Cloudflare terminate 8Chan

[dalekphalm]

12 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Honestly, freedom of speech, at least in the US, is only limited to the government being unable to censor people.  A company can do business however they desire as long as it's legal.  Cloudflare can censor them if they want to considering they are not the government.  It's shitty to do, but it's no different than your parent yelling at you for swearing.  Are you going to take your parents to court over it?

Indeed - Frankly I think if people want to hold companies like Facebook and YouTube (and I guess by extension, CloudFlare?) to laws that only affect the government (Freedom of Speech), then those companies need to be nationalized and actually be a service provided by the government.

 

But I'm guessing those same people don't want that? I sure as hell wouldn't.

48 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Another issue is they were just dropped. There was no time to shop around. No time to touch base with the community over the problem. No time to possibly increase moderation. None. 

 

Would you allow your landscaper to drop you without notice?

How would I "allow" my landscaper to do - or not do - anything at all? I have no control over them. They could drop me without a moment's notice. If there's a contract in place, they have to fulfill the terms of contract (including any refunds or termination fees, etc), but outside of that? What they do is their choice.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Frankly I think if people want to hold companies like Facebook and YouTube (and I guess by extension, CloudFlare?) to laws that only affect the government (Freedom of Speech), then those companies need to be nationalized and actually be a service provided by the government.

Except that in the US, there are laws that do this already. A company offering a service and claiming to legally be a platform (like Facebook and Youtube do), they must uphold free speech. In exchange, they are not legally responsible for activity that might violate civil law.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Except that in the US, there are laws that do this already. A company offering a service and claiming to legally be a platform (like Facebook and Youtube do), they must uphold free speech. In exchange, they are not legally responsible for activity that might violate civil law.

I think it's clear that CloudFlare is not liable to that law.

 

Also do you have a source confirming that Facebook and YouTube must uphold free speech?

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Also do you have a source confirming that Facebook and YouTube must uphold free speech?

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

[Kisai]

15 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Indeed - Frankly I think if people want to hold companies like Facebook and YouTube (and I guess by extension, CloudFlare?) to laws that only affect the government (Freedom of Speech), then those companies need to be nationalized and actually be a service provided by the government.

 

But I'm guessing those same people don't want that? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Indeed.

 

Misdirection comes out every time someone doesn't want to take responsibility for something. Cloudflare knows they are protecting more than one criminal website, but does nothing unless the media or a court order (not a DMCA, they ignore those) compels them to. Do you know how hard it is to report ANYTHING to cloudflare? It's impossible, they make it impossible. Anything you send to them, the response will be nonsense like quoted:

Quote

From: CloudFlare <XXXXX@cloudflare.com>
Date: 
Subject: [XX-XXXXX-XXX]: CloudFlare has responded to your copyright infringement complaint.
To: legal@XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

CloudFlare received your copyright infringement complaint regarding:
 XXXX.party

Please be aware CloudFlare is a network provider offering a reverse proxy, pass-through security service. We are not a hosting provider. CloudFlare does not control the content of our customers.

Accepted URL(s) on  XXXX.party:

https:// XXXX.party/patreon_data/3093030/thumb.jpg
https:// XXXX.party/patreon_data/3093030/bwdoodles.png

        Hosting Provider:
        -----------------

        OVH

        Abuse Contact:
        --------------

        XXXXX@ovh.net

We have notified our customer of your complaint, and we have forwarded your complaint on to the responsible hosting provider. You may also direct your report to:

1. The provider where  XXXX.party is hosted (provided above);
2. The owner listed in the WHOIS record for  XXXX.party and/or;
3. The contact listed on the  XXXX.party site.

Note: A lookup of the IP for a CloudFlare customer website will show CloudFlare IPs because we are a pass-through network. The actual website is still hosted at the hosting provider indicated above. If the hosting provider has any questions, please have the hosting provider contact us directly regarding this site. Due to attempted abuse of our complaint reporting process, we will only provide the IP of  XXXX.party to the responsible hosting provider if they contact us directly at XXXXXXXXXX@cloudflare.com.

Regards,

CloudFlare Abuse

The result from this, was the legal email being spammed by thousands of mailing lists. Everyone reporting the patreon ripping site, wound up with the same result.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Indeed.

 

Misdirection comes out every time someone doesn't want to take responsibility for something. Cloudflare knows they are protecting more than one criminal website, but does nothing unless the media or a court order (not a DMCA, they ignore those) compels them to. Do you know how hard it is to report ANYTHING to cloudflare? It's impossible, they make it impossible. Anything you send to them, the response will be nonsense like quoted:

 

And that's okay - they're not legally responsible for the content of their clients. But that doesn't mean they can't cut ties with a customer that is bad for their business (or bad for their image).

