Cloudflare terminate 8Chan

[miagisan]

23 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Censorship? While platforms can decide what content they want on the platform (like for example, no pornographic content on YouTube) they can't censor specific viewpoints they don't like. (Doesn't mean that they have to promote them though)

Wouldn't you say that this is comparable to Facebook/YouTube being allowed to censor viewpoints they don't like? Basically if a big corporation decides to censor specific opinions to put a candidate they want in a position of power, couldn't they do that? 

Sure, but the public was the one who put them in a position of power. Probably because they were dissatisfied with the government or because they were misinformed (possibly because the Nazis were supressing opposing viewpoints while promoting their hateful ideology)

If how doesn't matter then why are we even discussing this. I think it's safe to say that most countries that have freedom of speech aren't ruled by people with hateful ideas and hateful opinions are (usually) deeply unpopular and frowned upon. So no one has really even gotten to the roof.

why cant youtube censor your videos? the laws of the US constitution do not apply internationally. China heavily censors all internet traffic...company like facebook, google, etc cant just start throwing around the constitution around the far east saying "FREE SPEECH!!!". Doesnt work like that. The government has no right to limit free speech in the countries that it pertains to, companies on the other hand must protect their product and provide services as they see fit.

[miagisan]

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

There is one big difference between Facebook and LTT. LTT is a tech forum that has less total users than Facebook has daily. And LTT isn't even close to a monopoly in tech forums, don't like it? There are plenty of viable alternatives. You can't say the same for YouTube or Facebook. In my post I was talking about huge platforms, like Facebook, YouTube, Reddit etc.

I agree, I just don't agree that a few big companies should be able to tell me what I can say and what I can't.

And cloudflare is not a monopoly either. There are MANY platforms they could move too. Facebook is also not a monopoly, neither is youtube. There is NOTHING stopping 8chan to move to other platforms, other than if that platform will accept them.

 

Size doesnt matter, i am sure Linus wouldn't want talk about how to hack a computer, pirate video games, etc. He is trying to build his companies brand, and hence why there are rules on how the company must act and what services it would provide. Size has nothing to do with it. Say one day, this forum becomes the largest tech forum in the world (hypothetical), at that point you would say "F IT! Lets let piracy talk, stealing software, etc be allowed because of FREE SPEECH!!!".....i highly doubt it.

[PCGuy_5960]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Can you point to a source that says YouTube can't censor people?

 

It might be a PR backlash if they do censor people, but as far as I'm aware, they have that right, so long as it doesn't break other laws in the process.

As I said, I'm not sure. I think that YouTube as a platform isn't allowed to do that, as that is brought up every time they decide to remove a video because of backlash/complaints. Feel free to prove me wrong.

9 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

It's not like that, because what Facebook and YouTube are doing is legal. They can censor you, if they want. Because they are a private business. The same way I can tell you to shut up if you are spouting stuff I don't like in my own home

 

1 minute ago, miagisan said:

why cant youtube censor your videos? the laws of the US constitution do not apply internationally. China heavily censors all internet traffic...company like facebook, google, etc cant just start throwing around the constitution around the far east saying "FREE SPEECH!!!". Doesnt work like that. The government has no right to limit free speech in the countries that it pertains to, companies on the other hand must protect their product and provide services as they see fit.

Yes, they may be allowed to do that, but I'm arguing that they shouldn't. As I've said before, I think it's quite obvious why letting a few big corporations police speech is bad for everyone.

 

Also wouldn't you agree that free speech in countries in the far East could potentially help with things like women's rights? I don't get why it would be such a bad thing.

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

They were put into power because realistically there was no one there to oppose them. They literally beat up opponents, or threatened people's families if they voted for the opposition, or even made people disappear (meaning: murder). They frightened away most opposition and threatened anyone who would dare vote for what little opposition remained.

So basically the lack of actual freedom of speech or freedom in general is what gave them power? If freedom of speech was a thing, there would have been opposition, right? An opposition would have pointed out why their ideas were stupid, right?

 

[miagisan]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

 

 

Yes, they may be allowed to do that, but I'm arguing that they shouldn't. As I've said before, I think it's quite obvious why letting a few big corporations police speech is bad for everyone.

