[splitrocket]

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/

The number of folks that confuse government censorship with people deciding that their private company shouldn't support abhorrent content is astonishing, especially for a forum with this level of sophistication.

[matrix_overload]

I would draw a line differently. If Alice wants to pass a message to Bob and Bob is refusing to hear it, it's Bob's personal decision. If Alice wants to pass a message to Bob, and Carol decides that Bob shouldn't be able to hear it, it's a form of censorship.

De-facto, the identity politics activists are provided free tools to reach the attention of the public, any any opposing movements that get popular enough get quickly shut down by equating the entire movement or platform with the worst action of their worst members.

There is a valid opinion that this is a coordinated policy aimed at turning the middle class vs. corporations conflict into a race/sexuality conflict that keeps the corporate interests unaffected [0].

[0] https://i.ibb.co/PCCyTyP/1661897568772175.png

[jameslars]

So in this analogy, Alice should not relay the message through Carol and instead ask Dave. Or maybe talk to Bob directly?

Carol isn't the only messenger in town, and Carol is not obligated to participate in communication they do not agree with. It's a weird position to insist otherwise.

[matrix_overload]

That is the problem. Carol is allowed to offer the messaging services for free, subsidized by the advertisement and investment money coming from a rather close community with its own political interests. If Dave wanted to compete with Carol and offer an non-opinionated messaging service, he won't be able to do it because Carol is offering services below cost. The network effects make competition even less viable.

In this example, if the anti-DDOS service providers were forced to charge their customers proportionally to the used resources, the market would have 20+ players as opposed to just a handful, and Cloudflare would instantly lose a considerable amount of paying customers by deciding to take sides.

[jameslars]

So the argument is that because Carol is offering the best deal, Alice is entitled to it?

Carol has a literal right to their "free speech" too and there is really no getting around that no matter how you slice it.

[matrix_overload]

No, the argument is because Carol is engaging in anti-competitive behavior, it should be treated as other tolerated monopolies (i.e. governments) - forced to be neutral.

Otherwise, the group of elites that got on top during the current economic cycle gets a powerful tool for shaping the public opinion and avoiding any criticism, further entrenching themselves on the top. The result is the 3rd-world economy with a bunch of cronies engaging in rent-seeking, and everybody else living in poverty with no way up.

[rep_lodsb]

> [0] https://i.ibb.co/PCCyTyP/1661897568772175.png

With the bottom right graph removed, this would be believable as something other than an antisemitic /pol/ meme.

[philippejara]

This wasn't either of those things however, this was a company saying 4 days ago quite clearly that they would not act as a gatekeeper of speech(whatever it may be) on their protection services, due to some pretty clear implications that everyone should be protected by default from criminal activity(ddos attacks). Note that this was pretty much the speech made by cloudflare, I'm not saying they as a private company need to act as an utilities company/police/firefighter/etc, that's an entirely different discussion, but then then 3 days later going back on it?

[peyton]

To clear up any confusion, it’s possibly a violation of the social contract. That is what’s under discussion. The xkcd you linked does not apply.