[rowanG077]

It's not about who is more worthy of protection. And viewing it that way is incredibly dangerous. It's about what cost you are willing to pay for that protection.

Ex: we have a pretty clear innocent until proven guilty justice system. This means there will always be people who are guilty who will not be punished. We can make that less likely by just throwing every suspect into jail. This protects the general public better then the current system. But most will agree that the cost of this is too high. So we don't do it. That doesn't mean we don't want the protect the public from criminals.

The people who are against cloudflare banning kiwifarms aren't debating for who to protect. They are debating about the cost of that protection.

[cywick]

> Ex: we have a pretty clear innocent until proven guilty justice system.

The high bar of "innocent until proven guilty" (and "beyond a reasonable doubt") only applies to criminal cases, though, and not to civil ones. The present situation is much more analogous to a civil case where you have to weigh the interests of two parties (i.e., Kiwifarms and their victims) against each other.

[koheripbal]

Even civil cases require material preponderance of evidence.

Online mobs need only confirmation bias.

[rowanG077]

It was an example to show it's way too simplistic to view the situation as only "kiwifarms bad". The example cannot be mapped to the situation as you are trying to do. And it wasn't intented as an analogy.

Besides the two parties are not kiwifarms and their victims. The people who are against it make arguments about free speech and whether platforms should be responsible for the content hosted on them. If it was as simple as just kiwifarms vs the victims it would be an open and shut case.

[ceejayoz]

> They are debating about the cost of that protection.

Sure, but the parent post is asking you to also consider the cost of not acting.

[rowanG077]

That's obvious and I'd hoped my example with the justice system illustrated that.