiation can be put into law in a fair way for everyone.
For me personally, I have very clear criteria. Most importantly, I distinguish between discussion and discourse, in the sense, that discussion is just talking and discourse is a rational, sane exchange of arguments, following common sense and logic. I enjoyed very much the discourse with you about the merits of racial profiling, because it was not driven by prejudice, whinery or political agenda, we sticked to the facts, came to (not so much) contrary conclusions and this is absolutely fine.
In the case of Eric Zemmour I do not like the semantic aggregation in the community:
- he demanded something unconstitutional (racial profiling).
- in his attempt to justify the demanded unconstitutional measurement, he quoted a fact, but failed to prove the causality between the fact and the demand (he did not even try. He mistook the fact as the causality - a common mistake).
- he gets sentenced for demanding something unconstitutional.
- His followers publish their aggregation in the form: although the fact was true, he was sentenced, therefore it is not possible to say the truth in France.
This is not what happened.
His case is not about "telling the truth gets you punished". His case is: "should our society accept, for the ideal of free speech, that someone demands unconstitutional measurements, like racial profiling or putting minorities in concentration camps". I absolutey agree, that this last question is debatable!! I have no final answer for myself! But this is not, how the causa Zemmour was laid on the table in this thread.
[...]If you are a policeman, clearly you are going to opt for population A if you want to make a bust.[...]
Whether I have to make 1000 controls for a 39 percent chance to catch one dealer, or 1000 controls for a 95 percent chance to catch one dealer – both are incredibly ineffective. This is exactly the problem.
If I am only capable of random controls with low chances, I have to control very, very many people to make a hit (and each control of an innocent person is something, that should be avoided if possible, because it is a form of harassment). Now by going from one low probability to a somewhat less lower probability by ignoring the group of the lower probability and putting all the burden of unjustified control to the other group you create a huge sense of frustration, stress, injustice and anger. For good reason! You make a 60:40 relation to a 100:0 relation with this approach. The problem is not with the dealers, but with the false positives. 600 innocent people of group A have to be harassed for one true positive, but 0 innocent people of group B get harassed and 0 people of group B get busted, because they are not even controlled anymore (as hits are less likely). And now, by making hits only in group A, the ratio of convicted drug dealers gets pushed even more into the direction of group A, allegedly confirming the efficiency of racial profiling. It is utterly wrong. Morally and mathematically. It is a pseudologic abuse of science to discriminate a group of people. And the desire for discrimination arises from hate. That is, why racial profiling is forbidden in modern democracies and it is not a matter of free speech, in my eyes.
If you wish for a more efficient handling of your police with drug dealers, you really do not want them to perform random controls (whether racially biased or not)!
Whether I have to make 1000 controls for a 39 percent chance to catch one dealer, or 1000 controls for a 95 percent chance to catch one dealer – both are incredibly ineffective. This is exactly the problem.
If I am only capable of random controls with low chances, I have to control very, very many people to make a hit (and each control of an innocent person is something, that should be avoided if possible, because it is a form of harassment). Now by going from one low probability to a somewhat less lower probability by ignoring the group of the lower probability and putting all the burden of unjustified control to the other group you create a huge sense of frustration, stress, injustice and anger. For good reason! You make a 60:40 relation to a 100:0 relation with this approach. The problem is not with the dealers, but with the false positives. 600 innocent people of group A have to be harassed for one true positive, but 0 innocent people of group B get harassed and 0 people of group B get busted, because they are not even controlled anymore (as hits are less likely). And now, by making hits only in group A, the ratio of convicted drug dealers gets pushed even more into the direction of group A, allegedly confirming the efficiency of racial profiling. It is utterly wrong. Morally and mathematically. It is a pseudologic abuse of science to discriminate a group of people. And the desire for discrimination arises from hate. That is, why racial profiling is forbidden in modern democracies and it is not a matter of free speech, in my eyes.
If you wish for a more efficient handling of your police with drug dealers, you really do not want them to perform random controls (whether racially biased or not)!
Correct, but in reality, the police doesn't go do some random control in the streets of some randomly selected rural area. They will target locations where they are likely to find drug dealers, target behaviors that are likely to be drug dealers, etc. So the numbers aren't those from your theoretical example.
Though in reality, I mostly hear about racial profiling in France in the context of looking for illegal immigrants where the odds are even more skewed against a population than your example.
The moral argument is orthogonal from the efficiency argument, and I totally agree with the frustration generated by misguided checks (and am reminded of those every time I take a plane).
Though in reality, I mostly hear about racial profiling in France in the context of looking for illegal immigrants where the odds are even more skewed against a population than your example.
The moral argument is orthogonal from the efficiency argument, and I totally agree with the frustration generated by misguided checks (and am reminded of those every time I take a plane).
You can also lie by stating cherry picked facts. Kathy Zhu lost her beauty queen title because she had written "Did you know the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks? Fix problems within your own community first before blaming others." I don't think I need to explain what's wrong with this statement, especially to the HN audience. I'd definitely support companies taking a stance against such statements, but it also shouldn't be a crime IMHO.
On a purely technical note, it's factual to say a group is over-represented in prison, because there are records to back this up. However unless you know the entirety of crimes committed, you can't say that a group is over-represented in crime.
It may be that certain groups are pursued more vigorously, less likely to mount a strong defence (therefore more likely to be convicted), or just more narrowly focused on.
It may be that certain groups are pursued more vigorously, less likely to mount a strong defence (therefore more likely to be convicted), or just more narrowly focused on.
On top of that, German (and I think European, code law) practice has a weighted view of human rights. If two rights come into conflict, one must prevail. For example, if somebody promotes the idea that people should start a "holy war" or go against groups of people, then nobody will be like "Oh yeah, that's their freedom of speech right there". No, this kind of behavior will be considered as violating the primary human right to life and human dignity.
In the US, false statements are also not covered by the first amandment.
The difference is that in Germany, "AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole", while clearly a statement of opinion, will allow you to go after me. Some restrictons to Meinungsfreiheit are right there in the constitution - protecting personal honor or protection the children.
The difference is that in Germany, "AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole", while clearly a statement of opinion, will allow you to go after me. Some restrictons to Meinungsfreiheit are right there in the constitution - protecting personal honor or protection the children.
