Cloudflare terminate 8Chan

[tech.guru]

5 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

 

I'm pretty sure those imageboards contain all kinds both of the extreme left and extreme right. With extremely lax moderation ideas of all sorts can blossom, even those others or even the general public may not agree with. Sites such as 4chan and 8chan are a dual edged sword. Even with slight moderation, you can easily introduce religious, political, and other idealistic bias for conversational topics, preventing truly free speech. On the other hand, having no moderation, you're allowing potential for conversational topics and media to allow the promotion and sale of sexual and physical abuse.

the real concern should be the extremism ideas, not the platform. the fact the platform is open and allows dialogue is a good thing.

 

if it was out in public, why did the police do nothing?

they so busy asking to break encryption to stop terrorism why are they not reviewing information thats clearly visible?

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

wait there's 4 chan and an 8 chan? 

[Commodus]

2 minutes ago, tech.guru said:

the real concern should be the extremism ideas, not the platform. the fact the platform is open and allows dialogue is a good thing.

 

if it was out in public, why did the police do nothing?

they so busy asking to break encryption to stop terrorism why are they not reviewing information thats clearly visible?

Because, unfortunately, the shooting info usually comes out when it's too late to do anything.  You don't see 8channers saying "I'm gonna shoot me some Hispanics" days in advance, you find out when the shooter posts their manifesto minutes before the shooting.  And while 8chan is an environment that encourages and celebrates these shootings, those acts aren't necessarily illegal by themselves.

[Commodus]

9 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I think people generally confuse morality with actual laws.

That's the thing, really -- 8chan is a despicable place that shouldn't really exist, but I wouldn't expect the police to step in unless someone actively called for specific crimes or said they were about to commit crimes.  It's up to companies to take a moral stand and distance themselves.

[Andreas Lilja]

Still waiting for those peer-reviewed studies that say that shutting down 8chan is going to fix things. 

[FakeNSA]

9 hours ago, Derangel said:

Should we also ban Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc because they have also influenced mass killers and non-mass killers? People have used Facebook to livestream murders and other crimes.

Exactly. Yesterday, I read a (insert progressive commentary site here) article, that was titled: 8chan is fostering mass murder, or something like that. They then proceeded to show how 8chan was only one of six sites on which you could find the Christchurch video/etc, and that despite facebook/etc attempts to take down these videos, the speed at which they were reuploaded essentially made them just as acessible on a non "Free Speech Platform" as they were on 8chan. Like, these people are disgusting, but 8chan isn't a cause, it is a symptom.

[Andreas Lilja]

Forget 8chan, it's the vidya games my bros.

[SenKa]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

I can't speak for 8chan, but for 4chan, what you describe only happens on /pol/ and maybe /b/. The rest of the dozens of boards don't have any more alt-right racists than, say, LTT forums. Lumping all the boards into one really shows you don't know what you are talking about.

As a member of the /b/ discord, can confirm. I never talk there, only lurk to make fun of dumb people.

[EarthWormJM2]

12 hours ago, Commodus said:

8chan isn't going to get much sympathy -- it knowingly allows people who foster and celebrate mass murders.  Even if you're a hardcore "free speech at all costs" type, it's pretty hard to justify supporting a site that endorses particularly heinous illegal activity.

There is a very important distinction between free speech and promoting/organizing violence. One is supported by the US constitution (which is ingrained and very important to us from the states for those of you elsewhere in the world not understanding why we are so forceful with free speech) and legal, the other is already illegal and has laws in place for it (at least here in the states). If you wanna find other racist people to share your hate with, go ahead. But the moment you try to instigate violence or organize anything, then it's illegal. And it should stay that way. I'm not supporting hate, but the government making any censorship laws based on saying specific things (at least here in the US) is unconstitutional. 

 

And we all know that if 8chan ends up going away, another site will pop up in it's place, it's the internet. 

[matrix07012]

3 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, if they are talking about drawn stuff there are many countries that legally do not care because, while we might morally agree that what they're hosting/viewing is wrong, it still is a victim less crime.  Like I could shoot up a place in a game, but irl is where there would be victims.   

Read the account name. They mean actual cp.

Btw if you check certificates issued by Cloudflare, you can find it alongside some zoo stuff.

[Commodus]

37 minutes ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

There is a very important distinction between free speech and promoting/organizing violence. One is supported by the US constitution (which is ingrained and very important to us from the states for those of you elsewhere in the world not understanding why we are so forceful with free speech) and legal, the other is already illegal and has laws in place for it (at least here in the states). If you wanna find other racist people to share your hate with, go ahead. But the moment you try to instigate violence or organize anything, then it's illegal. And it should stay that way. I'm not supporting hate, but the government making any censorship laws based on saying specific things (at least here in the US) is unconstitutional. 

