[syshum]

This is amusing, They Banned the DailyStormer which I why I will never support them. While I disagree 100% with the DailyStormer it is not up to cloudflare to decide who can and can not speak, who can and can not access the internet.

The concept of Free Speech is the most important right we have as humanity, while I may not agree with some peoples words I will fight for their right to say those words

And do not even come at me with "well they are private company" we impose all kinds of regulations on private companies when it comes to basic human rights like free speech and Free Association for example private companies can not refuse service based on race, sex, age, etc.

yet you WANT them to censor content, censor speech. You want them to apply your left authoritarian world view to legal speech, and yes everything you have cited is LEGAL SPEECH in the USA.

If there are actual threats, True Threats as defined in US law, then the police should be involved and the people arrested. If there is defamation or other illegal speech then the courts should be involved

It should NOT be the position of private companies to regulate speech online

Platform Access Is A Civil Right. https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civi...

[Aeolun]

Yes, I want them to censor lies and misleading speech. People or services that feed the public dangerous misinformation should be silenced.

I realize that’s a slippery slope, but I just don’t trust the public to filter for themselves any more.

[syshum]

So who should be the arbitrator of truth? You do understand that I can cite many many many many many examples though out history where actual truth was suppressed, actual advancement was suppressed by those in power.

Free Speech is the most powerful tool Minorities and oppressed people through out the world have to end their oppression, and you just want to strip it away because of fear...

How can you not see how utterly dangerous this idea is, how can you ignore all of human history to believe it is a good idea to suppress speech.

It is not a slippery slope at all, is termination of basic human rights, is the the return to the dark ages, to Totalitarianism.

You hope that be installing a regime of censorship and speech control you will end "lies" and/or "hate" when in reality you will ensure its continued existence and growth while taking away peoples power to challenge it in the open light of public debate

[speedplane]

> So who should be the arbitrator of truth? ... Free Speech is the most powerful tool

Generally, an independent judiciary is the arbitrator of truth.

Free speech has never been absolute. Free speech does not protect intentionally false speech. For example, tricking people to give you money is fraud. Libel is too. You can support free speech while also protecting truth. When the issue pops up, a judge determines who's right and wrong.

[syshum]

I can agree with that, in part, what I cant agree with is that CloudFare, Facebook, Twitter, Firefox or any other Tech Company should be in charge of this which is what the OP was asking for.

Almost all of the content the Authoritarian left wants to be banned today the independent judiciary has already ruled many times to be Legal Speech under the US definition of Free Speech

[maccard]

I don't have an answer to who should be the arbiter, but:

> Free Speech is the most powerful tool Minorities and oppressed people through out the world have to end their oppression,

So in order to protect the opressed, we should allow their opressors an equal platform to share their totalitarian views?

The other side(what we currently have) is equally as bad, if not worse. Right now you have a situation where the BBC in the name of "fairness" gives equal air time to a political party who only exist as a protest vote, and they allow for climate change denier to air their views against scientists. Public debate doesn't work based on facts, it works based on emotions, and it doesn't matter how nuanced or level headed your response is, "think of the children" or "the government is trying to suppress our rights" are emotional arguments that consistently Trump facts and reason. Free speech isn't a right for you to have a platform to voice your opinion, it's a right to not have your opinion be suppressed by the government.

I don't have a solution, but at some point you have to accept that tolerance of intolerance is intolerance, and when we're talking about a single incident of a platform that claims Marital Rape is ok [0],and that murdering 50 people because of their religion is "a prank" [1], they are objectively the opressors, not the opressed.

[0] https://dailystormer.name/some-states-want-to-prevent-husban...

[1] https://dailystormer.name/the-difference-between-a-mosque-sh...

[meowface]

>So in order to protect the opressed, we should allow their opressors an equal platform to share their totalitarian views?