"In the US, false statements are also not covered by the first amandment."[...]
So you are talking to the wrong person. You should reply to user "rlonn" who does not believe that there are (or should be) types A and B in free speech.
[...]"AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole", while clearly a statement of opinion, will allow you to go after me.[...]
Yes - diatribe exception. In that case, unfortunately, it is also not enough to transform it into "In my opinion, AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole". Granted, it is so much more complicated than free hate speech ;-)
So you are talking to the wrong person. You should reply to user "rlonn" who does not believe that there are (or should be) types A and B in free speech.
[...]"AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole", while clearly a statement of opinion, will allow you to go after me.[...]
Yes - diatribe exception. In that case, unfortunately, it is also not enough to transform it into "In my opinion, AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole". Granted, it is so much more complicated than free hate speech ;-)
> In the US, false statements are also not covered by the first am[e]ndment.
This is incorrect. (Its inverse is also incorrect.) There isn't a legal consensus on false statements.
This is incorrect. (Its inverse is also incorrect.) There isn't a legal consensus on false statements.
This is untrue. False statements are protected, wven yours.
That does not change the fact that people have the natural right of freedom of speech.
That is your personal OPINION, not a fact!
There is no such thing as a "natural right of freedom of speech". If one sovereign in the history of mankind decides to allow unrestricted freedom of speech in its constitution, it is just that: an episode in the history of legal systems established by humans. It can turn out as a bad idea, or a milestone for better societies. We will see. In no way is it a "natural right". Not even would it be a natural right, if it was mentioned in the bible as one of the 10 commandments from god (disregarding the FACT, that there are some serious restrictions of freedom of speech in that: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour").
There is no such thing as a "natural right of freedom of speech". If one sovereign in the history of mankind decides to allow unrestricted freedom of speech in its constitution, it is just that: an episode in the history of legal systems established by humans. It can turn out as a bad idea, or a milestone for better societies. We will see. In no way is it a "natural right". Not even would it be a natural right, if it was mentioned in the bible as one of the 10 commandments from god (disregarding the FACT, that there are some serious restrictions of freedom of speech in that: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour").
> There is no such thing as a "natural right of freedom of speech".
In fact, there is no such thing as a natural right at all. Rights are derived from value systems, and the choice of value system is mostly based on aesthetics. There is no way to say whether the Western Christianity-based value system is "better" than, say, the Confucian value system, because the word "better" cannot be defined from first principles (without invoking a particular value system).
In fact, there is no such thing as a natural right at all. Rights are derived from value systems, and the choice of value system is mostly based on aesthetics. There is no way to say whether the Western Christianity-based value system is "better" than, say, the Confucian value system, because the word "better" cannot be defined from first principles (without invoking a particular value system).
Yes, it can be done, but lots of people don't like that because it invariably concludes that some societies are better than others and the best ones are the western capitalist democracies.
The most obvious first principle is that a better value system should keep you alive. Being alive is foundational.
From that you can derive other principles, like value systems should result in the production of food, clean water, protection against wild animals and invaders, disease, etc.
From that you can derive yet more principles, like the value of efficient resource allocation, stable governance and so on.
And judged by basic things like "is this set of cultural values good at keeping people alive and healthy" you can quickly conclude that some are better than others, objectively so.
To deny this is to argue that wishing to be alive rather than dead is merely an aesthetic preference - an absurd starting point, lacking any intellectual merit.
The most obvious first principle is that a better value system should keep you alive. Being alive is foundational.
From that you can derive other principles, like value systems should result in the production of food, clean water, protection against wild animals and invaders, disease, etc.
From that you can derive yet more principles, like the value of efficient resource allocation, stable governance and so on.
And judged by basic things like "is this set of cultural values good at keeping people alive and healthy" you can quickly conclude that some are better than others, objectively so.
To deny this is to argue that wishing to be alive rather than dead is merely an aesthetic preference - an absurd starting point, lacking any intellectual merit.
[...]The most obvious first principle is that a better value system should keep you alive. Being alive is foundational.[...]
Is it?
There are plenty of people that sacrify their lives for all sorts of principles. There exist quite some value systems that explicitely do not hold "being alive" for their foundational first principle!
What about immortality, if it becomes a medical reality one day? A better value system by definition, just because we are staying alive for longer?
I won't go into your derived principles, because it is not even possible to reach mutual consent about your axiomatic first principle.
Is it?
There are plenty of people that sacrify their lives for all sorts of principles. There exist quite some value systems that explicitely do not hold "being alive" for their foundational first principle!
What about immortality, if it becomes a medical reality one day? A better value system by definition, just because we are staying alive for longer?
I won't go into your derived principles, because it is not even possible to reach mutual consent about your axiomatic first principle.
Very very few people sacrifice their own life for any kind of principle unless forced to. That's why those who do are often lionised!
But anyway, do you have a better first principle? If you don't care about staying alive why get out of bed at all, why not just starve to death? It's more work for sure.
But anyway, do you have a better first principle? If you don't care about staying alive why get out of bed at all, why not just starve to death? It's more work for sure.
Your fallacy is assuming that if the first principle is not protection of life, it must be its opposite, extreme disregard of life. There are potentially infinite choices of first principles.
Furthermore, you present no argument for your particular first principle beyond aesthetics (aka "I prefer this one"). You build on the implicit assumption that human life is valuable (and apparently more so than other forms of life) for which you don't provide justification. Well, you do argue that it keeps people alive. But again, that's a circular argument. "My value system is the best one because it fulfills the goals of my value system."
Furthermore, you present no argument for your particular first principle beyond aesthetics (aka "I prefer this one"). You build on the implicit assumption that human life is valuable (and apparently more so than other forms of life) for which you don't provide justification. Well, you do argue that it keeps people alive. But again, that's a circular argument. "My value system is the best one because it fulfills the goals of my value system."
It's a first principle - by definition it's unjustified logically. If it were to be justified, it wouldn't be a first principle, something else would!
I'd think the merits of being alive would be unarguable but this is HN after all :)
I'd think the merits of being alive would be unarguable but this is HN after all :)
It is not my opinion. It is a fact that the United States recognizes freedom of speech as a natural right.
The possibility that the US shares your opinion that something is a "natural right" does not change the fact that it is just an opinion.
