The growth of Cloudflare is what makes the law possible.
Several countries have stupid laws around online child protection, that are universally ignored and universally not enforced simply because there is no reasonable way to comply. Others might be tempted to introduce new stupid laws once they become feasible.
That doesn't make it Cloudflare's fault, but the centralization is still a problem.
I think it's being pointed out as an inherent weakness of greater centralization when it comes to the internet's resiliency against government interference and censorship. The internet used to be much more decentralized than it is today.
Because human nature is what it is. The best way to eat better isn't to be a better person, it's to not keep junk food at the house. It's not Cloudflare's fault that they're successful, but it's now everyone's problem that they're an easy throat for governments to choke.
Also, remember that time that Cloudflare didn't take down a Nazi website because they didn't want to be arbiters of the internet but then everyone accused Cloudflare of supporting Neo Nazis. That this led to boycotts so they ended up taking down the site and wrote a blog post being like "fine, but this is dumb"
That didn't really have to do with the law. You could segue it was a free market action. Though there were definitely legal threats as well. (There's even people here in this thread making similar claims of Cloudflare supporting specific groups/content)
Businesses are not expected to protect your freedom of speech. If you want to say stuff that no one wants to print, you can't sue a business for not printing it.
The government can't stop you from requesting a permit and saying it on public lands, though... And back when telecoms were common carriers, you could have done such from your home Internet, now you can only do it from your voice line.
Right but ISPs and services like CF should be neutral parties just like the Cisco routers and Corning fiber. They should not be arbiters of what’s currently acceptable. Thats not to say they are not subject to jurisdictional law but rather they should not be their own law imposing their views.
Now of course if they want to provide you the user with tools to filter or hide things you disagree with out, by all means.
Yep- your phone or electrical provider don’t monitor your speech for objectionable content and neither should someone like Cloudflare once they achieve ’utility’ like status.
Sorry, but sometimes they are. Laws are reactive so can only be updated when harm is done. But if businesses and people act to hold up the spirit of those laws then the harm doesn't happen in the first place. It's proactive vs reactive.
Plus, bring proactive saves everyone a whole lot of time and money. So many things would be better if people (and every entity) was just trying to do their best and no one was trying to fuck each other over. You may call it a dream and that's fine, but also remember that the vast majority of people already operate that way. A small number of people do the most harm
Are you arguing for a system where employers consider your political views before hiring you?
And no this is not an attempt to in anyway belittle what Nazi German did during WWII. Assuming the employee you are referring to has never been engaged in such acts, though, that feels like a very slippery slope.
Yes. Discrimination in hiring with regard to personal viewpoints (ie adult decisions, not built-in traits) is one of the best ways we have to shape society for the better.
As private entities, we have freedom of association - including freedom to shun certain groups. Use it!
Once we start that, we cannot control if it is going to shape the society for the better or worse. Should feminists be prevented from joining a company? How about pro-choice rights activists? And one persons better society would be totally different from the other person's better society.
We should aim to reduce discrimination not encourage it for select causes.
> Should feminists be prevented from joining a company?
Depends on the views of those doing the hiring.
Should you be allowed to not hire racists?
You are literally arguing against freedom of association. We get to choose with whom we do business! That is our right, as well as the status quo today.
I don’t hire smokers or ex cops, as I think they are unintelligent and assholes, respectively.
If it were legal I would never hire a practicing theist or anyone ex-military, as they are signs to me
of low intelligence and poor
moral character.
You have the right as a free person to discriminate against any non-protected group in service of your company and business.
Someone’s opinions are fair game for evaluation. Think Windows is better than Linux on servers? Keep
moving. Think being a culture warrior in the US is a prudent move? Same deal.
All other things being equal, I prioritize people who have lived in multiple countries over people who haven’t. This necessarily means I am discriminating against those who have not.
There are a million attributes we can use to make hiring decisions. It’s not only legal, it’s prudent.
For anyone not understanding this comment and similar ones try this for me: replace "speech" with "encryption" and "Nazis" with "pedos and terrorists".
Here's the thing, authoritarians use abhorrent groups to justify authoritarian laws. It creates a power creep. Even well meaning rulers will push for more autocratic power with the justification that they can do more good with it. But unless you can place strong guarantees that no malicious ruler can come to power, you should evaluate powers as if they are the ones wielding it.
It's the entire concept of Turnkey Tyranny. A thing we are actively watching being exploited in America and across Europe. Because you can't prevent a malicious ruler from gaining power in a free society, but you can greatly limit their ability to do harm. But this can't be done with myopia.
In my view, this whole stance is completely indefensible, and it frankly shocks me every time I hear this from the progressive side of the political spectrum.
You want to introduce additional discrimination at every workplace in order to get rid of viewpoints you don't agree with?! This is honestly closer to Nazi ideology than the actual Nazi would probably be that you want to discriminate against.
How would you ever prevent policies like this from being leveraged against minorities? How could you ever make sure that you are never gonna be a "Catholic church against Galilei" equivalent?
