[splitrocket]

100% concur.

Illinois has to allow the Nazis to march: they are the government.

You don't have to allow nazis into your private party, nor do you have to publish their books.

You, as an individual, and corporations as entities are emphatically not the government.

[DoctorOW]

But see this is where I get tripped up. I don't think laws should dictate morality. So barring the fact that it's the way the law is written in the United States. Why is Illinois morally required to protect speech and Cloudflare, who almost certainly has far greater control (theoretically) over speech not?

[phillipcarter]

This is fast approaching the whole, "why is anyone morally required to do anything?" sort of existential discussion.

The US Government has laws in place like this because those were written as founding principles and interpreted in certain ways by our legal system over time. That's only it. But it's all calvinball in the end. Congress could strike the 1A from the constitution, or all our courts could start ruling against the 1A tomorrow. We're just making it up as we go. Now this would likely result in a mass uprising, but that's besides the point.

The only reason why this is a thing right now is because CloudFlare(a) is in a position to stop digital protection of Kiwi Farms (and thus force them to fully own the consequences of their speech), and (b) has explicitly chosen not to do anything about it, much to the chagrin of myself and a whole lot of other people. My belief, as is the belief of others, is that Kiwi Farms are violating their TOS and should be removed. That's it. CloudFlare, like Calvin when playing Calvinball, is deciding to make it up as they go, and we aren't happy about that.

[taxyz]

You seem to be pretty active in comments for this post and you have made several arguments around the ideas that: * CF is not a utility and is not bound by the First Amendment (although you keep saying free speech) * CF is somehow immoral because they are otherwise compelled to remove content/service protections for stuff you disagree with (however correct you may be that the content is morally reprehensible).

The first point may be technically true but the second doesn't leave room for the possibility that CF might have a more absolutist approach to free speech in which case they find it more immoral to remove content/protections from one of their customers that the content itself. Since neither you nor I work at CF, we probably have to take them at their word in this press release. Trying to adjudicate what violates their TOS, what is immoral for them to do, or what is good/bad for their business from the outside is a foolish exercise.

There was a time the ACLU defended neo-nazis and it wasn't because they agreed with them. Just another aside, if you feel this strongly about CF, then don't patronize them if you are in the position to not have to use their services, but I'd avoid taking a moral stand only when its expedient to do so if you otherwise don't live with that level of conviction (presumably you didn't stay at Microsoft for 6 years because you aligned with them morally).

[phillipcarter]

It's precisely that their leadership (rank-and-file employees I know have different feelings) are taking an absolutist approach. That's pretty evident when their stance is that banning nazi sites was a mistake.

My position is this. That is not a good stance to take. And people should now use their wallet to influence Cloudflare's leadership to reconsider their extreme position. The small part I can play in that today is already underway, so it's not just words on hacker news, no.

[taxyz]

You're being intentionally dishonest. Their stance is not as simple as "banning the nazis was wrong. We need to bring back the nazis to our platform." They are pretty explicit in saying no company should be exercising the power that they did - if someone is willing to pay for DDoS protection on their site, they should take a neutral stance on the content of their site. Anything that is blatantly illegal is for the government to act on.

Do you think people should vote with their wallet in regards to the ACLU? What about the idea of public defenders generally? Should society not be footing the bill to be provide legal defense to hate crime offenders/rapists/etc?

Your characterization that their position is extreme is also dishonest. It's been the MO for American citizens/corporations/institutions and ingrained in 20th/21st century American jurisprudence to take a neutral stance when it comes to providing a service or defending rights. It's, frankly, one of the last few admirable things about our society.

You can promote an activist mindset if you'd like, but you should also consider that your opinion is only shared by a vocal minority and the fracturing of commerce into parallel economies won't benefit you or the communities you care about the way you think it will. I'm not sure what I need from CF, but after reading your comments/opinions on the issue, I'm inclined to just order shit from them now.

[phillipcarter]

I think you're waxing philosophical about a bunch of stuff that's unrelated to what's going on here.

[DoctorOW]

I'm genuinely struggling to see how this answers my question. You continually discuss laws when I made it abundantly clear that because laws are, as you put it, Calvinball they are irrelevant to what should be done.