You're perfectly entitled to feel that certain rights should be universal and inalienable. It's also clear that nobody agrees on what those rights are, and that they get violated all the time.
You're perfectly entitled to feel that certain rights should be universal and inalienable. It's also clear that nobody agrees on what those rights are, and that they get violated all the time.
It is my understanding that, currently, the following speech is of "type B, disallowed" in the US:
* Shouting fire in a crowded theatre
* False advertisement
* Medical or legal advice (allowed, heavily regulated by the Government)
* Advocacy of force or criminal activity
And I assume, many others that I do not know of.
Unless you are arguing that there is no such thing as free speech in the US, then it must be that you can have "free speech" while still having some limitations.
* Shouting fire in a crowded theatre
* False advertisement
* Medical or legal advice (allowed, heavily regulated by the Government)
* Advocacy of force or criminal activity
And I assume, many others that I do not know of.
Unless you are arguing that there is no such thing as free speech in the US, then it must be that you can have "free speech" while still having some limitations.
The shouting fire in a crowded theater example for precedent was overturned. Stop using it.
I did not know. Still, the other cases apply.
Some other ones:
* threats of violence
* blackmail
These may be entirely verbal, and yet are considered serious crimes.
* threats of violence
* blackmail
These may be entirely verbal, and yet are considered serious crimes.
There is a cardinal difference in the US between speech related to public interest, such as anything that has to do with politics, religion, military actions, and speech that's only about private matters, such as whether or not your neighbor has a perverted sexuality. The second category is not nearly as protected as people usually think it is.
"Don't you see that labeling or discriminating between "free speech of type A, allowed" and "free speech of type B, disallowed" defeats the whole notion of "free"?"
Yeah, why are you allowed to play tennis but you aren't allowed to kill people? Why can you say John's a good person but you can't say he molests children? Why can you shout "fore" on a golf course but not "fire" in a movie theatre?
There's always a limit. Choosing to stop your for-profit web service from enabling bigotry and murder seems a pretty low bar here. Let me know when it's being used to prevent the discussion of ideas such as Marxism or veganism or solar power or whatever which might upset the current power structure.
Yeah, why are you allowed to play tennis but you aren't allowed to kill people? Why can you say John's a good person but you can't say he molests children? Why can you shout "fore" on a golf course but not "fire" in a movie theatre?
There's always a limit. Choosing to stop your for-profit web service from enabling bigotry and murder seems a pretty low bar here. Let me know when it's being used to prevent the discussion of ideas such as Marxism or veganism or solar power or whatever which might upset the current power structure.
>Let me know when it's being used to prevent the discussion of ideas such as Marxism or veganism or solar power or whatever which might upset the current power structure.
Discussion of all of those topics has taken place on cripplechan which MITMflare just terminated business with.
Discussion of all of those topics has taken place on cripplechan which MITMflare just terminated business with.
>The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities?
Yes. If the speech isn't terrible it doesn't really need advocating for or protecting does it? Arguing for free speech is inextricably linked to arguing for people to be able to say despicable things.
Yes. If the speech isn't terrible it doesn't really need advocating for or protecting does it? Arguing for free speech is inextricably linked to arguing for people to be able to say despicable things.
So by this logic, filtering spam is violating freedom of speech?
You don't need to listen to the terrible things they're saying.
You don't need to read all the spam that would show up in your inbox if not for those censorious filters!
There's a difference between filtering incoming information and preventing someone from sending it in the first place.
Your rights stop where mine begin.
So you are free to send spam. I'm free to refuse it. I'm not required to transport your junk if I don't want to.
So you are free to send spam. I'm free to refuse it. I'm not required to transport your junk if I don't want to.
But Cloudflare should be required to transport 8chan's junk? What exactly are you arguing?
We have enough examples of information declared as fake news that turned out to be true in the end that the concept of content classification you are proposing just isn't feasible.
> The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech.
That is a baseless and offensive statement. Very unhappily, this kind of irrational hatred (and polarization) is on the rise in many parts of the West. It is not a problem with Americans.
That is a baseless and offensive statement. Very unhappily, this kind of irrational hatred (and polarization) is on the rise in many parts of the West. It is not a problem with Americans.
Can you tell what country do you live in?
I live in China, a textbook totalitarian state.
What you say is awfully similar to what CPC puts as their justification of censorship.
The prevailing narrative among the "dotcom" community in the West, and what you have said wrote is very similar to their position.
I live in China, a textbook totalitarian state.
What you say is awfully similar to what CPC puts as their justification of censorship.
The prevailing narrative among the "dotcom" community in the West, and what you have said wrote is very similar to their position.
That is why context is important.
The dream of the perfect context free golden rule does not exist. We have to pay attention and make hard decisions. None of this is simple.
The dream of the perfect context free golden rule does not exist. We have to pay attention and make hard decisions. None of this is simple.
The golden rule does exist, freedom of speech.
In your value system. Not in mine.
This is a far more likely explanation why we are in danger of getting fascism back in Europe. Strong-arming bad opinions like this one.
I can't speak for Europe, but rising fascism movements in the US are entirely riding a wave of anti-PC, fake news, and grassroots social networks, all under the guise of free-speech. I won't argue that these mean free speech must be restricted necessarily, but its absolutely clear that free-speech is enabling these particular movements.
You hear less from Europe than the US but I think the situation is similar. We are dealing with reactionaries here. I am well aware that they don't really mean to defend freedom of speech or any form of freedom really. But they certainly saw a weakness in their political opponents in relation to the topic and nailed them on their position.
You cannot win anything if you position yourself against freedom of speech and fascism. It is just not a winning strategy and the problems will slowly escalate from there.
Any civil right can and will be abused. Be that freedom of speech or just general social security services. That are the disadvantages you have to accept. If you restrict peoples ability to express themselves, you just handed your political opposition exactly what they wanted.
Yes, they are allowed to spread their message because they are allowed to. And that they did. 5 years ago even anime weaboos made fun of them for it. It never spread further than a few bad threads.
Now we have this fucked up situation where liberal political parties argue against civil rights. Worse, they do it in the name of minorities, which is just plain ridiculous. They elevated people nobody would have taken seriously to something more.
Not saying that being the victim of trolls is not embarrassing. But it is time to get over it. There are also parties that have a certain interest in shutting down platforms that are free from governmental control. I still think that is a very bad thing as it would undo a lot of achievements we won with the inception of the net.