 

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

Yeah I read that, but found some interesting notes:

Quote

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content.

Here's the interesting bit (emphasis mine):

Quote

This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

The interesting part is that this says "it was assumed", not "it was mandated". You can make a law, and assume it'll do all kinds of things. But unless the law actually specifies that it is a requirement, your assumptions are meaningless.

 

Text of the law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

Quote

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

That doesn't mention that they must uphold free speech.

 

Sounds to me like they need to amend the law to clarify it.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

And that's okay - they're not legally responsible for the content of their clients. But that doesn't mean they can't cut ties with a customer that is bad for their business (or bad for their image).

 

Yeah I read that, but found some interesting notes:

Here's the interesting bit (emphasis mine):

The interesting part is that this says "it was assumed", not "it was mandated". You can make a law, and assume it'll do all kinds of things. But unless the law actually specifies that it is a requirement, your assumptions are meaningless.

 

Text of the law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

That doesn't mention that they must uphold free speech.

 

Sounds to me like they need to amend the law to clarify it.

Few issues with your stance.

1. 3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

   This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion

   This is not a 'the law was assumed to do X', it's a 'subject was assumed to do X to qualify.'

2. The Wikipedia article you linked confirms what I said about Section 230. It might not say outright that that free speech must be upheld, but that is the logical outcome from the history and case law sections.

[Thaldor]

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

-snip-

Not quoting any specific comment but now that we talk about platforms and free speech things can get quite interesting. Like earlier I said YouTube is a monopoly (not because there isn't competition but because that competition is basicly insignificant while YT having over 70% of the markets and the second one being Vimeo with just around 17% market share) and Google Search has even clearer monopoly by that merit and probably it's clear for everyone that Alphabet likes to do some "search optimization" with both services. I wouldn't really be surprised if Alphabet would do some "search engine optimization" to boost their own political agendas, like it wasn't a big secret that Alphabet burned quite some money to sponsor YT creators to make videos against the Article 13 and quite probably some news sites and others did also get their part of that money, with that in mind I wouldn't be surprised if Alphabet would have also made it so that videos and sites against the Article 13 would get more visibility in every Alphabet owned service.

 

I am not saying this would be directly against free speech, but when a company has a service in such a situation where it really doesn't have competition and in modern society that service is critical it would be good to restrict that company from using that service to run their own goals outside of their business. 8chan is probably bad example as it is so extreme and Cloudflare isn't in the same kind of position as something like YT is, but let's say Cloudflare would go full left-wing and cut every and any ties with every site that host and/or support right-wing or they just give the potato server for them so that their sites run like shit, we get to the situation where we can ask can a company with significant market share (Cloudflare having around 30-40% market share) and critical service really freely choose their clients? I would say with Alphabet doing the same even the most devoted capitalist would say "no, they can't" because Alphabet has such a strong situation to affect the public opinion through their services. And just to note, Cloudflare is in more covered state than Alphabet, it wouldn't be clear for a long time that Cloudflare would be running their own political agenda because it wouldn't be right on your face (like with Alphabet doing the same with Google Search it would be on your face when you would Google "right-wing candidates" and a site listing them would be on the 3rd page after 2 pages full of sites only featuring and showing left-wing candidates), it would would be noticeable because slower page loading and sites being down more often but it would affect things quite a lot.

 

And I don't like to give any numbers at which market share percentage or what user number or how critical some service must be for this kind of restrictions to be on effect. I leave those for people far more wiser than me to figure out. But I still say that there should be rules by which companies with services that are critical and have significant market shares (I would like to think the more critical service is the less it needs market share to be affected) couldn't freely choose their customers but they would need to serve even those who might hurt their businesses. Like some cable ISP with some area where people can't choose other ISP to provide their cable connection couldn't refuse to serve the A.H. fan with flags and everything living on that area because that guy cannot choose other ISP to provide cable connection and it's still quite important thing to have. Or Alphabet couldn't refuse to host that A.H. fans videos on YouTube because YT is a monopoly and as such especially it should not be able to choose its customers freely (if those videos would include illegal stuff they should be handled through officials not through vigilantism, put the videos on hold and contact the actual officials like police and wait for their verdict, not ask your lawyer "can this get us into trouble?" and delete the whole channel just to be sure that the shit doesn't hit the fan).