Yes. That's one of the founding principles of America. Cloudflare is a common carrier like a telco, not a hosting provider. The content on websites that use them as a CDN shouldn't be paid attention to by Cloudflare one way or another, as long as it's legal. This is their position, and it's the correct and most moral one. You also seem to be missing the fact that Cloudflare famously banned Daily Stormer; the only time they've ever banned any website: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

The best way to empower extremists is by trying to stamp them out. You can never, ever win when your primary weapon is censorship. Fascism thrives and festers in darkness.

[syshum]

>>So in order to protect the opressed, we should allow their opressors an equal platform to share their totalitarian views?

yes, for many reasons. One Should not be celebrating Moving the Cliff of Censorship on the bias of "Dangerous Individuals" like Facebook recently did. [2]

>Free speech isn't a right for you to have a platform to voice your opinion, it's a right to not have your opinion be suppressed by the government.

100% incorrect, Free Speech is a social concept that is often codified into law as through out history governments are the ones that often use the power of censorship to silence dissent, however threats by government is NOT the only threat to free speech.

Free Speech is a cultural value first, it has become a legal articulation based on that cultural value. [2] Platform Access Is A Civil Right, You should now have the same right to speak on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram that you do in a public park.[0]

If you would not celebrate government censoring opinions you dislike why would you celebrate corporations doing it?

>>I don't have a solution, but at some point you have to accept that tolerance of intolerance is intolerance

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you, you can not fight intolerance by suppression. it has never worked in all of history, it only makes the extremism more extreme and violent. One can make the strong case that the more society pushes these people out of the sunlight the more violent they become, and if they allowed the modern public square, where their idea's would be challenged, debated and debunked there is a high probity there would be LESS violence.

Censorship does nothing but drive extremism under ground allowing it to fester, become more extreme, and then you get violence. This is also true for other forms of Censorship. Take for example the recent bills to "stop human trafficking" by censoring platforms and making them liable for it. Did it actually stop any human trafficking... No, all it did was drive it under ground making it harder for law enforcement to track and stop, while suppression lots of legitimate speech, had massive negative effects on voluntary sex workers, and untold other unintended consequences. This censorship was a net negative both in its stated goal, and for freedom in general. It accomplished nothing but taking the rights away from people.

Once your Nation has a "Chief Censor" [1] you know you have gone away from anything that could be considered Free Speech

[0] https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civi...

[1] https://youtu.be/QH_IZnKzqKA?t=68

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwJz1p6aag

[tdhoot]

You don't trust the public to filter for themselves but you trust them to elect politicians or judges that will get to filter for you?

The logical extension of your argument is the public not trustworthy enough to even choose their leaders.

Free speech isn't a danger to democracy, thinking like this is.

[fapjacks]

I think you're being downvoted because of the bit about regulation. At least, that is what I choose to believe, because imagine our state of affairs if you are being downvoted because of your comments about the idea of free speech.

[syshum]

Then you are new to HN...

Silicon Valley is full of Authoritarians that believe the Tech Companies should be our overlords and be allowed to choose what "truth" is, and who can revel that "truth" to you

[fapjacks]

Actually it's the opposite. It's the newer people that are this way [0], for in my day, most people didn't even trust computers, let alone buying things with a computer, or always carrying an always-connected computer with a microphone and multiple cameras in their pocket.

[0] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-look...

[thinkingemote]

Eastdakotas replies here and in previous threads indicate that his team have more oversight into his own wants and desires. He also writes more about being consistent in actions than they had when he did this action. I think that's a positive way forward. But the person at the top will be the weakest link. If I was a nation state that's where I would be applying the force not at the company level. Maybe he also realised this?

[scarface74]

race, sex, age, etc.

Where does daily stormer fall in the “etc.” part?

[syshum]

Never said it did, etc was in reference to other protected classes in the list which vary by state.

Many states, including California, have political ideology has a protected class as well.

IMO companies run a foul of that when they start banning people for subjective ideology based reasons like "hate speech" which is not illegal in the US, and is every much based in political ideology to make the determination as to what is "hate".