Can anyone explain why the terminations of either The daily stormer or 8chan were: I can't remember Cloudflare saying they'd host anything for any reason and therefore be a "dumb pipe". Is the...
Can anyone explain why the terminations of either The daily stormer or 8chan were:
Terminating a customer or taking down content due to political pressure
I can't remember Cloudflare saying they'd host anything for any reason and therefore be a "dumb pipe". Is the company really saying the rest of their post on reasons for why extremist content is bad and dangerous is hot air and that the actual reason is that they were somehow strongarmed into terminating the two sites?
As far as I remember - but don't quote me on this - the political pressure was actually an angry mob of intenet denizens not related to government pressure. The "if you enable nazis you must be a...
As far as I remember - but don't quote me on this - the political pressure was actually an angry mob of intenet denizens not related to government pressure.
The "if you enable nazis you must be a nazi" point of view.
As the article mentions, Cloudflare was not under covert governmental political pressure to remove these sites, and in the absence of that, they weren't obliged to have changed a warrant canary....
As the article mentions, Cloudflare was not under covert governmental political pressure to remove these sites, and in the absence of that, they weren't obliged to have changed a warrant canary.
The Nazi site removals were solely at Cloudflare's discretion, ostensibly for violations of private terms of service. While they may have chosen to proceed at the behest of customers or the public, it's an important distinction.
The report is effectively saying they're dispensing with that warrant canary because they need the freedom of action to prevent harm since there's no public civil law framework or enforcement to meet the need:
Although we don’t think removing cybersecurity services to force a site offline is the right public policy approach to the hate festering online, a site’s failure to take responsibility to prevent or mitigate the harm caused by its platform leaves service providers like us with few choices. We’ve come to recognize that the prolonged and persistent lawlessness of others might require action by those further down the technical stack. Although we’d prefer that governments recognize that need, and build mechanisms for due process, if they fail to act, infrastructure companies may be required to take action to prevent harm.
And that brings us back to our warrant canary. If we believe we might have an obligation to terminate customers, even in a limited number of cases, retaining a commitment that we will never terminate a customer “due to political pressure” is untenable. We could, in theory, argue that terminating a lawless customer like 8chan was not a termination “due to political pressure.” But that seems wrong. We shouldn’t be parsing specific words of our commitments to explain to people why we don’t believe we’ve violated the standard.
I don't think removing clear incitements to imminent violence constitutes "bowing to political pressure", but free speech absolutists have argued otherwise. Cloudflare's report indicates they're generally inclined towards free speech at nearly all costs, but would rather civil society renders judgment on what's acceptable.
This has been my understanding too. Then it seems that they are in fact saying that the whole post is hot air. And that the reality is that pressure from netizens led them to terminate, not that...
This has been my understanding too. Then it seems that they are in fact saying that the whole post is hot air.
And that the reality is that pressure from netizens led them to terminate, not that they actually thought hosting The daily stormer or 8chan were bad things to do.
I don't know how you're reaching that understanding. Cloudflare, prior to hosting TDS, was indeed very public about wanting to be a dumb pipe. Their post about taking down TDS included extensive...
I don't know how you're reaching that understanding.
Cloudflare, prior to hosting TDS, was indeed very public about wanting to be a dumb pipe. Their post about taking down TDS included extensive talk about why they were doing it, their reasoning, how it changes things etc.
Cloudflare gets a lot of shit from people who see the world in simple terms where, because TDS is a nazi site, then taking it down just makes sense and is very easy to do. And yet here we are over two years later still talking about it, so clearly it's not a simple thing to do.
For context, I said before that CF's ethics were impeccable, and I also backed their decision to terminate TDS. To me, this post makes a lot of sense and shows that they really do think about their ethics and the impact their actions have.
Deplatforming works. Suggesting that people are responsible for ethical thinking regarding what they allow their business to do/support is the centerpiece of most modern corporate philosophies....
Deplatforming works. Suggesting that people are responsible for ethical thinking regarding what they allow their business to do/support is the centerpiece of most modern corporate philosophies. Including that of tildes.
I'd say a lot of people who defend people's rights to earn money off hosting/supporting/enabling those of questionable morality is a discussion that's largely been taking place within the tech industry itself. I've yet to encounter people who aren't deep in tech feel it's reasonable to host nazis, terrorists, violent extremists, dangerous fundamentalists, pro-ana forums, and a number of other unequivocally reprehensible groups.
techno-libertarians seem to be the only people who view any sort of dilemma or morally difficult choice here. Dumb-pipe-theory is extremely commercially practical. It's a morally bankrupt way of avoiding moral culpability for ones business decisions. I would argue strongly that companies present these veiws because they're practical and profitable, rather than morally sound.
That is not seeing the world in simple terms, it's recognizing the agency that every business has beyond the bottom line. IF companies in Europe were to hold these same views under the Second world war, they'd be suppliers of materials used for building nazi concentration camps, furthering the war needs of the Nazis in their occupied native countries and so on.