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

It is in some ways a cop out. However, we must be incredible cautious about any law that makes something that is incorrect legally punishable. For instance, if a news story runs with what is the current accepted narrative, (ie the Covington kid controversy) they could be legally liable for the damage to his reputation under expanded "truth in media" laws. It is a dangerous slippery slope, and one I in good conscience cannot condone.

We don't need new laws, There are already current laws that cover all this,  the issue is everyone is too scared to infringe "free speech" rights that they aren't doing use them.   For the record I am not talking about simply publishing something that is wrong (especially if it was published at a time when no proof existed otherwise),  I am talking about repeated publication of pieces encouraging people to engage in dangerous practices, especially after being warned and when such website earn money form said content. 

 

5 hours ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

Sorry for the mixup, I must have confused you with someone else in the thread. Anyway, dangerous speech, such as antivax, must also necessarily be legal, so that it can be exposed publicly and disproved.

 

I have addressed that in a post a few back, basically anti vaccine rhetoric has been proven over and over repeatedly, just saying here's the proof your wrong now shut up isn't enough. In Australia you can't get government benefits or have your child in public daycare/schools unless they are fully vaccinated. Why did such laws need to be introduced if we could just use free speech to debunk them?  Because it doesn't work.

 

5 hours ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

If we make conspiracy theories illegal, we only make those who believe in them more vindicated that the government is actually hiding something. While it is legally within the rights of any private company to simply take down any opinion they find objectionable, conspiracy theories included, I think the method recently adopted by youtube, placing the facts of the moon landing in the description of any flat earth videos, will be much more effective. Essentially, from what I have seen, any law that would seek to limit individual freedom, especially speech, has a major potential to backfire.

We will never convince the people who believe this stuff otherwise, so the best thing to do (in my mind) is isolate them as best as possible from people who are susceptible.  That is why there is a big effort to stop fakenews.  But it is failing because (as I said) people are afraid of treading on free speech issues. 

5 hours ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

Thank you for allowing such a civil debate! I feel that in the end, we have not changed each other's minds, but I find it so refreshing to have such an honest and polite discussion about a controversial topic on the internet.

Have a great day!

you're welcome.  It is refreshing not to be insulted because I have a different opinion.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Thaldor said:

Not quoting any specific comment but now that we talk about platforms and free speech things can get quite interesting. Like earlier I said YouTube is a monopoly (not because there isn't competition but because that competition is basicly insignificant while YT having over 70% of the markets and the second one being Vimeo with just around 17% market share) and Google Search has even clearer monopoly by that merit and probably it's clear for everyone that Alphabet likes to do some "search optimization" with both services. I wouldn't really be surprised if Alphabet would do some "search engine optimization" to boost their own political agendas, like it wasn't a big secret that Alphabet burned quite some money to sponsor YT creators to make videos against the Article 13 and quite probably some news sites and others did also get their part of that money, with that in mind I wouldn't be surprised if Alphabet would have also made it so that videos and sites against the Article 13 would get more visibility in every Alphabet owned service.

 

I am not saying this would be directly against free speech, but when a company has a service in such a situation where it really doesn't have competition and in modern society that service is critical it would be good to restrict that company from using that service to run their own goals outside of their business. 8chan is probably bad example as it is so extreme and Cloudflare isn't in the same kind of position as something like YT is, but let's say Cloudflare would go full left-wing and cut every and any ties with every site that host and/or support right-wing or they just give the potato server for them so that their sites run like shit, we get to the situation where we can ask can a company with significant market share (Cloudflare having around 30-40% market share) and critical service really freely choose their clients? I would say with Alphabet doing the same even the most devoted capitalist would say "no, they can't" because Alphabet has such a strong situation to affect the public opinion through their services. And just to note, Cloudflare is in more covered state than Alphabet, it wouldn't be clear for a long time that Cloudflare would be running their own political agenda because it wouldn't be right on your face (like with Alphabet doing the same with Google Search it would be on your face when you would Google "right-wing candidates" and a site listing them would be on the 3rd page after 2 pages full of sites only featuring and showing left-wing candidates), it would would be noticeable because slower page loading and sites being down more often but it would affect things quite a lot.

 

And I don't like to give any numbers at which market share percentage or what user number or how critical some service must be for this kind of restrictions to be on effect. I leave those for people far more wiser than me to figure out. But I still say that there should be rules by which companies with services that are critical and have significant market shares (I would like to think the more critical service is the less it needs market share to be affected) couldn't freely choose their customers but they would need to serve even those who might hurt their businesses. Like some cable ISP with some area where people can't choose other ISP to provide their cable connection couldn't refuse to serve the A.H. fan with flags and everything living on that area because that guy cannot choose other ISP to provide cable connection and it's still quite important thing to have. Or Alphabet couldn't refuse to host that A.H. fans videos on YouTube because YT is a monopoly and as such especially it should not be able to choose its customers freely (if those videos would include illegal stuff they should be handled through officials not through vigilantism, put the videos on hold and contact the actual officials like police and wait for their verdict, not ask your lawyer "can this get us into trouble?" and delete the whole channel just to be sure that the shit doesn't hit the fan).

