Cloudflare to stop hosting 8chan

Forums › IT Pro and developers › Cloudflare to stop hosting 8chan

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79281 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2294719 12-Aug-2019 12:04

Rikkitic:

The slippery slope argument

Yes, on the other hand consider this.

"The draft order, a summary of which was obtained by CNN, calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies. Politico first reported the existence of the draft. If put into effect, the order would reflect a significant escalation by President Trump in his frequent attacks against social media companies over an alleged but unproven systemic bias gainst conservatives by technology platforms. And it could lead to a significant reinterpretation of a law that, its authors have insisted, was meant to give tech companies broad freedom to handle content as they see fit."

Basically if a website says something Trump doesn't like, take it down. But we all know that Trump does not necessarily like the good and the way he acts we could easily see this escalating to full scale censorship.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2294727 12-Aug-2019 12:19

I am well aware of the risk of authoritarians misusing this for their own purposes, but that is why we have a democracy. The slippery slope argument is absolutist, all or nothing. I reject that. In a democratic society, official attempts to interfere with genuine free speech can be held up to scrutiny and pushed back if necessary. People like Trump only get their own way with this sort of thing if they are allowed to. Even in a Trump presidency there are adequate mechanisms to counter this. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2295104 12-Aug-2019 20:16

Rikkitic:

Since you don't mind a few unnecessary deaths to prove a point, I imagine you must enjoy driving the wrong way down the motorway. Why not? You are just exercising your right to make up your own rules.

Try thinking about what the term civil liberties actually means. The word civil forms the basis of civilisation. It means society, citizenry, how people work together to create something that is greater than the sum of its parts. The opposite of this is jungle, where monkeys all run around doing their own thing, regardless of how it affects others. In fact, monkeys don't do this. Even they understand that being part of a group gives them a better life than they would have on their own.

Liberty is freedom. Freedom from want, freedom from brutality, freedom from the law of the jungle. People live together in society because it gives them far more freedom than they could ever achieve on their own. This is what civil liberty really means. It is a balancing act, in which the right of each individual to be a naughty monkey is weighed against the interests of the group as a whole. By its nature, civil society depends on agreement. Not everyone has to agree to everything all the time. But there has to be broad agreement on shared values. When that agreement breaks down, so does society, and so do all the benefits it brings.

My civil liberties and yours depend on the restraint of others. Those incapable of engaging in civil discourse need to have that imposed. I like my civil liberties. I'm certain you do, too.

Outlawing alcohol, knives, opiate painkillers, or countless other things would also prevent necessary deaths, millions more than this would, but no ones proposing to do any of those things.

Let's be clear that 8chan, no matter how distasteful some of the user generated content may be, operates entirely within the laws of the US. Let that sink in... I'd flip your argument the other way, and say that the blocking of legal content just because you don't like it is far more of a break down of civil liberties.

MikeB4: How on earth is 8chan or others like it of any value to humanity?

In your opinion. I tend to agree with you to be honest, but I'm sure there are plenty of things I think are of no value to humanity that others would disagree on.. like cycle lanes :-P I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people that use it would disagree at any rate.

tdgeek:

Free speech doesn't mean free hate, free murder, free bank robbing, free punch you in the mouth. I guess most of us can live with this, it grates me that some people see free speech to be freedom. Free speech means that I can say things that matter to me, it doesn't mean I can say things to screw other humans.

There is a bar. Decency, happiness, respect, freedom to be different. Freedom to hate needs to be captured and removed.

We clearly disagree, but my belief is that as long as it's it's speech not actions, it should be permitted. So where do you want to draw the line? Should Spark block Destiny Church because the Tamaki's are probably more hateful than half the 8chan users. Block Israel Folau's social media accounts? Block Golriz Ghahraman next time she pops out something Anti-Semitic?

tdgeek:

What F's me off is we are mature. We are past the world wars, yes there are religious hot spots, but today, the globe its dealing with hate. Trump, and other far right hate Governments purporting to be cool. One I was a kid, I had Maori friends. Racism was something I wasnt aware of. Older, I see racism. Now I see diversity. Now as in since Trump got in, I see hate and white power. Whats up with this? I am a doco fiend, and the more I learn about what amazing things we humans can do, then I look at politics and wonder what is really going on. It is a disconnect. The concept of happiness, operation, the greater good, seems to have ended. Now we have climate change to manage, how will that go?? Look at any other animal species and its fine, but not with us

I'm not sure if hate is increasing, or if it's just more visible. Whereas in the past hate speech might have been said drunkenly in front of a small audience, now it's drunkenly said on Facebook or Twitter in front of a world wide audience.. Between CCTV and cellphones you can't blink without someone filming you these days, and if your behaviour is objectionable or could be twisted/perceived to be, it'll go viral. I'm not enough of an optimist to think we'll ever eliminate hate, but I do think the key to reducing it lies in education and socialisation rather censorship and suppression.