You cannot win anything if you position yourself against freedom of speech and fascism. It is just not a winning strategy and the problems will slowly escalate from there.
Any civil right can and will be abused. Be that freedom of speech or just general social security services. That are the disadvantages you have to accept. If you restrict peoples ability to express themselves, you just handed your political opposition exactly what they wanted.
Yes, they are allowed to spread their message because they are allowed to. And that they did. 5 years ago even anime weaboos made fun of them for it. It never spread further than a few bad threads.
Now we have this fucked up situation where liberal political parties argue against civil rights. Worse, they do it in the name of minorities, which is just plain ridiculous. They elevated people nobody would have taken seriously to something more.
Not saying that being the victim of trolls is not embarrassing. But it is time to get over it. There are also parties that have a certain interest in shutting down platforms that are free from governmental control. I still think that is a very bad thing as it would undo a lot of achievements we won with the inception of the net.
> The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech.
I doubt that only Americans are the problem in this case. I think what has happened is that hate speech and other undesirable (subjective word but bear with me) content is a hack into human psychology and a small percent of human beings regardless of nationality will always be influenced by hate speech and caste-ism and what not. The problem is that as the internet has reached the masses, the lone fanatic has a very large soapbox to shout and a very loud speaker to listen from.
I doubt that only Americans are the problem in this case. I think what has happened is that hate speech and other undesirable (subjective word but bear with me) content is a hack into human psychology and a small percent of human beings regardless of nationality will always be influenced by hate speech and caste-ism and what not. The problem is that as the internet has reached the masses, the lone fanatic has a very large soapbox to shout and a very loud speaker to listen from.
> The root problem is Americans. And I'm honestly not sure of how to fix the problem with a whole population that has become so irrational, polarized, ignorant and sensitive to hate speech.
That's an incredibly offensive and hateful comment. Fortunately for you, in America the first amendment protects your right to say it. Maybe you can see where allowing the government to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech might be problematic.
That's an incredibly offensive and hateful comment. Fortunately for you, in America the first amendment protects your right to say it. Maybe you can see where allowing the government to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech might be problematic.
I get the gut reaction toward moderation at the corporate level, but United States law already covers these situations: hate speech, criminal conspiracy, and murder. The issue is lack of law enforcement.
I don't agree. I think people should be free to say their opionions online and offline, no matter how bad those opinions are. I disagree with cloudfare's decision.
> I think people should be free to say their opionions online and offline, no matter how bad those opinions are.
So do I, but outside essential utility monopolies, I also believe that no one should be forced to facilitate those opinions. That Cloudflare choose not to do so is ultimately an expression of their own opinions and values.
So do I, but outside essential utility monopolies, I also believe that no one should be forced to facilitate those opinions. That Cloudflare choose not to do so is ultimately an expression of their own opinions and values.
Or they were "convinced" from outside from people that think their opinions to be worth a damn.
It's still an expression of their opinions and values, even if their opinions and values are simply that they should maintain a favorable public image or that they should retain customers who would otherwise boycott them.
Oh, and you ever thought that Cloudflare should stop providing their services to 8chan, and that your opinion was worth a damn, guess what—your opinion was worth a damn.
Oh, and you ever thought that Cloudflare should stop providing their services to 8chan, and that your opinion was worth a damn, guess what—your opinion was worth a damn.
I think that's what some people miss.
The First Amendment protects three rights: Speech, Religion, and Assembly
Cloudfare used its right of assembly and chose not to associate with 8chan any longer.
Cloudfare is not required to host anything.
The First Amendment protects three rights: Speech, Religion, and Assembly
Cloudfare used its right of assembly and chose not to associate with 8chan any longer.
Cloudfare is not required to host anything.
> your opinion was worth a damn
It can have consequences while not being worth anything.
It can have consequences while not being worth anything.
If you want to go down the road of ignoring idiomatic phrases, sure, of course. I'd go as far as to argue that nothing has inherent worth, but I'd much rather stick to the topic and hear what your response to anything that actually pertains to the discussion is.
Define "fake news". For instance, the Guardian ran an article last week "Facebook says it was 'not our role' to remove fake news during Australian election"[1] criticising Facebook for not removing claims that the Labor party would introduce a "death tax" they said they wouldn't. If you click through to the previous article[2], the supposed "misinformation" included posts quoting their statements that they wouldn't introduce a "death tax" and then arguing that they couldn't be trusted not to do it anyway. Should tech companies be expected to supress the idea that certain political parties can't be trusted to do what they promise (not all of them, obviously - I can't imagine this is meant to apply to Republicans or any of the Australian right-wing parties)? Because that is definitely something that's being pushed for in the name of fighting "fake news".
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/31/facebook-...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/08/it-fe...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/31/facebook-...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/08/it-fe...
Why do you think it might have been that the founding fathers were such advocates for freedom of speech? Do you think they were unaware that it would lead to the normalization of unpleasant things being said? These questions can be answered quite succinctly by asking one other question. In a nation without freedom of speech, who gets to determine what can and cannot be said?
The Treason Felony Act 1848 [1] is something that is still technically a part of the law in the United Kingdom even if not actively enforced. In 2001 The Guardian made a legal effort to finally have it officially removed from the books, and failed [2]. The act makes it illegal to call for the abolition of the monarchy within the United Kingdom, even "imagining" such is sufficient to conviction. The max penalty is life imprisonment -- quite progressive as it used to be death. This is a stark reminder of why and where the desire for free free speech came from. Imagine our past without freedom of speech. There undoubtedly would have been numerous states that would have made the mere advocacy for abolition illegal, others that would have made advocating for suffrage of various groups also illegal, and so on.
You may think it simple to demarcate a line between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' speech but it's not so easy and ultimately the individuals that get to decide as such are those with the most power in society. The lines end up being drawn as fairly and reasonably as our states draw the lines laying out their voting districts. Laws against free speech invariably end up being exploited to help entrench whatever political ideology happens to get a grip on power within a nation, as the UK laws past and present are a reminder of.