There are rules, the problem is the rules aren't being enforced fairly.   I do believe most of the issues here are only really issues in the US.   As the rest of the world tends not to have free speech laws in the same fashion as the US,  we don't get caught up arguing who's right it is to say something and concentrate on where it is being said and is it resulting in a problem.  Google get frequently charged with anti competitive behavior in the EU for their search engine, MS for IE, Apple for their charger port, etc.   

 

Personally the reason I raise the issue of protestors shutting down speaking events on campus's in the US earlier was because it highlights just how hard it is to have a conversation in the US on anything.  People cry free speech to the point of no one being held accountable for anything, even when those actions are clearly leading to everything from the denial of one person to continue speaking at a legal function to children dying of measles.    If that doesn't tell you something is wrong then nothing will.

[Thaldor]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There are rules, the problem is the rules aren't being enforced fairly.   I do believe most of the issues here are only really issues in the US.   As the rest of the world tends not to have free speech laws in the same fashion as the US,  we don't get caught up arguing who's right it is to say something and concentrate on where it is being said and is it resulting in a problem.  Google get frequently charged with anti competitive behavior in the EU for their search engine, MS for IE, Apple for their charger port, etc.   

 

Personally the reason I raise the issue of protestors shutting down speaking events on campus's in the US earlier was because it highlights just how hard it is to have a conversation in the US on anything.  People cry free speech to the point of no one being held accountable for anything, even when those actions are clearly leading to everything from the denial of one person to continue speaking at a legal function to children dying of measles.    If that doesn't tell you something is wrong then nothing will.

Agreed, US is a shithole when it comes to their laws and how they enforce and interpret them. I think the free speech part is very well summarized in Madam Secretary S05E20:

"That's the problem with your so-called free speech. It is another weapon that can be bought and sold." ~ Konstantin Avdonin, Foreign minister of Russia

 

It's just too bad when it comes to the internet that US has the most power over it and what happens in the US affects the internet. Like only when allocating IP addresses IANA (American non-profit organization) has the greatest authority (IANA allocates the addresses to RIRs who then manage them in their own regions) and IEEE (American professional association) basicly rules over every standard that touches computers. Neither of them are bad or corrupt or anything like that but the problem is that they are under US jurisdiction and as so US has quite a power over the internet (not to even talk about backbone databases and other systems (from 1008 root server instances online 192 are in the US but from total of 1161 root servers 1014 are uphold by American organization) and the biggest corporations and everything they have).

[Fire2box]

Cloudflare is 100% in their legal rights to drop 8chan as a client. 

 

but they might want to delete this. July 09, 2017 4:29PM We at Cloudflare strongly believe in network neutrality, the principle that networks should not discriminate against content that passes through them.

 

Just as Samsung has deleted the ad's making fun of apple removing headphone jacks. 

[ivan134]

On 8/9/2019 at 8:43 PM, Fire2box said:

Cloudflare is 100% in their legal rights to drop 8chan as a client. 

 

but they might want to delete this. July 09, 2017 4:29PM We at Cloudflare strongly believe in network neutrality, the principle that networks should not discriminate against content that passes through them.

 

Just as Samsung has deleted the ad's making fun of apple removing headphone jacks. 

This is just you misunderstanding what network neutrality is.

[DeScruff]

I hate Necroing but...

On 8/9/2019 at 8:43 PM, Fire2box said:

Cloudflare is 100% in their legal rights to drop 8chan as a client. 

 

but they might want to delete this. July 09, 2017 4:29PM We at Cloudflare strongly believe in network neutrality, the principle that networks should not discriminate against content that passes through them.

 

Just as Samsung has deleted the ad's making fun of apple removing headphone jacks. 

I have to disagree Net Neutrality is about the traffic a customer makes, not about who you want to deal with as a customer.

Its like: If your already drunk, a Bartender may not want you as a customer. But if you are sober and a customer, the bartender can't water down or deny you whatever your order is.

There are of course issues, with ISPs denying who they want as a customer, but that I believe is a separate issue.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Sypran said:

I hate Necroing but...

I have to disagree Net Neutrality is about the traffic a customer makes, not about who you want to deal with as a customer.