 

And we all know that if 8chan ends up going away, another site will pop up in it's place, it's the internet. 

Oh, I know, but private companies aren't obligated to host material just because it's technically legal.

 

And just because a replacement for 8chan might pop up doesn't mean you shouldn't let them sit around.  These sites not only fuel crimes, they recruit people who otherwise might not have fallen that far into hatred and violence.  We should make these sites feel unwelcome at all times, everywhere, forever.

[matrix07012]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, it says lolicon which usually refers to a form of drawn female children/also those who look young yet aren't, not actual children.  Still not a crime in a lot of countries because there is no victim.  Their wording also doesn't clarify they meant the actual victim type.  I've never heard of them, but I also don't go to 4/8/whatever chan.  So, I've never really heard of them.  lol

Why would someone who defends loli call it cp and report it?

[Lurick]

44 minutes ago, comander said:

I'm FOR letting pretty much any discussion board exist so long as they aren't actively facilitating egregious illegal activities. I generally error on the side of having a light touch approach.

There is a pretty good argument to be made for keeping up that stuff instead of playing wack-a-mole with them and forcing them to less "law enforcement friendly" places. If you keep them in plain view then law enforcement can easily monitor and round up those idiots who publicly post about this sort of stuff and it's easier to track them down in many cases (not all but I would say a good many). There are even times where law enforcement wants those sites to stay up so they can work with the host and track down people engaged in that sort of activity. Of course there is always other issues with this sort of stuff and I'm not saying "keep up illegal sites" but sometimes it's better to keep them close and monitor than push them away I guess is what I'm trying to get at.

[Unixsystem]

13 hours ago, strajk- said:

I don't like the fact that you're quoting 4chan in this, sure there are questionable individuals there but it's in no way shape or form comparable to 8chan, that place is surface level darkweb tier when it comes to controversial opinions and talking points.

4chan is incredibly important to mention since the only reason that 8chan ever got any traction was because 4chan started banning people over relatively mundane "controversial" topics. Those people all were forced to migrate somewhere else, found 8chan, and 8chan gradually got more and more extreme in its views as a result of being comprised largely of people who weren't allowed to discuss things on 4chan.

 

So tell me, with 8chan gone, what's going to happen to the next refuge that these folks are forced to run to? Is it going to somehow be less radical than 8chan was, or are these people who feel wronged going to double down on their views?

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, Lurick said:

If you keep them in plain view then law enforcement can easily monitor and round up those idiots who publicly post about this sort of stuff and it's easier to track them down in many cases (not all but I would say a good many).

This is the part that has historically been a problem and hardly anything really gets done, not to any effective degree anyway. Most countries do actually have due process and robust protections of citizens freedoms so being an asshole online doesn't warrant any legal action, not saying that needs to change but it pretty much leaves the only option as ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

 

These types of problems generally make me have the opinion of you can either have freedom of speech/expression or anonymity, pick only one.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Uncommented is that it's a little annoying companies like CloudFlare need to exist because DDoS is so easy. CloudFlare, as a company, is making the decisions that keep their lights on, which is always not pissing of Western governments. It's been decided 8chan is at fault for this one, so it's simply about dumping 8chan from major platforms. 

 

It's the business side of protection rackets, even if it's "legal". 

Or they just don't want bad PR from associating with 8ch.

 

10 hours ago, cj09beira said:

as long as there are alternatives a company not wanting to work with you is fine, if its a monopoly its another story,

Even if their aren't alternatives, a company is under no legal obligation to provide a service they deem to be bad for their image/product/revenue/whatever, even if a product is widely needed and a monopoly exists then the problem is anti trust not censorship.

 

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

 

Not really, communism itself only says that the government (or more broadly whatever form of administration is decided upon by the people) should provide everyone with what is necessary to live respectably. In societies like the soviet union that was taken further (plus there was a dictatorship which isn't really what you would want in a society that is supposed to have no classes and no hierarchies) but communism isn't inherently against the existence of companies offering or refusing to offer services under certain conditions.

 

Show me a communist regime that doesn't have excessive control over what what services a company can and cannot provide.   And more to the point the amount they must charge for it.   There is a reason most industry in communist countries is state owned,  even in China that has a very real recent history of self made millionaires and entrepreneurs there is a heavy state owned and state controlled intervention in enterprise.

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Even if their aren't alternatives, a company is under no legal obligation to provide a service they deem to be bad for their image/product/revenue/whatever, even if a product is widely needed and a monopoly exists then the problem is anti trust not censorship.

This is false in the US. For example a bakery was sued (and found guilty) for refusing to bake a wedding cake to a gay couple. 