 

 

Policing speech is generally frowned upon, but everyone does it, including myself and you as well in your personal life. It is the companies rights to provide the service they want to provide. Hence why i use LTT as a perfect example. I enjoy this forum, ran a few of my own, and enjoy many others. Each has their own rules and their own terms you must abide by. The government does not dictate this, but the company itself does.

[Majinhoju]

With these companies being international, who then sets the limits of what can or cannot be censored if we get the government involved?  Which country's government do they hand the keys off to?

The problem with giving the censorship control away from the corporations is that you're infringing on their rights to protect their business image and platform, and you're dictating how they should run their service.  I doubt Linus would want to the government to tell him to send all his mods home and let every post here stay up in the name of free speech.  He wants to keep a clean and friendly forum community.  And that right shouldn't be taken from him.

[PCGuy_5960]

3 minutes ago, miagisan said:

And cloudflare is not a monopoly either.

True, I guess.

4 minutes ago, miagisan said:

Facebook is also not a monopoly, neither is youtube.

Really? Give me one example of a video sharing website that is as big as YouTube. Sure there are a few others, but compared to how big YouTube is, they are barely competitors. Same thing with Facebook. It's kind of like Intel vs AMD before Ryzen, sure, Intel technically wasn't a monopoly, but let's be honest no one was actually buying FXs.

7 minutes ago, miagisan said:

Size doesnt matter,

Sure, influence does. YouTube and Facebook arguably have way more influence than all mainstream media combined.

8 minutes ago, miagisan said:

i am sure Linus wouldn't want talk about how to hack a computer, pirate video games, etc. 

Yep, because that's actually illegal? In the same way that YouTube is completely justified to remove videos with actual calls to violence, because they are actually illegal.

5 minutes ago, miagisan said:

Each has their own rules and their own terms you must abide by. The government does not dictate this, but the company itself does.

Sure, but I was talking a bit more about censoring specific viewpoints. A platform can choose not to allow political content, but if they do allow it they shouldn't be allowed to censor specific viewpoints. 

 

A company censoring only specific ideas would be the equivalent of LTT deleting comments supporting AMD. It shouldn't be allowed.

[dalekphalm]

21 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

As I said, I'm not sure. I think that YouTube as a platform isn't allowed to do that, as that is brought up every time they decide to remove a video because of backlash/complaints. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I'm not going to prove a negative - you made the claim, you prove it. You think that YouTube isn't allowed to censor people - prove it.

21 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yes, they may be allowed to do that, but I'm arguing that they shouldn't. As I've said before, I think it's quite obvious why letting a few big corporations police speech is bad for everyone.

Big corporations that have had platforms for others have always policed speech in their own sphere - obviously with the advent of Social Media, that sphere is very large - but let's not pretend like Facebook will be around forever.

 

Does anyone remember MySpace? Yep. They were the social media platform before Facebook came by and said "hold my beer" - there were others too, such as Hi5, etc. There will be more - Google tried with Google+. Eventually someone will make one that is as good or better than Facebook, and either Facebook will simply become one of multiple, or they will die.

21 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

So basically the lack of actual freedom of speech or freedom in general is what gave them power? If freedom of speech was a thing, there would have been opposition, right? An opposition would have pointed out why their ideas were stupid, right?

Huh? They were doing illegal acts. They were violating the law to get what they wanted. There was Freedom of Speech in Germany before they took power. But the government couldn't stand up to them for various reasons (Part of which was the fact that they had certain former war heroes and other military and police members on their side).

[msknight]

YouTube can censor people. They kicked Alex Jones off. ... sort of

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

What legal difference is there outside of copyright?

Plublishers are responsible for EVERYTHING they publish. That includes libel/slander. They're legally able to pick and choose what views and opinions to host.

 

Platforms are only responsible for anything that  explicitly violates criminal law, such as child porn. They aren't responsible for stuff such as libel/slander or threats. They can't pick and choose what opinions they want to host, though they can moderate outside the basis of politics or religion.

[dalekphalm]

18 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

True, I guess.

Really? Give me one example of a video sharing website that is as big as YouTube. Sure there are a few others, but compared to how big YouTube is, they are barely competitors. Same thing with Facebook. It's kind of like Intel vs AMD before Ryzen, sure, Intel technically wasn't a monopoly, but let's be honest no one was actually buying FXs.

Sure, influence does. YouTube and Facebook arguably have way more influence than all mainstream media combined.

And who gets to decide when a company becomes "too big"? You?

