Cloudflare terminate 8Chan

[PCGuy_5960]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Not all of them are controversal.

True, often times unpopular facts are considered hate speech.

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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? 

You can't fix stupid, even if you banned all anti vaxxers, you'd still have people believing this shit. If someone believes a book they read online more than a doctor who spent years studying, they're probably not the sharpest tools in the shed.

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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.

Absolutely, but that's not "dumb shit" and it's not even protected under free speech. Calls to violence and things like yelling fire at a theater are illegal, even in the US.

 

Banning dumb shit/misinformation isn't something that can realistically be done. For example, "fake news" are often promoted by a lot of media outlets. Do you think that these outlets should be banned for spreading misinformation?

[JohnMc45]

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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. 

Simply playing whack a mole with where they post the BS is not going to stop the misinformation ether.  Couple of dozen antivaxxer's/magic healers up on charges for practicing medicine without a licence or getting there bum sued off all covered by the news would probably be a good start.  

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

 

You can't fix stupid, even if you banned all anti vaxxers, you'd still have people believing this shit. If someone believes a book they read online more than a doctor who spent years studying, they're probably not the sharpest tools in the shed.

But you can help to mitigate the damage they do by stopping them from doing it again.  Which is significantly more effective than trying to convince them to stop it.

 

 

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Absolutely, but that's not "dumb shit" and it's not even protected under free speech. Calls to violence and things like yelling fire at a theater are illegal, even in the US.

 

Banning dumb shit/misinformation isn't something that can realistically be done. For example, "fake news" are often promoted by a lot of media outlets. Do you think that these outlets should be banned for spreading misinformation?

 

So your issue is with my use of the term dumb shit?   By dumb shit I mean literally dangerous activities that cause harm.  Defamation in my world is dumb shit,  antivaxxer activity is dumb shit,  calling for a riot telling people you have proof all *insert race here* have been victims of police brutality, is dumb shit.   

 

Threatening violence at a campus speaking event in order to have it shut down is dumb shit.  In my mind there is absolutely nothing wrong with stopping those people from doing that when they are. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, JohnMc45 said:

Simply playing whack a mole with where they post the BS is not going to stop the misinformation ether.  Couple of dozen antivaxxer's/magic healers up on charges for practicing medicine without a licence or getting there bum sued off all covered by the news would probably be a good start.  

To me those are both more worthwhile and more effective than sitting here defending their right to say stupid shit hoping that logic wins out.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Your issue is with my use of the term dumb shit?   By dumb shit I mean literally dangerous activities that cause harm.  Defamation in my world is dumb shit,  antivaxxer activity is dumb shit,  calling for a riot telling people you have proof all *insert race here* have been victims of police brutality, is dumb shit.   

 

Threatening violence at a campus speaking event in order to have it shut down is dumb shit.  In my mind there is absolutely nothing wrong with stopping those people from doing that when they are. 

Yeah, I'd agree about these things. My issue was with the word dumb shit as it's even more vague than hate speech.

[ARikozuM]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So your issue is with my use of the term dumb shit?   By dumb shit I mean literally dangerous activities that cause harm.  Defamation in my world is dumb shit,  antivaxxer activity is dumb shit,  calling for a riot telling people you have proof all *insert race here* have been victims of police brutality, is dumb shit.   

You should be calling it for what it is. "Dumb shit" doesn't tell your friend or strangers that you're concerned with X. You could say scientific backwash, incite to violence, and racial profiling instead of "dumb shit". 

 

@dalekphalm I think consensus needs to be reached on when the company's rights should err towards individual rights or towards corporate rights. 

[JohnMc45]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

To me those are both more worthwhile and more effective than sitting here defending their right to say stupid shit hoping that logic wins out.

I think this can be summed up as. We believe in your right to say dumb shit, but we also believe we have a right to hold you accountable for your dumb shit. 

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But you can help to mitigate the damage they do by stopping them from doing it again.  Which is significantly more effective than trying to convince them to stop it.

 

 

 

So your issue is with my use of the term dumb shit?   By dumb shit I mean literally dangerous activities that cause harm.  Defamation in my world is dumb shit,  antivaxxer activity is dumb shit,  calling for a riot telling people you have proof all *insert race here* have been victims of police brutality, is dumb shit.   

 

Threatening violence at a campus speaking event in order to have it shut down is dumb shit.  In my mind there is absolutely nothing wrong with stopping those people from doing that when they are. 

So the correct response to inciting a riot is not to ban them from Facebook, but to arrest them for inciting a riot.

Same as there correct response to threating violence on campus if you don't get you way. Should be.  Don't come crying to us when campus police pepper spray your dumb ass.    

[fade]

Why are people confusing free speech with right to broadcast on a platform?  Free speech is the right to say what you want without repercussions from the GOVERNMENT.  NO ONE has a right to  say what you want on whatever platform they choose.  Im sure if I came your house on private property or private business and spew shit contrary to your beliefs or vulgar shit that would drive your customers away you'd just allow it and say it's free speech.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

You should be calling it for what it is. "Dumb shit" doesn't tell your friend or strangers that you're concerned with X. You could say scientific backwash, incite to violence, and racial profiling instead of "dumb shit". 