Rikkitic:

The slippery slope argument

I am intrigued when free speechers start rabbiting on about the slippery slope. There seems to be a blind assumption that as soon as you limit the freedom of extremists to vomit their toxins into cyberspace, this somehow inevitably leads to tyranny and thought control. In fact, the tyrants are those who insist on unrestricted free speech rights, but that is another argument.

Somehow, the slippery slope does not apply to the increasing numbers of madmen (so far mainly men) who take inspiration from racist rants and see this as some kind of license to go on killing sprees. There is no question about this connection. It has been well-established. The madmen themselves say so.

Random mass slaughters are increasing in magnitude and frequency. The odds of being mown down while going about your daily business, though still minuscule, are increasing. This is the very definition of a slippery slope. The more it happens, the more that other brain-scrambled killers want to jump on the bandwaggon.

The notion that restrictions on extremist speech are a slippery slope, but the growing numbers of attacks directly resulting from that extremist speech are not, is a logical fallacy you could drive an army through. Anyone who seriously thinks this is either uninformed, lacking in sense, or possibly, just immature. Underdeveloped brains tend to think in absolutes. As we grow, we become more capable of perceiving nuance.

The slippery slope argument is a false one. It does not take a lot of nuance to see that.

I'm confident far more people have gone forth and murdered after being inspired by the bible or the koran than have done so after reading things on the internet. Copycat killers are always going to be a thing, whether it's being inspired by a school shooting, a serial killer, a terrorist attack or whatever. I don't see the answer to that being to suppress certain types of speech.

Rikkitic:

I am well aware of the risk of authoritarians misusing this for their own purposes, but that is why we have a democracy. The slippery slope argument is absolutist, all or nothing. I reject that. In a democratic society, official attempts to interfere with genuine free speech can be held up to scrutiny and pushed back if necessary. People like Trump only get their own way with this sort of thing if they are allowed to. Even in a Trump presidency there are adequate mechanisms to counter this. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I don't think free speech has to be binary all or nothing thing, but I do think the pendulum has swung too far towards censorship. My personal line is anything goes short of direct incitement (e.g. "I hate <insert target>'s I wish they were all dead" is okay, but "We should go kill that <target>" is not. Even our current libel/slander laws need relaxing.. Mitchell V Edministin shows that. calling someone a name when you are angry, even publicly, should not result in you having to pay them thousands of dollars.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79281 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2295119 12-Aug-2019 20:37

Lias:

Outlawing alcohol, knives, opiate painkillers, or countless other things would also prevent necessary deaths, millions more than this would, but no ones proposing to do any of those things.

Let's be clear that 8chan, no matter how distasteful some of the user generated content may be, operates entirely within the laws of the US. Let that sink in... I'd flip your argument the other way, and say that the blocking of legal content just because you don't like it is far more of a break down of civil liberties.

I think the main difference here is that while alcohol, opiate painkillers cause deaths they are mostly self-inflicted. Racism and fascism pit human being targeting human beings, just because of what the targeted group is.

Surely you can see a difference here?

toejam316

1466 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2295178 12-Aug-2019 22:32

freitasm:

Lias:

Outlawing alcohol, knives, opiate painkillers, or countless other things would also prevent necessary deaths, millions more than this would, but no ones proposing to do any of those things.

Let's be clear that 8chan, no matter how distasteful some of the user generated content may be, operates entirely within the laws of the US. Let that sink in... I'd flip your argument the other way, and say that the blocking of legal content just because you don't like it is far more of a break down of civil liberties.

I think the main difference here is that while alcohol, opiate painkillers cause deaths they are mostly self-inflicted. Racism and fascism pit human being targeting human beings, just because of what the targeted group is.

Surely you can see a difference here?

Not keen to weigh in on the larger subject too much, but I think you might be reducing the harm of opiates and alcohol - a lot of violence, domestic or otherwise, is alcohol related, and a lot of crimes that can lead to violence such as robberies, etc. can be traced back to drug abuse, of which opiates are a pretty major drug. They're certainly not lesser evils, just better tolerated evils.

Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79281 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2295181 12-Aug-2019 22:37

Sure. But I think bringing these as a justification for not doing anything against intolerance is completely missing the point.