Its like: If your already drunk, a Bartender may not want you as a customer. But if you are sober and a customer, the bartender can't water down or deny you whatever your order is.

There are of course issues, with ISPs denying who they want as a customer, but that I believe is a separate issue.

Pretty much this, the law needs to protect internet access as a right, but it shouldn't compel private companies to entertain business that potentially causes a loss.  laws should protect an individual or companies right to have a website but not compel another company to host it for them.  I know there are technical issues surrounding the application of this. But just like many modern world issues, that's the cut of it like it or not.

[Fire2box]

On 9/6/2019 at 7:52 AM, Sypran said:

I hate Necroing but...

I have to disagree Net Neutrality is about the traffic a customer makes, not about who you want to deal with as a customer.

Its like: If your already drunk, a Bartender may not want you as a customer. But if you are sober and a customer, the bartender can't water down or deny you whatever your order is.

There are of course issues, with ISPs denying who they want as a customer, but that I believe is a separate issue.

They are the ones saying networks shouldn't discriminate content that passes trough them. They very well just did exactly that. 

 

They can do it. I just wish they didn't act hypocritical and therefor should remove their neutrality stance. 

[Fire2box]

On 9/6/2019 at 5:10 PM, mr moose said:

Pretty much this, the law needs to protect internet access as a right, but it shouldn't compel private companies to entertain business that potentially causes a loss. 

So then AT&T should be able to block Netflix? 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Fire2box said:

So then AT&T should be able to block Netflix? 

no, At&T are an internet provider, that would go against protecting internet access as a right. 

 

If AT&T can't provide access to netflix because they don;t have the infrastructure then they either need to upgrade their infrastructure or charge less because the service is crap.  Either way blocking parts of the internet is not acceptable. 

 

That is the true nature of a free market,  the company that can provide either the best service or the cheapest service wins the customers, not which company has a monopoly.

 

[Fire2box]

On 9/19/2019 at 9:01 PM, mr moose said:

no, At&T are an internet provider, that would go against protecting internet access as a right. 

 

If AT&T can't provide access to netflix because they don;t have the infrastructure then they either need to upgrade their infrastructure or charge less because the service is crap.  Either way blocking parts of the internet is not acceptable. 

 

That is the true nature of a free market,  the company that can provide either the best service or the cheapest service wins the customers, not which company has a monopoly.

 

Weird it's just that Netflix can cause AT&T a loss certainly far more then cloudflare having a image/message board. Either way the simple fact is they no longer want to remain neutral themselves yet demand others be it. 

[dalekphalm]

16 minutes ago, Fire2box said:

Weird it's just that Netflix can cause AT&T a loss certainly far more then cloudflare having a image/message board. Either way the simple fact is they no longer want to remain neutral themselves yet demand others be it. 

Netflix can cause AT&T a loss because they are competitors. AT&T runs their own streaming/IP TV services that compete with Netflix. But since AT&T is also the ISP, that means they have vertical integration, which gives them a massive advantage over Netflix.

 

Cloudflare is not a competitor with 8chan. 8chan is doing stuff that is potentially harming the reputation of CloudFlare.

 

Netflix doesn't harm AT&T's reputation (at least... outside of it being far superior to AT&T's offerings in the streaming space, that is).

 

They are different situations. Context matters.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Fire2box said:

Either way the simple fact is they no longer want to remain neutral themselves yet demand others be it. 

There's neutral and then there is knowingly providing services to entities that are breaking laws or aiding and abetting laws being broken, that isn't 'neutral' either. Situations can get complicated, you can still have a principal of neutral service operation but exceptions can and do happen. One exception doesn't entirely invalidate such a belief.

 

They have and still want to be neutral, that has not changed. What we know now is that you cannot freely abuse this neutrality stance and expect nothing to happen, because while the service may be neutral customer impact on business operations and reputation is not.

[The_Prycer]

Goodnight sweet prince. Your memes were just too dank for this world

[mr moose]

On 9/22/2019 at 2:12 AM, Fire2box said:

Weird it's just that Netflix can cause AT&T a loss certainly far more then cloudflare having a image/message board. Either way the simple fact is they no longer want to remain neutral themselves yet demand others be it. 

In this situation netflix is not causing a loss for AT&T, AT&T is an ISP and netflix is just one service the internet is used for,  if AT&T can't provide access to all of the internet because their network isn't good enough, then that is their problem and has nothing to do with netflix.

 

Cloudflare is one of many private service providers, they can absolutely choose not to do business with a group on the grounds it costs them money either in bad PR, excessive network congestion (due to illegal DDOS prevention) or simply as a legal mitigation.