 

@dalekphalm I think consensus needs to be reached on when the company's rights should err towards individual rights or towards corporate rights. 

It's a general discussion, not a white paper for government intervention.   As it stands I am referring to dumb shit as being something that is dumb as opposed to something that is worth discussing or at the very least not outright wrong and dangerous as we understand it.   

 

Because everyone has a different line in the sand where something becomes an incite to riot or what scientific backwash is.  And to be honest we are talking about more than one aspect here,  so a general term that describes something as dumb should be used instead of derailing the main point by getting into specifics about a myriad of conditions. . 

 

At some point the activity in question will go beyond rational debate and become a dumb argument.  That is what I am referring to. 

 

 

EDIT: I should point out that the point I was (and still am) addressing was very generic and only applied to some things, but it was presented as if it was an answer to everything.  When pointing out that the line moves depending on the subject and the information known about it,  to then classify everything below the line as dumb seems more relevant than trying to argue where the line is for each topic and then call it dumb.

[mr moose]

59 minutes ago, JohnMc45 said:

I think this can be summed up as. We believe in your right to say dumb shit, but we also believe we have a right to hold you accountable for your dumb shit. 

Except they are not, and why wait for another child to die of a vaccine preventable illness to do something proactive about the issue?  I don't believe any one has the right to misinform people with intent to harm, I see it exactly the same as inciting a riot. 

 

59 minutes ago, JohnMc45 said:

So the correct response to inciting a riot is not to ban them from Facebook, but to arrest them for inciting a riot.

Same as there correct response to threating violence on campus if you don't get you way. Should be.  Don't come crying to us when campus police pepper spray your dumb ass.    

Again, no one is being arrested and nobody is stopping the protestors,  because everyone is defending a persons right to freedom of speech that they are allowing the protests to stay with all their intent until the event is shut down or a child dies or a bloke is shot by police, then everyone cries established corruption rather than dealing with the actual problem before it starts.  

[FakeNSA]

45 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except they are not, and why wait for another child to die of a vaccine preventable illness to do something proactive about the issue?  I don't believe any one has the right to misinform people with intent to harm, I see it exactly the same as inciting a riot. 

 

Again, no one is being arrested and nobody is stopping the protestors,  because everyone is defending a persons right to freedom of speech that they are allowing the protests to stay with all their intent until the event is shut down or a child dies or a bloke is shot by police, then everyone cries established corruption rather than dealing with the actual problem before it starts.  

The reason these people aren’t being “stopped” is because people need to have the right to say stupid things. If you make such expression illegal, it only drives underground (see truly radical Islam). Instead, if a forum exists for these people to express their bigoted opinions, they might also get the chance to speak to someone that doesn’t share their crazy ideas, who could talk them down or even change their mind. The idea that deplatforming hate ends the hate is simply absurd.  

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

The reason these people aren’t being “stopped” is because people need to have the right to say stupid things. If you make such expression illegal, it only drives underground (see truly radical Islam). Instead, if a forum exists for these people to express their bigoted opinions, they might also get the chance to speak to someone that doesn’t share their crazy ideas, who could talk them down or even change their mind. The idea that deplatforming hate ends the hate is simply absurd.  

 

You misunderstand.  I am not talking about de platforming anyone, in fact to begin with no has the right to any platform bar their own.   I am talking about holding people accountable for their actions and doing so proactively where we know the end result is harm or injustice.

[Mooshi]

Nothing of value was lost.

[JohnMc45]

56 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except they are not, and why wait for another child to die of a vaccine preventable illness to do something proactive about the issue?  I don't believe any one has the right to misinform people with intent to harm, I see it exactly the same as inciting a riot. 

 

Again, no one is being arrested and nobody is stopping the protestors,  because everyone is defending a persons right to freedom of speech that they are allowing the protests to stay with all their intent until the event is shut down or a child dies or a bloke is shot by police, then everyone cries established corruption rather than dealing with the actual problem before it starts.  

That's because we as a society are acting like just as big of idiots. First you have the if we are nice maybe they will just go away group. "Maybe if we are nice to ISIS they will just go away." Then there are the self loathers. " OMG I never did like rap music I must be a racist"  Then there are the ban something problem solved group. Right now there are probably thousands of idiots feeling all warm and fuzzy because there are no more Nazis now that 8chan has been banned.     

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, JohnMc45 said:

That's because we as a society are acting like just as big of idiots.

 

That and they are running scared to do anything about the extreme issues that do cause trouble for fear of treading on a misunderstood condition of free speech.

[FakeNSA]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

You misunderstand.  I am not talking about de platforming anyone, in fact to begin with no has the right to any platform bar their own.   I am talking about holding people accountable for their actions and doing so proactively where we know the end result is harm or injustice.