You do realize that such a policy would've been used like 30 years ago to exclude every pro-LGBT person from hiring, after being used against anti-racial-segregation advocates in the decades before and everyone in favor of womans voting rights well into the 20th century?
If you want some totalitarian society that enforces state-sanctioned viewpoints I would kindly ask you to build your own, preferably as far away as possible, because that stands diametrally opposed to the principles the US was founded on.
Please continue to tell me how my refusing to hire cigarette smokers, functioning alcoholics, Floridians, people who don’t read books, or people who are overtly rabid about US patriotism is the same as embracing Nazi ideology. I’m quite curious about your logic here.
What if my neighbor was born gay (can't help it), but I just decide that I want to try gay this week? Is it fine to discriminate against me, but not him? I made an adult choice this week.
> Are you arguing for a system where employers consider your political views before hiring you?
Yes? Such a system already exists and is currently in place in virtually every country in the world.
If I go online and trash talk anyone, that might prevent me from getting hired.
Similarly, if I work someplace, and I call my boss a jackass, I might get fired!
You're trying to invoke "political" as a sort of shield here. No, it's not just politics.
Its called being an asshole. Assholes might be unemployable because that's how human socialization works. Have you met a Nazi that isn't an asshole? Because I haven't. So, there you go.
> If I go online and trash talk anyone, that might prevent me from getting hired.
> Similarly, if I work someplace, and I call my boss a jackass, I might get fired!
Those examples have nothing to do with your specific political views. Both issues there are about how you engages with others and are a reasonable example of why you might cause problems on a team. The specific views you would have shared rudely have nothing to do with the actual problem at hand.
> Those examples have nothing to do with your specific political views.
Yes they do - as I've said, you can't invoke politics as a shield.
You can be fired for your beliefs. Politics are a belief. So you can be fired for politics.
If you're trying to say that you can just be an asshole in private - sure. If you share your political beliefs, it's no longer private.
Most companies don't want to hire people they think are assholes.
Ultimately, it's very simple human behavior. I don't want to work with people who suck. You don't either. Okay, so we must discriminate based on politics or other beliefs.
Hiring, in it of itself, is just discriminating. We're discriminating based on skills, personality, beliefs, and fit. That's what hiring is.
There's only a select couple of things we can't, or shouldn't, discriminate on. Politics isn't one of them. If you think black people need to be exterminated or whatever, there's no gun to my head making me hire you. No, I'm not gonna hire you.
Yes. Naziism is terrorism. People lose their jobs for publicly supporting terrorism. The employee was self-proclaimed "Nazi" (including to quote, "I'm a nazi", posted publicly while working there) per views and advocacy. They also took over leadership of "GNAA" from Weev (a Nazi with Nazi tattoos etc.) while employed at Cloudflare (I won't type out what it stands for here)
Even Wikipedia does not describe that organization (I assume you don't mean the Greater Nashville Apartment Association...) as itself an extremist organization. (It is also described as defunct.) By its very nature, statements by its members (which you have not evidenced) cannot be taken at face value. Auernheimer's views are his own. The only identification I can find of a possibly other leader of the organization (who you have not named) leads to nothing that confirms any detail of your story - not the supposed Nazism of that person (assuming it's the right person), nor employment at Cloudflare, nor any knowledge on their part.
In short, I can find no good reason to believe this.
Part of being a Nazi means the sincere believe that the Aryan race is superior to all others and that eradicating them is a sensible goal.
Thats not a political view. Its one of racism and finding genocide acceptable. I would sincerely hope that any sensible person would refuse to hire someone like this.
I can't say that I have seen any party documents floating around, but I'll take your word for it here. A person having those views or beliefs still isn't a crime, acting on them is.
A person in a workplace can have whatever views they want. Holding a view in no way prevents them from being able to do the work well. Its a different story if they cause a problem at work, but that is viewpoint agnostic - anyone starting political fights or worse at work is a problem.
A person is entitled to hold any political views they wish, and a business is entitled to not hire them for those views. Just like freedom of speech does not entitle you to a platform or give you immunity from the consequences of saying things.
> I can't say that I have seen any party documents floating around
There are quite literally millions of well recorded documents, pictures, movies, personal accounts of affected people available about what Nazism did and does. If you do need a place to start, feel free give the Wikipedia article a read and use the underlying sources to learn more.
Not sure how they are involved in this discussion nor do I know their current ideology besides the media reports, but collaborators were/are not uncommon. Abraham Gancwajch, for example, seemed to have no issue with betraying his people.
Be careful with your reasoning. Remember that the current ruling party in America (as well as growing movement in Europe) is using the same rhetoric to go after liberals and trans people.
The problem isn't that any sensible person supports genocide, it is that insensible people can get to power and trick normal people into thinking genocide is necessary or not happening at all. They do the former by saying "if we don't commit genocide then they will commit genocide against us".
