[_euac]

> The concerted effort by the pro-censorship crowd to exploit nazis to promote censorship is rather worrying.

This, right here, is a straw-man that I've seen repeated countless times. I am not pro-censorship, but I'm sure as hell not for forcing companies to provide services to Nazis and other scum.

There's a huge, gaping difference between those two things and I'd appreciate it if you stopped conflating them.

[mehwoot]

There's a huge, gaping difference between those two things

Is there? If you need companies to effectively publish on the internet, then those companies refusing to work with you means you can't publish. Do you consider that censorship?

[jacquesm]

> Is there?

I'm kind of surprised that would need re-iterating but yes, there is.

> If you need companies to effectively publish on the internet, then those companies refusing to work with you means you can't publish.

No, you can go buy a printer and write your little screed in notepad and print it out, then distribute your copies. Who every equated the internet with all venues of publishing?

> Do you consider that censorship?

Absolutely not. Censorship is when the state muzzles your ability to communicate, see the former eastblock and present day China and North Korea. That's censorship. This is companies deciding who to do business with.

[mehwoot]

Censorship is when the state

I, and most other people, disagree with this definition.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable... Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship.

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

[jacquesm]

Yes, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. But for those classes it is a censorship with a relatively limited effect. Censorship at the state level is where it starts to become a real problem.

I have a big problem with people trying to equate objectionable people not being given each and every platform they desire with censorship. If you wish to spew hate and division then you should not be surprised if you will receive some pushback from people who do not wish to become associated with your particular brand of hate. Action begets reaction. I've yet to see an actual example of censorship acted out in a way that I found the term to be appropriate when it concerns online communications between fringe groups and their followers. Typically they're spoiling for a fight and then play the victim when someone engages, and cry 'censorship' when actually censorship and worse is what they would hope to inflict on others if they achieve their stated goal.

It's all about balance.

[mehwoot]

But for those classes it is a censorship with a relatively limited effect.

In this case we're talking about removing these opinions from the internet.

the initial requests we received to terminate their service came from hackers who literally said: "Get out of the way so we can DDoS this site off the Internet."

I don't see any practical difference between this and what China does on the internet. Only difference is I agree with the side that gets to censor here.

[jacquesm]

Does it suprise you that on opinion which yearns to de-humanize untold millions and seeks to destroy them finds pushback?

That's not censorship, that's action begetting reaction and as long as it is limited to groups that aim to do bad things to large numbers of people I'm perfectly fine with it.

Note that this particular gem of a website is run by one of the worlds foremost trolls, a man who I believe is not exactly 100% in the head and who loves to watch the world burn. If you feel that he deserves a platform I suggest you make your own Neo Nazi friendly CDN and take some business away from Cloudflare, they won't mind.