[roenxi]

> No one is asking for Cloudflare to take down 100% of every single site that may or may not be classified as "bad" - they're asking for this one site to be taken down

Who are they?

Why are Cloudflare listening to this "they" instead of all the alternate "they" who object to alternate sites? There is someone group organised to go after every "bad" site and a lot more besides. How do you even know that they've correctly identified Kiwikarms as a problematic site? Are you a Kiwifarms regular to be so sure about what how it works?

Cloudflare have already banned the Daily Stormer and I can find people who are willing to call ~30% of any country neo-nazis with a straight face, so it isn't clear what they boundary is here. They certainly don't agree with your boundaries for what is "very clear", unless you happen to be posting on behalf of the Cloudflare CEO.

[staticassertion]

> Who are they?

People. Me. Others. I don't have a list.

> Why are Cloudflare listening to this "they" instead of all the alternate "they" who object to alternate sites?

They're presumably listening to both? I don't understand the question.

> There is someone group organised to go after every "bad" site and a lot more besides. How do you even know that they've correctly identified Kiwikarms as a problematic site?

Because there's a long history of documented problems.

> Are you a Kiwifarms regular to be so sure about what how it works?

I don't understand why that would be relevant. Again, long documented history.

> Cloudflare have already banned the Daily Stormer

Right, the Daily Stormer was a self-described site for neo-nazis.

> I can find people who are willing to call ~30% of any country neo-nazis

Irrelevant.

> They certainly don't agree with your boundaries for what is "very clear", unless you happen to be posting on behalf of the Cloudflare CEO.

The first half of this sentence doesn't go with the second half.

[roenxi]

>> Who are they? > People. Me. Others. I don't have a list.

>> I can find people who are willing to call ~30% of any country neo-nazis > Irrelevant.

I mean, the vibe I'm picking up here is they are the ones who decide, but not them?

Who are these they?

> I don't understand why that would be relevant. Again, long documented history.

There is a long documented history of the US being the Great Satan, or technically Shaytân-e Bozorg, based on a long history of documented problems. I'm not sure how to communicate with "them", but how do we make the call on whether "they" agree or disagree with that epithet? Pretty open and shut case I suppose, the US has done some pretty evil things as a group. Do "they" have a preference for booting the US or Iran off the internet, or are they sanguine about this and only worried about micro-scale harassment rather than macro-scale problems?

Things are done that are substantially worse than what Cloudflare has just acted on. And I suspect "they" will agree on a lot of it. And be wrong on a lot of it, because "they" are famously unreliable sources of information. Why aren't they going to act on all that stuff? It would be irresponsible to ignore it.

I don't think your stance is fundamentally workable, and suspect it hasn't made a serious attempt at engaging with the sheer diversity of human experience and perspective out there. Particularly when it comes to in-groups redefining words to shut people in other in-groups.

[staticassertion]

You're focusing a lot on "they", and I don't really get why. You can instead focus on the argument being made and at that point it'll be a lot easier to engage. If you're trying to say that we shouldn't make decisions based on the feelings of vague interest groups, ok, but I wasn't making the argument that we should.