Such laws can even be used to enforced bigoted views. For instance in the UK in 2017 a 19 year old lady was arrested and convicted, forced to wear a ankle monitoring device, abide a curfew, etc for "sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network." Her crime? Quoting lyrics from a Snoop Dog song on Instagram. That conviction was overturned a couple of years later. In another case (again in the UK) a Christian preacher was arrested for stating that, while he was not homophobic, he believed that the Bible taught homosexuality was a sin. Again it was overturned, yet being arrested, let alone convicted, for such "offenses" is hardly a society any should thrive to emulate.
Ultimately, I think people only see things they disagree with as being affected. In reality once free speech goes it will also include some of your views you find in no way unacceptable. In Germany until 2018 it was illegal to publicly insult any head of state. It was revoked only when it became inconvenient to the powers that be. Following a comedian reading an obscene poem about Turkish president Erdoğan, Turkey demanded and lawfully received prosecution which ultimately led to the law's removal. Laws which make it illegal to "defame" the President of the German Federal Republic remain on the books.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848
[2] - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abol...
The Treason Felony Act 1848 [1] is something that is still technically a part of the law in the United Kingdom even if not actively enforced. In 2001 The Guardian made a legal effort to finally have it officially removed from the books, and failed [2]. The act makes it illegal to call for the abolition of the monarchy within the United Kingdom, even "imagining" such is sufficient to conviction. The max penalty is life imprisonment -- quite progressive as it used to be death. This is a stark reminder of why and where the desire for free free speech came from. Imagine our past without freedom of speech. There undoubtedly would have been numerous states that would have made the mere advocacy for abolition illegal, others that would have made advocating for suffrage of various groups also illegal, and so on.
You may think it simple to demarcate a line between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' speech but it's not so easy and ultimately the individuals that get to decide as such are those with the most power in society. The lines end up being drawn as fairly and reasonably as our states draw the lines laying out their voting districts. Laws against free speech invariably end up being exploited to help entrench whatever political ideology happens to get a grip on power within a nation, as the UK laws past and present are a reminder of.
Such laws can even be used to enforced bigoted views. For instance in the UK in 2017 a 19 year old lady was arrested and convicted, forced to wear a ankle monitoring device, abide a curfew, etc for "sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network." Her crime? Quoting lyrics from a Snoop Dog song on Instagram. That conviction was overturned a couple of years later. In another case (again in the UK) a Christian preacher was arrested for stating that, while he was not homophobic, he believed that the Bible taught homosexuality was a sin. Again it was overturned, yet being arrested, let alone convicted, for such "offenses" is hardly a society any should thrive to emulate.
Ultimately, I think people only see things they disagree with as being affected. In reality once free speech goes it will also include some of your views you find in no way unacceptable. In Germany until 2018 it was illegal to publicly insult any head of state. It was revoked only when it became inconvenient to the powers that be. Following a comedian reading an obscene poem about Turkish president Erdoğan, Turkey demanded and lawfully received prosecution which ultimately led to the law's removal. Laws which make it illegal to "defame" the President of the German Federal Republic remain on the books.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848
[2] - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abol...
There are a few things that need to be distinguished here.
1) In UK law, there is no right to freedom of speech. The only people who are allowed that privilege are MPs in the house of commons.
2) The communications act expressly disallows "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" However, the definition of what grossly offensive is based on precedent, and is therefore not fixed.
3) libel
Libel needs reform. It needs to be modified sensibly to allow for quick, cheap & legally binding judgements, in the same vein as the small claims court.
The point still remains, even in the USA, there is no such thing as freedom of speech. You are not allowed to say whatever, whenever. The problem comes when trying devise a set of rules that allows a society to operate freely, but not get derailed by ne'er-do-wells
1) In UK law, there is no right to freedom of speech. The only people who are allowed that privilege are MPs in the house of commons.
2) The communications act expressly disallows "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" However, the definition of what grossly offensive is based on precedent, and is therefore not fixed.
3) libel
Libel needs reform. It needs to be modified sensibly to allow for quick, cheap & legally binding judgements, in the same vein as the small claims court.
The point still remains, even in the USA, there is no such thing as freedom of speech. You are not allowed to say whatever, whenever. The problem comes when trying devise a set of rules that allows a society to operate freely, but not get derailed by ne'er-do-wells
You are simplifying. Google shopping for example doesn't list WWII products in germany. Without any exception. Without decision between right wing propaganda and historical teaching material it is an attempt to deny the holocaust. And that's as simple as it is.
What's wrong with hate, exactly? Last I checked, hate is the emotion that one experiences in response to the realization that someone else is doing horrible things to them or the people they love. This then compels one to protect themselves and those they love from the hated individuals, which is good.
That’s not the connotation of “hate” when used in the term, “hate speech”.
This is terrible.
The chan boards are some of the last bastions of actual free expression.
Here, if you post something that someone doesn't like, your comment is downvoted into oblivion.
Case in point, I posted "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" and within 2 seconds it reached 0 votes. If you post anything anti-capitalist on this board (I'm pro-socialist) then there are paid trolls who will literally down vote you until your comments and submissions disappear. Hackernews is owned by propagandists literally by design - it has a moderation system that is created to be gamed. Post enough popular click bait content and you get the points necessary to down vote others. I'm sure that there are entire offices purpose built and operated around policing Hackernews for political purposes.
The /pol/ board on 8ch is a disgusting cesspool. Yes, and? Cloudflare is a de-facto monopoly (monopsony?) and they have the ability to control information. Whoever controls the free flow of information controls the world. What happens when a fascist decides to control Cloudflare? What do you do then? And if you think that is unlikely, well Rupert Murdoch exists.
This should be unlawful by regulation. A free press and free speech means that people should have the right to express opinions that you disagree with. And monopolies prevent that.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The chan boards are some of the last bastions of actual free expression.
Here, if you post something that someone doesn't like, your comment is downvoted into oblivion.
Case in point, I posted "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" and within 2 seconds it reached 0 votes. If you post anything anti-capitalist on this board (I'm pro-socialist) then there are paid trolls who will literally down vote you until your comments and submissions disappear. Hackernews is owned by propagandists literally by design - it has a moderation system that is created to be gamed. Post enough popular click bait content and you get the points necessary to down vote others. I'm sure that there are entire offices purpose built and operated around policing Hackernews for political purposes.