18 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yep, because that's actually illegal? In the same way that YouTube is completely justified to remove videos with actual calls to violence, because they are actually illegal.

Sure, but I was talking a bit more about censoring specific viewpoints. A platform can choose not to allow political content, but if they do allow it they shouldn't be allowed to censor specific viewpoints. 

 

A company censoring only specific ideas would be the equivalent of LTT deleting comments supporting AMD. It shouldn't be allowed.

But LTT does censor stuff that isn't illegal - quite clearly too. Otherwise political debates would be allowed, or religious debates - or pretty much anything that's considered trolling or flamebait - none of that is "illegal".

 

Are you saying that if LTT became as big as Facebook, Linus and co should be forced into allowing political and religious debate? Intel vs AMD flame wars? Anti-Apple hatewagons (those still happen, frankly)?

 

Microsoft vs Linux wars? etc?

 

Do you not see the problem in forcing a company to allow anything onto it's platform, even if those go against the wishes of that company (or the values of the brand)?

[miagisan]

15 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

True, I guess.

Really? Give me one example of a video sharing website that is as big as YouTube. Sure there are a few others, but compared to how big YouTube is, they are barely competitors. Same thing with Facebook. It's kind of like Intel vs AMD before Ryzen, sure, Intel technically wasn't a monopoly, but let's be honest no one was actually buying FXs.

Youtube is big, but there are MANY video sharing websites out there: Liveleak, Vimeo, Metacafe, etc. Each with their own terms of service. Lots of things, for example, are acceptable on live leak but not youtube (showing death, accidents, etc). Why? Is that the government dictating it? or the companies having different allowances? 

15 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Sure, influence does. YouTube and Facebook arguably have way more influence than all mainstream media combined.

Thats because they provide a service that people like. Why is that? Because of the quality and service. If people flock to it, it must be working. Remember MySpace? They were bigger than facebook. They failed because they could not provide the service that Facebook provided. Its Pure Capitalism. You provide a service, and if people like it, they will flock to it. 

15 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yep, because that's actually illegal?

In what country? Who is dictating the laws onto the internet? Is software piracy illegal in say Somalia? No. There is nothing stating as such. The company who is providing the service is dictating the rules of their intellectual property.

15 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

In the same way that YouTube is completely justified to remove videos with actual calls to violence, because they are actually illegal.

Again, illegal in which country? Does your laws trump the rest of the worlds laws and freedoms?

15 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Sure, but I was talking a bit more about censoring specific viewpoints. A platform can choose not to allow political content, but if they do allow it they shouldn't be allowed to censor specific viewpoints. 

If i go onto a christian website and start posting on how great the devil is, that should be allowed right? LTT talks tech but we cannot talk about how to pirate software (even though it is not illegal in many parts of the world). What if i lived somewhere where it wasnt illegal, can i talk about it here on LTT?

15 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

 

A company censoring only specific ideas would be the equivalent of LTT deleting comments supporting AMD. It shouldn't be allowed.

But you do it on this website, example: no topics which would cause flame wars. Why? Maybe i want to incite some inflammatory discussion for my own personal enjoyment. Its not illegal, but its one of YOUR rules.

[Thaldor]

9 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm not going to prove a negative - you made the claim, you prove it. You think that YouTube isn't allowed to censor people - prove it.

-snip-

I'm not saying it's illegal for YT or as bigger Alphabet to filter the content they host as they wish. But if you take totally hypocritical example that Alphabet decided to ban person X from their services, totally, completely, no traces, no anything, I would say at that moment it would become censorship. And I mean Alphabet wouldn't only ban the person X from using it's services and services it funds, but removed every single bit of information about this person X, Google search wouldn't give any hits, YT channel gone and any videos made about this gone also, Google Fiber terminated, every service funded through GV, Jigsaw and CapitalG terminated and banned, Google Drive gone, Android phone cut off from Alphabets services and just everything gone, you wouldn't find any information about person X or anything related to him/her from any Alphabet owned or funded service and person X couldn't use any Alphabet owned or funded service. How huge company Alphabet is and how many different ventures and services it has under it's thumb that person X could very well be deleted from the internet.