> CloudFlare (a) is in a position to stop digital protection of Kiwi Farms

So too is Illinois to stop police protection of Nazi activists. I ask again, why SHOULD one organization protect speech and another shouldn't, given our agreement that any specific laws/amendments do not dictate what SHOULD happen?

[phillipcarter]

I think you're losing the plot here. Nothing has any moral obligation to do anything in this universe. Morality doesn't exist. And we're all just making it up as we go.

Now that we've established that nothing matters, the reason is because a lot of us feel that Cloudflare should do something about it.

[DoctorOW]

Bloody hell, I am definitely losing the plot. The reason you feel that way is because a lot of other people do? You have absolutely no rationale or thought process for the disparities between organizations x and y except that people are mad at organization y and not organization x?

[phillipcarter]

Yep, you've lost the plot.

[taxyz]

You should entertain the idea that they claim they have a stronger responsibility to the principals of free speech than the communities you claim are harmed by their customers content.

[phillipcarter]

You should entertain the idea that they're just ideologues who don't really know what they're doing.

[strangeattractr]

This is pathetic. If this is your rationale for why KF should be denied DDoS protection then I hope you fail. Nothing matters so do what we want. If nothing matters why does it matter if your favourite streamer is killed by a SWAT team, I'm sure a lot of people want it to happen too.

[snowwrestler]

Illinois is not morally required to protect speech. They are prevented from using government powers to restrict or punish speech.

If counter protestors show up and shout over the Nazis, Illinois is not morally required to silence the counter protestors so the Nazis can speak.

And if Nazis want to gather on private land, Illinois is not morally required to force the private landowner to permit that.

The morality of equality is compromised by the practical execution of law. It’s legal for a cop to pull a gun and force you to the ground; it’s not legal for you to do that to me (or vice versa). So we place constraints on when the government can apply those special powers.

[vorpalhex]

But you as a private individual or company can choose to hold the right to free speech in high regard.

[BryantD]

I hold it in such high regard that I have considered the question of whether or not Kiwifarms inhibits free speech.

[splitrocket]

Yup. And if your choice is pro-nazi, the rest of us can decide for ourselves what that means about you.

For what it's worth, you can't be just a little bit Nazi.

It's like poop in ice cream: if you have ten tons of ice cream and an ounce of poop, if you mix them together, you've just created ten tons of poop.

[naasking]

> It's like poop in ice cream: if you have ten tons of ice cream and an ounce of poop, if you mix them together, you've just created ten tons of poop.

In that case your argument fails, because there are regulations for how much rat feces are permitted in processed food, and just FYI, it's NOT zero.

[vorpalhex]

If everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi and you believe we should restrict their rights, limit their speech and so on... you may be projecting.

[wahnfrieden]

check the paradox of tolerance

[vorpalhex]

Are you ok with prohibiting the spread of Islam?

Islam is incompatible with tolerance. Women's rights, depictions of Muhammed, etc.

If we accept the paradox of tolerance you must either be anti-Islam or the paradox is broken.

The fix is not new and is older than the paradox of tolerance: your rights end where mine begin. You have a right to write and speak what you will - I have a right to not listen. I do not have a right to stop speech I find offensive. Islam has a right to exist and take offense, but it may not use violence or law to get it's way.

[wahnfrieden]

you’re implying the spread of islam is the spread of activists who incite action toward its worst parts, the same goes for christianity of course: I’m ok with prohibiting (and socially over state violence…) speech that incites active participation in applying its worst parts which oppress. btw it’s stinky to use islam as your example and in an american context when it’s as obviously applicable to everything else and not something special to islam over most any other popular religion. the same shit applies with womens rights and christian movements in the US which are in fact taking oppressive political action with wide impact

[vorpalhex]

Women can't drive or have attorneys in Islamic nations and you think my use of them in an example is stinky? You want to argue about abortion rights when women literally can't leave their homes without a male guardian and hiding their face?

[SkyBelow]

>Illinois has to allow the

Per the existing law, but given the Constitution can be changed, should they have to allow? Arguing they have to because the law currently prevents them from doing otherwise seems a different argument than it being good for government to have such restrictions because the benefits are worth more than the detriments (or vice versa).