 

Imagine if all farmers got together and said "we will from now on refuse to sell food to people who vote left", and the banks going "if you vote left then we will not lend you any money". That is essentially what is happening online, except instead of farmers its hosting platforms. 

 

It would absolutely cripple anyone who voted left, and would probably start having major impacts on the democratic system. Would that be fair? 

 

The problem with the entire "it's a private company so they can do whatever they want" is that these pri ate companies, especially when they collaborate together, has more control and power than the government does. When they start acting based on politics then it undermines the democratic system, which is very, very dangerous. 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

This is false in the US. For example a bakery was sued (and found guilty) for refusing to bake a wedding cake to a gay couple. 

 

Imagine if all farmers got together and said "we will from now on refuse to sell food to people who vote left", and the banks going "if you vote left then we will not lend you any money". That is essentially what is happening online, except instead of farmers its hosting platforms. 

 

It would absolutely cripple anyone who voted left, and would probably start having major impacts on the democratic system. Would that be fair? 

 

The problem with the entire "it's a private company so they can do whatever they want" is that these pri ate companies, especially when they collaborate together, has more control and power than the government does. When they start acting based on politics then it undermines the democratic system, which is very, very dangerous. 

There is a difference between "voting right" and engaging in relentless hate against minorities. But in case you missed it, the left has been socially repressed in the US for decades throughout the 20th century. And this was state repression, not just companies deciding they disliked the most extreme leftists.

 

Don't like companies having excessive power over your life? Maybe you should consider socialism.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This is false in the US. For example a bakery was sued (and found guilty) for refusing to bake a wedding cake to a gay couple. 

 

Imagine if all farmers got together and said "we will from now on refuse to sell food to people who vote left", and the banks going "if you vote left then we will not lend you any money". That is essentially what is happening online, except instead of farmers its hosting platforms. 

 

It would absolutely cripple anyone who voted left, and would probably start having major impacts on the democratic system. Would that be fair? 

 

The problem with the entire "it's a private company so they can do whatever they want" is that these pri ate companies, especially when they collaborate together, has more control and power than the government does. When they start acting based on politics then it undermines the democratic system, which is very, very dangerous. 

How is discrimination and consumer affairs the same as censorship or corporate contracts?

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Again, that doesn't matter. Modern Vietnam is quite chill from what I hear though.

It does matter, quite a bit,  We still get a lot of Vietnamese asylum seekers here in Australia,  We have anywhere up to 6000 new every year. 

[spartaman64]

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This is false in the US. For example a bakery was sued (and found guilty) for refusing to bake a wedding cake to a gay couple. 

 

Imagine if all farmers got together and said "we will from now on refuse to sell food to people who vote left", and the banks going "if you vote left then we will not lend you any money". That is essentially what is happening online, except instead of farmers its hosting platforms. 

 

It would absolutely cripple anyone who voted left, and would probably start having major impacts on the democratic system. Would that be fair? 

 

The problem with the entire "it's a private company so they can do whatever they want" is that these pri ate companies, especially when they collaborate together, has more control and power than the government does. When they start acting based on politics then it undermines the democratic system, which is very, very dangerous. 

also that might not be the best example since the baker won in the supreme court

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

also that might not be the best example since the baker won in the supreme court

I mean, I think there's a pretty big difference between a small business and a huge corporation.

 

Plus, if that case was about a provider (like cloudflare in this case) refusing to give the baker (8chan in this case) the ingredients to bake the cake, I'm pretty sure the couple would have won. 

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I mean, I think there's a pretty big difference between a small business and a huge corporation.

 

Plus, if that case was about a provider (like cloudflare in this case) refusing to give the baker (8chan in this case) the ingredients to bake the cake, I'm pretty sure the couple would have won. 

 

I don't think 8ch can argue discrimination if cloudflare can prove that providing 8ch with their services is not a viable option due to the degraded PR and the fact they are a high target for ddos.  

 

 

[Sauron]

47 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It does matter, quite a bit

No, it really doesn't. If an object is large and pink that does not mean that all large objects must be pink.

 

People also seek asylum from the US.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't think 8ch can argue discrimination if cloudflare can prove that providing 8ch with their services is not a viable option due to the degraded PR and the fact they are a high target for ddos.  

Perhaps, but isn't DDoS protection one of the things they do? Protecting a target like 8chan could potentially help them improve their services even more. And honestly tho, I doubt it was even that bad for PR. Before this I didn't even know that cloudflare hosted 8chan and I didn't see anyone blame cloudflare for this. 

[spartaman64]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I don't think 8ch can argue discrimination if cloudflare can prove that providing 8ch with their services is not a viable option due to the degraded PR and the fact they are a high target for ddos.  

 

 

they probably dont even have to prove that. they could say we hate the number 8 and prefer that number 7 and thats why we stopped hosting them and 8chan cant do anything