 

Not to even talk if that person X has a company and Alphabet would apply that ban to that company also. In todays world being deleted and banned from Google Search is a death blow for any company that relies on internet ads and visibility. I would say even Microsoft, Apple and any other mega corporation would feel it if they were removed from Google Search. And that could very possibly be read as censorship or discrimination because Google has been already quite few times in deep trouble over favoring their own products over competitors in Google Search results, straight out deletion from the results without some kind of law enforcement or other governmental or legal intervention would very well get Alphabet into very deep trouble.

 

And that who decides when company is big enough. In tech cases and even some others there has been used this very simple metric about when company is considered monopoly even when there is competition: When that competition is insignificant, like Google Search vs. BING or any otehr search engine market shares probably 90% vs 5% that is clearly a monopoly because there isn't a single search engine that could be considered realistically compete against Google they just barely exists; Windows vs MacOS same thing market shares are still around 80% vs 10% and against some Linux distro which shares the rest with others, there just isn't any realistic competition in markets; YouTube could be also realistically a monopoly which relies a lot about do we see Netflix, Hulu and others as it's competitors and how does services like Facebook which include user uploaded videos, but if we take those now out and look at the services that are exactly like YT like Vimeo, YouTube has a clear monopoly with market share probably in the 70-80% (73.37% by Datanyze), well, after looking that up YouTube is a monopoly clearly, that 73.37% market share compared to the next biggest being Vimeo with only 17.48%, next 4 services are <2% each and after those <0.5% and falling fast to the scales of 0.0X% and under, there isn't at least by Datanyze any real competition for YouTube because even that Vimeos 17.48% market share makes just a dent on YouTube and YT could buy Vimeo many times over if they saw them as that great threat.

[PCGuy_5960]

38 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Does anyone remember MySpace? Yep. They were the social media platform before Facebook came by and said "hold my beer" - there were others too, such as Hi5, etc. There will be more - Google tried with Google+. Eventually someone will make one that is as good or better than Facebook, and either Facebook will simply become one of multiple, or they will die.

Probably true, but I don't think that a potential competitor that isn't even out yet means that Facebook should be allowed to control what opinions are acceptable.

40 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

There was Freedom of Speech in Germany before they took power.

On paper, yes. If you can't express your opinion without the fear of getting beaten up or killed, freedom of speech doesn't actually exist.

29 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

And who gets to decide when a company becomes "too big"? You?

I think it's quite obvious when a website becomes too big. When it has multiple million users every day with billions of page views a day and little to no competition. 

31 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But LTT does censor stuff that isn't illegal - quite clearly too. Otherwise political debates would be allowed, or religious debates - or pretty much anything that's considered trolling or flamebait - none of that is "illegal".

 

Are you saying that if LTT became as big as Facebook, Linus and co should be forced into allowing political and religious debate? Intel vs AMD flame wars? Anti-Apple hatewagons (those still happen, frankly)?

 

Microsoft vs Linux wars? etc?

 

Do you not see the problem in forcing a company to allow anything onto it's platform, even if those go against the wishes of that company (or the values of the brand)?

My point basically is LTT is a tech forum, not an open platform like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. These rules are there to ensure that it works as a forum, aka, actual discussion about technology. The reason why flamewars are not allowed is because they rarely are discussions. 

30 minutes ago, miagisan said:

Youtube is big, but there are MANY video sharing websites out there: Liveleak, Vimeo, Metacafe, etc. Each with their own terms of service. Lots of things, for example, are acceptable on live leak but not youtube (showing death, accidents, etc). Why? Is that the government dictating it? or the companies having different allowances? 

Yep, none of these websites even close to as big as YouTube. YouTube can have its rules, but they should equally be enforced to everyone, because then it becomes censorship. 

36 minutes ago, miagisan said:

In what country? Who is dictating the laws onto the internet? Is software piracy illegal in say Somalia? No. There is nothing stating as such. The company who is providing the service is dictating the rules of their intellectual property.

Canada, and LTT is based in Canada.

36 minutes ago, miagisan said:

Again, illegal in which country? 

The US and European countries, which I would guess is where they majority of YouTube viewers are from.

38 minutes ago, miagisan said:

If i go onto a christian website and start posting on how great the devil is, that should be allowed right?

Christian website, so not an open platform like Twitter/Facebook.

40 minutes ago, miagisan said:

But you do it on this website, example: no topics which would cause flame wars. Why? Maybe i want to incite some inflammatory discussion for my own personal enjoyment. Its not illegal, but its one of YOUR rules.