There will always be something else, something more important. So some people need to fight for something, other people focus on something different. Otherwise nothing ever gets done.

toejam316

1466 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2295185 12-Aug-2019 22:44

freitasm: Sure. But I think bringing these as a justification for not doing anything against intolerance is completely missing the point.

There will always be something else, something more important. So some people need to fight for something, other people focus on something different. Otherwise nothing ever gets done.

Completely agreed - whataboutism is just as bad as acceptance.

Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2296598 13-Aug-2019 15:17

freitasm:

Lias:

Outlawing alcohol, knives, opiate painkillers, or countless other things would also prevent necessary deaths, millions more than this would, but no ones proposing to do any of those things.

Let's be clear that 8chan, no matter how distasteful some of the user generated content may be, operates entirely within the laws of the US. Let that sink in... I'd flip your argument the other way, and say that the blocking of legal content just because you don't like it is far more of a break down of civil liberties.

I think the main difference here is that while alcohol, opiate painkillers cause deaths they are mostly self-inflicted. Racism and fascism pit human being targeting human beings, just because of what the targeted group is.

Surely you can see a difference here?

Okay fair point, how about if we change it to politics or religion? Both of which pit human against human and are both responsible for countless millions of deaths. Communism, Zionism, Salafism are all responsible for some pretty hefty death tolls. Communist China alone has killed tens if not hundreds of millions in the last 80 odd years.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2296602 13-Aug-2019 15:23

freitasm: Sure. But I think bringing these as a justification for not doing anything against intolerance is completely missing the point.

There will always be something else, something more important. So some people need to fight for something, other people focus on something different. Otherwise nothing ever gets done.

I agree to a point, but as previously noted I just don't see how suppressing and censoring is helpful. If someone is drinking that particular koolaid, they pretty much already believe in an assortment of conspiracy theories and that <insert target of hate> is behind them being censored, which isn't exactly going to make them start loving that group. They are going to end up more paranoid, more down the rabbit hole, and if they are driven underground harder to identify and assess if they are an actual threat.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2296685 13-Aug-2019 16:23

I don’t usually find myself agreeing with the censor. In fact, until now, I don’t think I ever have. As a matter of principle, I have always utterly rejected censorship of all kinds. Yet I now find myself in a quandary, because I completely agree with this censorship. It is awkward to have to admit that something you have strongly believed all your life no longer applies, but there you have it. In certain cases, and this is definitely one, censorship is the only acceptable answer.

I am quoting the following article because I think it explains the issues very well and because I think it fits with the discussion on this thread. I have censored it to take out all references to the shooter. Anyone who misses that can easily find the original.

The chief censor says a review of the accused Christchurch shooter's manifesto has ruled it was objectionable.

David Shanks said the Film and Literature Board of Review had confirmed that the document, called ********, was objectionable.

The Board made its decision under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act following an application for a review.

The document was the manifesto of accused shooter *******, and was banned because Mr Shanks said it crossed a line.

He said the decision sparked significant public debate as some felt it impinged upon freedom of expression.

"This is a document intrinsically bound up with... and relates to the most horrific event of mass murder we've ever seen in this country.

"This document promoted, encouraged and justified acts of murder and terrorist violence and from our assessment, and now from the assessment of the board of review, that crosses the line," Mr Shanks said.

He said while the screed would not have persuaded the vast majority of readers, it was not written for them.

"It was written for the small number of readers who are already on the pathway to violent extremism. Sadly, that small minority of readers could well be impressed by the example set by these vicious atrocities.

"They could buy into the document's justifications for acts of tremendous cruelty, and be inspired to target the areas identified for attack in New Zealand."

Mr Shanks said the aim of "hateful terrorist screeds" was to inspire others to similar violent action.

"Tragically, it appears that this may have already happened. Since March the 15th we have seen horrific extremist attacks unfold in a synagogue in Poway near San Diego, in a Walmart in El Paso and even more recently in a mosque in Norway.

"What we know so far about these attacks suggests that the attackers were inspired by the extremist ideology and justifications contained in ********."

Mr Shanks said reports suggested the influence was evident in the killers' own documents and posts, posted immediately prior to the attacks.

He said an "effective response to this contagion" required an integrated strategy, and censorship was only one piece of the puzzle.

"All of us can make choices that might spread this dangerous hate further, or we can staunch its flow. Our choices matter, including those made by news media, online platforms and service providers, enforcement agencies, and the choices made by each of us as we interact and share, online and off."

[The] ******** document was a banned publication in New Zealand, but exemptions had been granted to reporters, academics and specialists who were working on reports and studies for the purpose of informing the public in a considered way.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4