The /pol/ board on 8ch is a disgusting cesspool. Yes, and? Cloudflare is a de-facto monopoly (monopsony?) and they have the ability to control information. Whoever controls the free flow of information controls the world. What happens when a fascist decides to control Cloudflare? What do you do then? And if you think that is unlikely, well Rupert Murdoch exists.
This should be unlawful by regulation. A free press and free speech means that people should have the right to express opinions that you disagree with. And monopolies prevent that.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Hi there. Registered socialist here. the `chans all suck. Not just any specific /`/ either. They're all hot garbage. They have been for years.
I post and respond to tons of pro-union, anti-capitalist, socialist stuff on here. Sometimes I get grayed because I'm being a dick and not playing by the rules. Other times I'm rolling in that klout with stacks on stacks of upvotes. I'm sure any communication system with enough users has people who use it professionally for financial gain. That's just the nature of life? If there's money to be lost by something happening, there's in effect money to be gained by preventing it from happening. C'est la vie.
Platforms are always going to have owners. Owners mean an agenda. "The Internet" as we now know it usually consists of layers and layers of platforms, so that means lots of (sometimes conflicting) agendas. You want free speech: it only exists when you control your platform. Anything else is just a rented hall.
I post and respond to tons of pro-union, anti-capitalist, socialist stuff on here. Sometimes I get grayed because I'm being a dick and not playing by the rules. Other times I'm rolling in that klout with stacks on stacks of upvotes. I'm sure any communication system with enough users has people who use it professionally for financial gain. That's just the nature of life? If there's money to be lost by something happening, there's in effect money to be gained by preventing it from happening. C'est la vie.
Platforms are always going to have owners. Owners mean an agenda. "The Internet" as we now know it usually consists of layers and layers of platforms, so that means lots of (sometimes conflicting) agendas. You want free speech: it only exists when you control your platform. Anything else is just a rented hall.
> I posted "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Not a particularly insightful comment :/
Not a particularly insightful comment :/
The Christchurch madman livestreamed his vile murders using Facebook. Isn't it long past time we removed that hate site, a nest of debauchery, from the internet as well? Of course there will be evil persons that will disagree and support the existence of hate sites, but it is not necessary for sane individuals to listen to anything they say.
"Hate online is a real issue. Here are some organizations that have active work to help address it:
- Anti-Defamation League
...
..."
Wikipedia:
"The ADL has faced criticism for its support for Israel, charges of defamation, spying allegations, its former stance on the Armenian Genocide, and possible conflation of opposition to Israel with antisemitism."
Thanks a lot Cloudflare. First you are complaining about hate and online discussion and then you share shit like this. It seems there is nothing but lies ja propaganda these days. Either far-right or far-left or some other far-shit.
- Anti-Defamation League
...
..."
Wikipedia:
"The ADL has faced criticism for its support for Israel, charges of defamation, spying allegations, its former stance on the Armenian Genocide, and possible conflation of opposition to Israel with antisemitism."
Thanks a lot Cloudflare. First you are complaining about hate and online discussion and then you share shit like this. It seems there is nothing but lies ja propaganda these days. Either far-right or far-left or some other far-shit.
Good. Next step: CAs should revoke and stop issuing certificates for these sites.
I do not support 8-chan, but by doing this and what they did with the daily stormer they are no longer a neutral platform. A neutral platform is like a utility, barring illegal activity, users have a right to use the service as long as they pay for it. Once it is curated, it is not. This is why efforts are afoot to have companies that do this to not get section 230 protections for content hosted on the platform.
The last thing I want is a large, un-elected, tech company moralizing about content hosted on it. Frankly, they are not good at it. If what 8-chan is doing is illegal this can be addressed through the legal system. Also, as needed, laws to address this can go through democratic processes that have checks and balances instead of this. Yes it may be slower, but due process is important.
At some point left un-checked they can and will target other content they disagree with, IE: labeling other fairly main stream right wing stuff as "hate speech". That is ultimately bad for everybody.
The last thing I want is a large, un-elected, tech company moralizing about content hosted on it. Frankly, they are not good at it. If what 8-chan is doing is illegal this can be addressed through the legal system. Also, as needed, laws to address this can go through democratic processes that have checks and balances instead of this. Yes it may be slower, but due process is important.
At some point left un-checked they can and will target other content they disagree with, IE: labeling other fairly main stream right wing stuff as "hate speech". That is ultimately bad for everybody.
Wow, protection from ddos attacks and from unsavory opinions? What more could one ask for?
Now if we can only get Antifa resources shutdown, since the Dayton shooter has been using them and was an active member
-no one
-no one
I'm always prepared for but ultimately annoyed by HN's take on stuff like this.
I legitimately get angrier reading this shitty site more than just about anything else.
I wish whatever dopamine hit I got from reading this place would go away.
I legitimately get angrier reading this shitty site more than just about anything else.
I wish whatever dopamine hit I got from reading this place would go away.
Seems to me like a lot of the arguments against why this shouldn't happen or isn't effective basically amount to some sort of whatabouttery. Well done Cloudflare, I hope their next host takes the same attitude or can be induced to.
Don't be fooled. It's not a virtuous move. It's a business decision.
If they wanted to be virtuous, they'd start working with groups to solve the problem--counteracting radicalization.
If they wanted to be virtuous, they'd start working with groups to solve the problem--counteracting radicalization.
I'm aware of that but nonetheless believe it's a step in the right direction and that they should be congratulated. I don't think this means anyone should give them an easier time as a result.
Countering radicalisation involves the use of both carrot and stick where services like Cloudflare and others are involved.
Countering radicalisation involves the use of both carrot and stick where services like Cloudflare and others are involved.
> it's a step in the right direction
How? It does nothing to solve the problem. It simply kicks the can down the road.
How? It does nothing to solve the problem. It simply kicks the can down the road.
I agree that the racists on 8chan who are in favour of mass shootings are still racists on 8chan in favour of mass shootings. That needs to stop, and this alone doesn't achieve it. But society drawing boundaries about their behaviour is an obviously good step in my view. Companies can be part of that.
I don't get how it's desirable that this shouldn't be called out. Even if cloudflare is clearly looking at its bank balance when doing so.
I don't get how it's desirable that this shouldn't be called out. Even if cloudflare is clearly looking at its bank balance when doing so.