Because it's a tech forum. A forum is a place to discuss things. Flamewars are not discussions, so they kind of defeat the purpose of a forum.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Probably true, but I don't think that a potential competitor that isn't even out yet means that Facebook should be allowed to control what opinions are acceptable.

But why? Your argument seems to boil down to the size of the company. You're advocating for punishing success.

 

And that's ironic coming from me - someone who fully well believes that regulating companies is important (because unfettered capitalism kinda sucks).

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

On paper, yes. If you can't express your opinion without the fear of getting beaten up or killed, freedom of speech doesn't actually exist.

By that logic, freedom of speech doesn't exist anywhere, ever, because that scenario could happen to just about any country with the right circumstances.

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I think it's quite obvious when a website becomes too big. When it has multiple million users every day with billions of page views a day and little to no competition. 

How many multiple millions? How little competition? Do you see the problem here?

 

One million users? Two million? Ten million? If the former, then LTT is pretty close to reaching that metric - the forum has over 560,000 users.

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

My point basically is LTT is a tech forum, not an open platform like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. These rules are there to ensure that it works as a forum, aka, actual discussion about technology. The reason why flamewars are not allowed is because they rarely are discussions. 

But the fact that flamewars don't lead to discussion is - in the end - an arbitrary rule created by the owners.

 

How is LTT not an open platform, yet Facebook is? Facebook is much like a discussion platform too. They both require user accounts to use, as well.

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yep, none of these websites even close to as big as YouTube. YouTube can have its rules, but they should equally be enforced to everyone, because then it becomes censorship. 

 

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Canada, and LTT is based in Canada.

That's true, but the servers for the forums are hosted in the US, if I recall.

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The US and European countries, which I would guess is where they majority of YouTube viewers are from.

But Europe (let alone individual countries within) have different laws than the US. So does Canada. What is the company supposed to do when one of these countries has a law that differs from the rest? What about when one of these countries has a law that is contradictory to the rest?

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Christian website, so not an open platform like Twitter/Facebook.

Because it's a tech forum. A forum is a place to discuss things. Flamewars are not discussions, so they kind of defeat the purpose of a forum.

But that's an arbitrary distinction. A forum can have any purpose the owners want. Flamewars could hypothetically allow someone to "see the truth" and change their opinion. We know that's not what happens most of the time, but that would still be contrary to "Freedom of speech" if we allowed that "right" to exist here.

 

You're setting rules for some companies that don't apply to others.

[Majinhoju]

Just because a company grows in size and popularity doesn't mean they should lose control of their content.  Every post here on LTT represents LTT in some way and LTT gets to decide which of these posts meets their standards.  If LTT suddenly explodes in popularly does that mean LTT loses control over their own community standards? I'm sure LTT has a business image it would like to protect regardless of their success.

 

It's the same concept on Facebook, Youtube etc... all the content they allow represents them to some degree.  Cloudflare obviously felt that holding onto 8chan as a customer would poorly reflect on Cloudflare thus giving them the boot.

[PCGuy_5960]

22 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You're advocating for punishing success.

How is telling companies "You can't control public opinion by censoring ideas you don't like" punishing success? I'm not saying that they should be fined or that they should pay more taxes or whatever.

22 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

How many multiple millions? How little competition? Do you see the problem here?

 

One million users? Two million? Ten million? If the former, then LTT is pretty close to reaching that metric - the forum has over 560,000 users.

1. The forum definitely doesn't have 560,000 daily users
2. I'm talking about platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google etc, so like 30 million daily active users or more

22 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

How is LTT not an open platform, yet Facebook is? Facebook is much like a discussion platform too. They both require user accounts to use, as well.

LTT is pretty much purely a tech forum. Facebook can be used for pretty much everything, videos, tech, politics, memes.

22 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That's true, but the servers for the forums are hosted in the US, if I recall.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the owner's country more relevant than the country the website is hosted in?

25 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But Europe (let alone individual countries within) have different laws than the US. So does Canada. What is the company supposed to do when one of these countries has a law that differs from the rest? What about when one of these countries has a law that is contradictory to the rest?

Doesn't YouTube have different versions of their website for different countries depending on their laws? I know that some videos are banned in specific countries because they are not allowed there.

27 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Flamewars could hypothetically allow someone to "see the truth" and change their opinion.