Holding people to account for misinformation is a good thing. However, we cannot punish people for the potential of their actions, instead only when the action itself is illegal. If we hold people accountable for “words which could incite violence” we arrest everyone from Bernie Sanders (congressional baseball shooting and more) to trump (el paso shooter and more). It is time to recognize that mass shooters are deranged individuals, and their quote “inspirations” are much less important than their psychoses.

 

Anyway, I am exhausted, so this might not make all that much sense. Talk to you in the morning. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

Holding people to account for misinformation is a good thing. However, we cannot punish people for the potential of their actions, instead only when the action itself is illegal. If we hold people accountable for “words which could incite violence” we arrest everyone from Bernie Sanders (congressional baseball shooting and more) to trump (el paso shooter and more).

 

That all seems like a cop out.    We can't specifically guarantee anything therefore lets do nothing.   WE do know how ever that certain actions have effects, like the antivaccination crusades, they are not only convincing parents not to vaccinate but they are making money out of it at the same time.   So when they release a movie that is full of proven lies conning people into thinking vaccines cause autism (making life difficult for everyone) then they should be charged with negligence endangering the public (The crime of endangerment).

 

3 minutes ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

It is time to recognize that mass shooters are deranged individuals, and their quote “inspirations” are much less important than their psychoses.

I never mentioned shooters or their inspiration, I am talking specifically about activities (usually involving speech) that are either dangerous or result in denying rights to other citizens.  

 

3 minutes ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

Anyway, I am exhausted, so this might not make all that much sense. Talk to you in the morning. 

Good night.

[FakeNSA]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

That all seems like a cop out.    We can't specifically guarantee anything therefore lets do nothing.   WE do know how ever that certain actions have effects, like the antivaccination crusades, they are not only convincing parents not to vaccinate but they are making money out of it at the same time.   So when they release a movie that is full of proven lies conning people into thinking vaccines cause autism (making life difficult for everyone) then they should be charged with negligence endangering the public (The crime of endangerment).

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.

Quote

I never mentioned shooters or their inspiration, I am talking specifically about activities (usually involving speech) that are either dangerous or result in denying rights to other citizens. 

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. 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.

Quote

Good night.

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!

[Soppro]

The issue I have with this is that corporate bodies such as Cloudflare essentially have the right to block access to websites at their own volition. This is what Australian & NZ ISPs did in the Christchurch attacks. Essentially they've become the mediators of the Internet. We've skipped over requesting a court order to take down the sites and give the sites in question an adequate chance to respond. That's what bothers me most. Throwing out due process in favour of 'banning all the things.'

[Majinhoju]

21 minutes ago, Soppro said:

The issue I have with this is that corporate bodies such as Cloudflare essentially have the right to block access to websites at their own volition. This is what Australian & NZ ISPs did in the Christchurch attacks. Essentially they've become the mediators of the Internet. We've skipped over requesting a court order to take down the sites and give the sites in question an adequate chance to respond. That's what bothers me most. Throwing out due process in favour of 'banning all the things.'

If Cloudflare thinks keeping 8chan on as a customer is bad for business, what should their process be if they want to drop a problem customer?

[Sousuke]

I personally think of it like this, customers can be fired the same as employees. 

 

If a customer is brining your product into disrepute and could damage your corporate image then the company has the right to terminate that customer. This is as long as the customers money is refunded for any unused time on the contract and all requested data is given.

 

Thing is that Cloudflare isn't the only provider of protection as stated on a few new articles they will switch to a provider in which is used to this type of content called BitMitigate. 

 

If I am 100% Honest with you I am a supporter in freedom of speech however I do find it incredibly worrying that these speeches are turning into actions with the results only Hitler would be proud of. 

 

[ARikozuM]

27 minutes ago, Majinhoju said:

If Cloudflare thinks keeping 8chan on as a customer is bad for business, what should their process be if they want to drop a problem customer?

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?

[Majinhoju]

8 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?

Depends.  If I was known to the community for hanging swastikas out my windows or if I was known sex offender they most certainly could drop me as a customer if they felt working for me would further damage their reputation.

[ARikozuM]

5 minutes ago, Majinhoju said:

Depends.  If I was known to the community for hanging swastikas out my windows or if I was known sex offender they most certainly could drop me as a customer if they felt working for me would further damage their reputation.

But that isn't the majority of 8chan, so why should it matter? Why is it anyone else's business that you're a Nazi or registered sex offender? 

[Majinhoju]

9 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

But that isn't the majority of 8chan, so why should it matter? Why is it anyone else's business that you're a Nazi or registered sex offender? 

What gets posted on 8chan represents 8chan in someway.  It doesn't matter if it's the majority or minority, 8chan has a reputation for being a haven for sick minded.  Even if Cloudflare asks them to comply, the public has already made up their mind.

 

For the landscaper analogy, It would matter to the landscaper if they end up get getting boycotted by the rest of the community for providing services to a known Nazi.  I would drop a customer if it meant preventing all my other customers from dropping me.