If I understand correctly, you're making the argument that CloudFlare's move should be seen as part of a (hopefully) larger cultural move against racism and mass shootings. I am not sure how or even if their move would fit into that, but I can at least see that as plausible.
> I don't get how it's desirable that this shouldn't be called out.
That's not being suggested. It's possible to address the issue without outright cutting off 8chan. This approach is common of more extreme perspectives and does more to breed animosity than solve the problem. There are better ways to approach it, and cutting someone or a group off should be on the end list of possibilities.
> Even if cloudflare is clearly looking at its bank balance when doing so.
It's entirely possible they have two goals in mind, and that would be fine. I simply think it's unlikely because of how they've reacted in this case and the one with Daily Stormer.
I also detect a subtle hint of consequentialism here, but that could be my own reading into your post. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I simply can't get on border with the idea that the ends justifies the means. While the ends shouldn't be ignore, I don't think it should be seen as the sole arbitrator what determines ethical behavior.
> I don't get how it's desirable that this shouldn't be called out.
That's not being suggested. It's possible to address the issue without outright cutting off 8chan. This approach is common of more extreme perspectives and does more to breed animosity than solve the problem. There are better ways to approach it, and cutting someone or a group off should be on the end list of possibilities.
> Even if cloudflare is clearly looking at its bank balance when doing so.
It's entirely possible they have two goals in mind, and that would be fine. I simply think it's unlikely because of how they've reacted in this case and the one with Daily Stormer.
I also detect a subtle hint of consequentialism here, but that could be my own reading into your post. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I simply can't get on border with the idea that the ends justifies the means. While the ends shouldn't be ignore, I don't think it should be seen as the sole arbitrator what determines ethical behavior.
> If I understand correctly
That's more or less it. Silence can be as telling as its absence in cases like these, I think.
> That's not being suggested.
Fair enough, apologies for creating the impression if that happened. How should we address this problem without cutting off things like 8chan, though? I think that once people start advocating against the right of others to exist it's time for society to act. It makes sense that we should focus on the individuals actually contributing to these boards and de-radicalise them where possible. So doing, that reduces demand for things like 8chan. But that doesn't mean that 8chan itself isn't inherently problematic.
To be clear, this is not to say that message boards are all inherently problematic and we need to think before acting. Insofar as you urge caution on this in general, I agree. 8Chan has gone out of its way to eliminate any grey area on this subject, though. The behaviour of its administrators towards law enforcement in the aftermath of the Christchurch attack isn't even that unusual for them.
> I simply think it's unlikely
Totally, lol. I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. I just don't want it to overshadow what I think is a positive action.
> consequentialism
All I'm saying is that if violent radicalism is the enemy of a coherent society that respects everyone's right to exist (which these guys pretty clearly say), society should be prepared to do something to protect itself. And that means shutting down the services that recruit new gunmen, because they're a part of this. The ends don't justify the means, the actions of 8chan participants do.
Edit: Thanks so much for taking the time to write all that, by the way. One of the main reasons I come to this place is for people willing to walk through their arguments like this.
That's more or less it. Silence can be as telling as its absence in cases like these, I think.
> That's not being suggested.
Fair enough, apologies for creating the impression if that happened. How should we address this problem without cutting off things like 8chan, though? I think that once people start advocating against the right of others to exist it's time for society to act. It makes sense that we should focus on the individuals actually contributing to these boards and de-radicalise them where possible. So doing, that reduces demand for things like 8chan. But that doesn't mean that 8chan itself isn't inherently problematic.
To be clear, this is not to say that message boards are all inherently problematic and we need to think before acting. Insofar as you urge caution on this in general, I agree. 8Chan has gone out of its way to eliminate any grey area on this subject, though. The behaviour of its administrators towards law enforcement in the aftermath of the Christchurch attack isn't even that unusual for them.
> I simply think it's unlikely
Totally, lol. I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. I just don't want it to overshadow what I think is a positive action.
> consequentialism
All I'm saying is that if violent radicalism is the enemy of a coherent society that respects everyone's right to exist (which these guys pretty clearly say), society should be prepared to do something to protect itself. And that means shutting down the services that recruit new gunmen, because they're a part of this. The ends don't justify the means, the actions of 8chan participants do.
Edit: Thanks so much for taking the time to write all that, by the way. One of the main reasons I come to this place is for people willing to walk through their arguments like this.
> How should we address this problem without cutting off things like 8chan, though?
We need to address root causes rather than symptoms.
Radicalization is often the result of in-group/out-group thinking[0]. What causes a person to develop a strong affinity for a particular group? What causes them to feel attack by those outside of the group? When we can answer these questions and others like it, we can start to cut off the problem at the source rather than playing a game of whack-a-mole. (And I fear that game of whack-a-mole because I fear that it may cause great harm to our long-term freedoms.)
I think a good start is fixing our political discourse. It's not radical ideas that are the problem. It's how we interact. It's how we address one another. It's not limited to "the left" or "the right." It's everywhere. We attack groups and people rather than addressing ideas.
In fact, I am first on the list of people who need to change. I started this whole thread by taking an unfair swipe at CloudFlare.
When we change our political discourse, those who value their identity with a particular group will feel less attacked and be less prone to radicalization.
This can be applied to CloudFlare/8chan in how CloudFlare went about it. CloudFlare dumping 8chan so quickly, arbitrarily, and without appeal will likely be seen as an attack on the in-group. This could be mitigated by reaching out to the 8chan leadership first. While CloudFlare might have cut them off in the end, at least there'd be a track record of making an effort to bridge their differences. And I think that would help reduce the impact this action would have.
0. "Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism." Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/095465508020733...
We need to address root causes rather than symptoms.
Radicalization is often the result of in-group/out-group thinking[0]. What causes a person to develop a strong affinity for a particular group? What causes them to feel attack by those outside of the group? When we can answer these questions and others like it, we can start to cut off the problem at the source rather than playing a game of whack-a-mole. (And I fear that game of whack-a-mole because I fear that it may cause great harm to our long-term freedoms.)
I think a good start is fixing our political discourse. It's not radical ideas that are the problem. It's how we interact. It's how we address one another. It's not limited to "the left" or "the right." It's everywhere. We attack groups and people rather than addressing ideas.
In fact, I am first on the list of people who need to change. I started this whole thread by taking an unfair swipe at CloudFlare.