Let's be honest flamewars are almost never about the truth. Most of the time it's about different opinions and trying to force your opinion on someone else. The discussion that a flamewar creates is not productive.

[Majinhoju]

9 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

How is telling companies "You can't control public opinion by censoring ideas you don't like" punishing success? I'm not saying that they should be fined or that they should pay more taxes or whatever.

These are business decisions.

Facebook has started clamping down on what they believe to be hate speech in order to protect their community standards.  They did this because they want Facebook to continue being successful.  Youtube has either dropped or demonized videos they feel would be harmful to their business.  Cloudflare dropped 8chan because they would rather lose one customer than lose millions if 8chan keeps popping up in the news after more mass shootings. 

 

You would be denying them control over their own content.  Much of what gets censored or dropped is just a reaction to the current market.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

How is telling companies "You can't control public opinion by censoring ideas you don't like" punishing success? I'm not saying that they should be fined or that they should pay more taxes or whatever.

Punishment doesn't have to be monetary. You're taking away control that a smaller company still has - therefore, punishing success. It might even incentivise a company to attempt to keep it's userbase under whatever magical number is decided.

Quote

1. The forum definitely doesn't have 560,000 daily users
2. I'm talking about platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google etc, so like 30 million daily active users or more

What do daily users matter? Facebook and YouTube also have much smaller daily users than total users.

 

Furthermore, why 30 million? Why not 25 million? Why not 35 million? 30 million is 100% arbitrary.

Quote

LTT is pretty much purely a tech forum. Facebook can be used for pretty much everything, videos, tech, politics, memes.

So? The only reason it's a tech forum is because the owners, exercising their right to determine content, decided so. Tomorrow, Linus could announce that LTT is exclusively going to be about MyLittlePony discussion, and talking about tech is a bannable offense. It would likely kill the forum, but it would be his legal right to do so.

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the owner's country more relevant than the country the website is hosted in?

Nope. Both are relevant. How relevant they are, a legal expert would have to say. But just because my company is headquartered in, say, Latvia, doesn't mean squat if I operate my servers in the US. Realistically it means I'd have to follow both countries laws, but anything on that US server would most certainly be subject to US laws.

Quote

Doesn't YouTube have different versions of their website for different countries depending on their laws? I know that some videos are banned in specific countries because they are not allowed there.

Sort of - they do georestrict content due to copyright reasons, and some countries like Germany ban certain content.

Quote

Let's be honest flamewars are almost never about the truth. Most of the time it's about different opinions and trying to force your opinion on someone else. The discussion that a flamewar creates is not productive.

And who said discussion has to be productive? The owners did. And that's their choice to make.

 

You are advocating for taking away the owner's choice, and I'm not okay with that position. You are of course, free to use your own rights to hold that position, but I think it's a very scary thought to let government force that kind of control over a private body.

 

Free speech, as a legal concept, has only every applied to the government, not to any private companies.

[PCGuy_5960]

35 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

What do daily users matter?

The more daily users the more influence it has over people.

36 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Facebook and YouTube also have much smaller daily users than total users.

Obviously

37 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

So? The only reason it's a tech forum is because the owners, exercising their right to determine content, decided so. Tomorrow, Linus could announce that LTT is exclusively going to be about MyLittlePony discussion, and talking about tech is a bannable offense. It would likely kill the forum, but it would be his legal right to do so.

Yes, true. However, if you claim to be an open platform, you shouldn't censor opinions you disagree with.

42 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Nope. Both are relevant. How relevant they are, a legal expert would have to say. But just because my company is headquartered in, say, Latvia, doesn't mean squat if I operate my servers in the US. Realistically it means I'd have to follow both countries laws, but anything on that US server would most certainly be subject to US laws.

Interesting

44 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You are advocating for taking away the owner's choice, and I'm not okay with that position. You are of course, free to use your own rights to hold that position, but I think it's a very scary thought to let government force that kind of control over a private body.

 

46 minutes ago, Majinhoju said:

Facebook has started clamping down on what they believe to be hate speech in order to protect their community standards.  They did this because they want Facebook to continue being successful.

You're right, I guess. I'm mainly frustrated with a lot of websites using their vague hate speech guidelines to censor controversial opinions. I feel like a lot of them should at least make their guidelines clearer. (Especially the ones about hate speech)

 

Anyway, this discussion has gone quite off topic at this point. This thread is about cloudflare, not YouTube/Facebook.