The problem is who gets to pick who is right and not? The problem is that if you limit the right to limit speech then good rulers won't abuse that power but evil ones will. It's because they are the ones who pick and choose. It's why you have to protect the rights of those you abhor. Because if you don't you build the powder keg of Turnkey Tyranny. Doesn't matter how many signs you put up, eventually someone will light a match. My accident or because they want to watch it burn.
So yes, to protect those groups being persecuted (trans, minorities, and Jews alike) you need to protect the speech of abhorrent groups like Nazis. You don't have to like it. And you don't have to, and shouldn't, protect the actions of Nazis, but you do have to protect the speech. It's exactly why the ACLU has done this in the past because every authoritarian loves to use abhorrent characters to justify overreaching laws.
We're on Hacker News for fuck's sake! How often have we seen the same play but replace "speech" with "encryption" and replace "Nazis" with "pedos and terrorists". It's the same stupid game!
> The problem is who gets to pick who is right and not?
we all do, collectively, as a society
> So yes, to protect those groups being persecuted (trans, minorities, and Jews alike) you need to protect the speech of abhorrent groups like Nazis.
there is actually a categorical difference between advocating the persecution of minorities, and advocating the persecution of nazis. and furthermore it is actually possible and good for a society to say one of these things is bad and should not be allowed, while the other one is good and should be allowed.
> Are you arguing for a system where employers consider your political views before hiring you?
Would you put a Nazi and a Jewish person in a room every day (or on a Zoom call or whatever) and expect something productive to happen? Well, no. It's a ticking timebomb. If you have an organization with multiple employees, they'll have to be people who can work together. So as a workplace, you need to either rid your employees of their discriminating views or rid yourself of employees who cause problems.
If they can be professional, yeah? I have diverse private interests that don't really get mixed with work. Don't see why my political interests should. I've worked with people I don't personally like. It's more tiring since there's less chit chat but the work gets done all the same.
The employee in question did not keep these beliefs private, and posted publicly (and not hiding behind anonymity) about them. They were also a public figure as the "GNAA" president, a hate group, a position they took over from Weev, the Stormfront administrator.
I don't care what religion or political views they have. Its a workplace, if either person can't check it at the door then that's the problem to deal with.
Honestly its pretty insulting to both of the people involved for you to assume so strongly that they couldn't be professional that (a) you never give them the chance and (b) you chose to hire only the one who you agree with (or disagree with the least).
the people talking to you are talking about something very different than simply "political beliefs that you disagree with"
the appropriate level of capital gains tax at the 80th percentile is a political belief that you can tweet about in your personal time and allowing there to be a civil relationship with your colleagues in a professional environment. this is a political belief that reasonable people can disagree with.
asserting the supremacy of the white race is not a political belief that you can tweet about in your personal time while still allowing a civil relationship with your colleagues in a professional environment. this is not something that reasonable people can disagree with.
> Would you put a Nazi and a Jewish person in a room every day
Today's Nazis have more diversified targets for discrimination. Concentrated antisemitism was a side effect of the personal issues of the most famous Nazi exponent in history, but they're more about racial supremacy. Today they might be Islamophobic more then antisemitic.
To answer to your question, their thoughts and views don't matter in the office, their behavior does. You can deeply dislike a colleague for various other reasons too but the effect is the same. I don't want to be fired because I unilaterally hate, or even love, my colleague. As long as I don't act on it, that is.
I know people working together in the same office where one's grandfather was in the Nazi military guarding one camp, the other's was a civilian killed in that camp. Whatever their deep feelings, they mind their job as expected.
What counts as acting? This employee was openly self proclaimed Nazi, member of groups that spread explicitly Nazi ideology online, and the leader of a hate organization (previously led by Weev, the Stormfront administrator, who handed over the president position to them). I don’t understand quick defense of this.
This is a serious accusation. What exactly is your evidence that they did any such thing? I can find nothing relevant in a search, only stories about the Neo-Nazi sites getting blocked.
It's both. In allowing Cloudflare to grow so big, we now have one huge universal button for governments to push. If instead all of these customers were dispersed over hundreds of different services from different countries, good luck with trying to keep them all in line with your specific country's whims.
Worse, governments can also just block Cloudflare's IP ranges wholesale - because Cloudflare is used to launder IP addresses for sites with shady and/or illegal content.
Legitimate sites get blocked too, but most governments probably won't care.
Isn't this an argument in favor of centralization? Right now, those legitimate sites include many government websites which means that most governments do care. You know what IP block they definitely don't use? A tiny provider for DIY blogs or whatever.
So, interestingly, the places that actually did the worst in the Holocaust were generally the places where there were the least legal structures--even though you would expect it to be worst for Jews in Germany, it was often Poland and other states that had all legal structures and civil institutions destroyed who had it the worst.
Several countries have stupid laws around online child protection, that are universally ignored and universally not enforced simply because there is no reasonable way to comply. Others might be tempted to introduce new stupid laws once they become feasible.
That doesn't make it Cloudflare's fault, but the centralization is still a problem.