When we change our political discourse, those who value their identity with a particular group will feel less attacked and be less prone to radicalization.
This can be applied to CloudFlare/8chan in how CloudFlare went about it. CloudFlare dumping 8chan so quickly, arbitrarily, and without appeal will likely be seen as an attack on the in-group. This could be mitigated by reaching out to the 8chan leadership first. While CloudFlare might have cut them off in the end, at least there'd be a track record of making an effort to bridge their differences. And I think that would help reduce the impact this action would have.
0. "Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism." Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/095465508020733...
counteracting radicalization
Easier said than done
Easier said than done
Silicon Valley and the left in this country should take it a little easier and slow down the censorship.
Really disgusted by how the internet is shaping up. Monopolies all over the place and deplatforming free speech websites left and right.
This ain't the internet I was promised when I was 11.
This ain't the internet I was promised when I was 11.
8chan didn't cause the incident. The shooter did. If we find out that the shooter played a specific video game that a previous shooter played..should it be banned as well?
I'm old enough to remember all of the court cases that involved distressed parents blaming hard rock/metal bands for influencing their children's suicides.
These sorts of incidents are starting to remind me of the religious right's censorship crusade in the 90s...this time it's coming from the left.
Banning these sites will only push them underground. They aren't going away. The end result will be absolutely no way of knowing when and where a shooting may occur.
I'm old enough to remember all of the court cases that involved distressed parents blaming hard rock/metal bands for influencing their children's suicides.
These sorts of incidents are starting to remind me of the religious right's censorship crusade in the 90s...this time it's coming from the left.
Banning these sites will only push them underground. They aren't going away. The end result will be absolutely no way of knowing when and where a shooting may occur.
As bad as the content on 8chan is, it is deeply distressing how Cloudflare has attached itself to the internet as what amounts to a mafia organization collecting protection money. Almost all the non-deep web tools to abuse sites are behind Cloudflare. They really are playing both sides to create a necessary business. I have other theories about them being the most efficient NSA collection site to exist due to TLS MITM and their horrifically insecure 'flexible SSL' but those theories remain unsubstantiated until the next Snowden.
He should fire his PR. Terrible writing and hard to read. And probably 4-5 times longer than needed.
Also it is bad idea to get political. And I feel that a lot of those companies are gonna get punished in the next few years.
And he didn't managed to even make his case. He accused 8 chan of lawlessness while never actually stating which law they broke.
Just say they are too much trouble and be done with it, without sounding fake.
Also it is bad idea to get political. And I feel that a lot of those companies are gonna get punished in the next few years.
And he didn't managed to even make his case. He accused 8 chan of lawlessness while never actually stating which law they broke.
Just say they are too much trouble and be done with it, without sounding fake.
I'm pretty sure more Twitter and Facebook users have become mass killers than 8ch users.
The first comment to the guy on 8ch who posted the manifesto was "hello FBI". Not a 8ch user but they don't appear to support shootings. I'm more familiar with 4chan shenanigans and they definitely don't support it, with any threat of real-life violence being met with something along the lines of "[alphabet agency] fuck off". Not saying they don't have crazies but every "social media" (and 8ch is social media, just an old fashioned version of it) site has crazies.
The first comment to the guy on 8ch who posted the manifesto was "hello FBI". Not a 8ch user but they don't appear to support shootings. I'm more familiar with 4chan shenanigans and they definitely don't support it, with any threat of real-life violence being met with something along the lines of "[alphabet agency] fuck off". Not saying they don't have crazies but every "social media" (and 8ch is social media, just an old fashioned version of it) site has crazies.
>I'm more familiar with 4chan shenanigans and they definitely don't support it
The origin story of 8chan from what I understand is that it is all of the people who had too extreme of views for 4chan... which created an echo chamber to further radicalize and ferment.
The origin story of 8chan from what I understand is that it is all of the people who had too extreme of views for 4chan... which created an echo chamber to further radicalize and ferment.
Sort of, not exactly how I remember it. 8ch appeared because 4chan’s boards are dedicated to certain topics and some subjects fell through the gaps between boards. I remember 8ch getting popular when incessant gamergate spam was banned from /v/. 8ch also has a “popular” leftypol board which is the left wing counterpart to 4chan’s pol (there’s no good place on 4chan to discuss Bernie Sanders, for example, without getting mobbed). Raids were also banned from 4chan and some other things which brought unwanted attention to the site, I think those people also went to 8ch. A final group of people left to 8ch when Moot (the person who used to run 4chan) scrambled /pol/ for a week (?), making the topic board unusable for regulars. Any other growth of 8ch is beyond my knowledge of the site.
8ch gained popularity because gamergate discussions were censored on 4chan.
[deleted](1)
"Some" will condemn this ban by appealing to freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is not absolute. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, as per the Guardian:
"I am an unswerving advocate of freedom of expression, which is guaranteed under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), but it is not absolute. Article 20 of the same covenant says: ‘Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."[0]
As so often, different values are in tension with each other. And different societies draw the line at different places, somewhat favouring one or the other value. I hope we can agree that 8-chan, due to the lack of sensible moderation, is way past that line by all standards.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/apr/24/k...
Edit: to clarify, this is not meant to be a strawman. By "some", I don't mean some here or alike, but those in 8-chan , TD, etc., who have brought forward this argument in the past.
"I am an unswerving advocate of freedom of expression, which is guaranteed under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), but it is not absolute. Article 20 of the same covenant says: ‘Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."[0]
As so often, different values are in tension with each other. And different societies draw the line at different places, somewhat favouring one or the other value. I hope we can agree that 8-chan, due to the lack of sensible moderation, is way past that line by all standards.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/apr/24/k...
Edit: to clarify, this is not meant to be a strawman. By "some", I don't mean some here or alike, but those in 8-chan , TD, etc., who have brought forward this argument in the past.
That swerve doesn't apply to the US's actual unswerving protection of freedom of expression, it was ratified with the following reservation (the first among others):
> (1) That Article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
> (1) That Article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
But if now they're manually deciding who goes on their network and who doesn't, it seems like they're more responsible for everything else that's on it that they allow.
They're a private company and I support them choosing to do business with whoever they want, but I thought there was some sort of legal distinction if they were totally agnostic to what travels over their wires. Is that not the case?