[Majinhoju]

11 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You're right, I guess. I'm mainly frustrated with a lot of websites using their vague hate speech guidelines to censor controversial opinions. I feel like a lot of them should at least make their guidelines clearer. (Especially the ones about hate speech)

 

Anyway, this discussion has gone quite off topic at this point. This thread is about cloudflare, not YouTube/Facebook.

While it's not improbable that a company could force their own agenda through censorship, I don't think that's what we're witnessing.

I think the vagueness is simply that the market changes quickly.  What's socially acceptable to say one year could change the next.  The goalposts keep moving and much of what we see is reactionary.  8chan has been around for a while but their name has started popping up lately every time white nationalist shoots up a place so Cloudflare obviously wants nothing to do with that.   Had nobody said anything on Logan Paul's suicide forest video Youtube probably wouldn't have changed their rules on monetizing etc...

 

These companies want to stay profitable and part of that is at least giving the appearance that they have a high standard of morality.  If the market decides that certain ideas are harmful or offensive then these companies are just going to follow the $$$.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I'm mainly frustrated with a lot of websites using their vague hate speech guidelines to censor controversial opinions

Not all of them are controversal.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Plublishers are responsible for EVERYTHING they publish. That includes libel/slander. They're legally able to pick and choose what views and opinions to host.

That is because a publisher has copyright over what they publish and are the owners of it, because they have legal ownership over it that makes them liable for it. So it's copyright law still but in a roundabout way, I did think of this after I posted but it was too late.

 

Platforms are still responsible for what is on their platform, it's a mistake to think otherwise. They may have exemptions for certain things, those of which already mentioned, but that is a very select few things comparative to everything else. Copyright is just the current big talking point.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Define "dumb shit" and "misinformation". I bet that your definition is completely different from mine or anyone else's for that matter. Why should that dumb shit be punished, instead of being debunked through free speech? If an idea is actually dumb and misinformation, proving it wrong shouldn't be that hard. (for example, anti vax)

so why do we still have antivaxxer's successfully convincing people to not vaccinate their kids? why do we still have kids dying at the hands of this extreme misinformation?  because free speech does not mean people are smart enough to know when they are wrong, being duped or to shut up.  Antivaxxer's have been debunked easily ample times, but it does nothing because some people just refuse to accept reality (most of them are con artists who make money from it). 

 

You don't ask a murderer not to do it again and then let them go back into society, you don't ask a pedophile to stop it and let them go, so why let a repeat offender that is intentionally trying to manipulate people with what has been debunked ample times before and proven to be dangerous?  

 

So as I pointed out, sometimes the person deserves to be shut down, because the fear of what they are saying is genuinely a threat to many people.

 

 

Honestly, as soon as the discussion becomes about free speech people suddenly forget that speech is not a benign activity, they pretend it has no ability to influence or change anything.  If anyone genuinely believes that speech does not have this power then think about why there are so many laws that centre around defamation, libel, false advertising etc. 

[JohnMc45]

6 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

They were put into power because realistically there was no one there to oppose them. They literally beat up opponents, or threatened people's families if they voted for the opposition, or even made people disappear (meaning: murder). They frightened away most opposition and threatened anyone who would dare vote for what little opposition remained.

 

That is the fear here. Some big company could pull a Hitler not with a goon squad beating up and killing people but with there power and money. 
 

This whole problem is a catch 22. Mega monopolistic companies that can shape or drive society in one direction are not a good idea. However the only thing you can counter that with is more government and suppressing rights. Also not good.    

 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, JohnMc45 said:

 

This whole problem is a catch 22. Mega monopolistic companies that can shape or drive society in one direction are not a good idea. However the only thing you can counter that with is more government and suppressing rights. Also not good.    

 

That is why I always argue for a balance and for people to remember that living in a balanced society that is beneficial to everyone means we all have to make compromises.   But people want everything and absolutes for fear of something bad happening.  If you want absolutely privacy then you have criminals with absolute anonymity, if you want absolute openness of information then criminals have access to all your data, if you want complete protection from corporate control then you need complete government regulation, if you want complete freedom from government control then you become salves to the corporate machine.

 

 

People just need to realize that society needs a balance, people need mostly privacy and freedom, government needs to be able to govern (without influence from corporate society)  and companies need to operate in a mostly free market.