This transparency report seems to get at ethical concerns in a reasonable way, while simultaneously writing their actions off as responding to external pressures, not because deplatforming nazis is the right thing to do.
A landlord leasing a storefront to a bar doesn't want to check people's ID's or hire the bouncer. They expect the bar to handle it. Similarly, the big dumb pipe providers have no interest in...
A landlord leasing a storefront to a bar doesn't want to check people's ID's or hire the bouncer. They expect the bar to handle it. Similarly, the big dumb pipe providers have no interest in moderating Internet forums, provided that their customers do it.
There are good reasons for this. Moderation depends on nuance and someone busting in suddenly who doesn't know anyone in the conversation is likely to make a mess of things. We wouldn't want Tildes' ISP to be stepping in here either.
A problem with the big, flat social networks like Twitter is that there are no local moderators who can step in, so it gets outsourced to hidden workers in some other country who inevitably do it badly sometimes.
One of the interesting aspects about Cloudflare in particular is that when a site uses Cloudflare, it hides who their actual host is. So with the landlord analogy, it would be like having a...
One of the interesting aspects about Cloudflare in particular is that when a site uses Cloudflare, it hides who their actual host is. So with the landlord analogy, it would be like having a landlord that also actively hides who's running the bar, and refuses to tell anyone who it is. "Sorry, we don't do anything about that, complain to the host. No, we can't tell you who that is, and we're also making it impossible for you to find out."
When Cloudflare kicked off 8chan, it made it so that people could see who was hosting them, and then they immediately got kicked off their host too after they were contacted. Before that, it had always been impossible to tell who the host was, so there was nobody else to contact.
I think that's a big part of why Cloudflare feels less like a "dumb pipe". They're a pipe that's also concealing where the pipe leads.
I think your landlord example proves the opposite of what you want it to. Landlords are generally responsible for ensuring that nothing illegal goes on om the premises the own and let. This basic...
I think your landlord example proves the opposite of what you want it to.
Landlords are generally responsible for ensuring that nothing illegal goes on om the premises the own and let.
This basic legal responsibility for what goes on in the equivalent of their "dumb pipes" shows that the social expectation in our society is that you are morally culpable for taking reasonable steps to ensure that what you sell/let/do doesn't facilitate or aid morally reprehensible people or behavior. The point of contention is how far you're obliged to ensure that's the case. But when you know, you're ethically required to act.
Obviously the law doesn't go further than ensuring legal compliance, but the moral thing is to apply standards of basic decency, as is the reasonable expectation everywhere else.
IANAL, but landlord responsibility for such things is mostly only for residential leases, not commercial leases like a bar would have. This link seems to back that statement up:...
IANAL, but landlord responsibility for such things is mostly only for residential leases, not commercial leases like a bar would have. This link seems to back that statement up: https://www.macelree.com/commercial-real-estate-leases-let-the-tenant-beware/ It might be different for bars specifically, but if you transplant say 'money laundering drug front' for bar, landlord isn't going to be liable unless the landlord was aware of the nature of the business renting the space.
Commercial landlords very much try to be 'dumb pipes' as much as possible....collect rent, pay taxes, and pass as much liability as they can to their tenants. Because it's 2 businesses negotiating a contract, the law often considers it a more fair negotiation, and many consumer protection laws you're referencing don't apply.
Can anyone explain why the terminations of either The daily stormer or 8chan were:
I can't remember Cloudflare saying they'd host anything for any reason and therefore be a "dumb pipe". Is the company really saying the rest of their post on reasons for why extremist content is bad and dangerous is hot air and that the actual reason is that they were somehow strongarmed into terminating the two sites?
This was a very strange read.
As far as I remember - but don't quote me on this - the political pressure was actually an angry mob of intenet denizens not related to government pressure.
The "if you enable nazis you must be a nazi" point of view.
As the article mentions, Cloudflare was not under covert governmental political pressure to remove these sites, and in the absence of that, they weren't obliged to have changed a warrant canary.
The Nazi site removals were solely at Cloudflare's discretion, ostensibly for violations of private terms of service. While they may have chosen to proceed at the behest of customers or the public, it's an important distinction.
The report is effectively saying they're dispensing with that warrant canary because they need the freedom of action to prevent harm since there's no public civil law framework or enforcement to meet the need:
I don't think removing clear incitements to imminent violence constitutes "bowing to political pressure", but free speech absolutists have argued otherwise. Cloudflare's report indicates they're generally inclined towards free speech at nearly all costs, but would rather civil society renders judgment on what's acceptable.
This has been my understanding too. Then it seems that they are in fact saying that the whole post is hot air.
And that the reality is that pressure from netizens led them to terminate, not that they actually thought hosting The daily stormer or 8chan were bad things to do.
Strange.
I don't know how you're reaching that understanding.
Cloudflare, prior to hosting TDS, was indeed very public about wanting to be a dumb pipe. Their post about taking down TDS included extensive talk about why they were doing it, their reasoning, how it changes things etc.
Cloudflare gets a lot of shit from people who see the world in simple terms where, because TDS is a nazi site, then taking it down just makes sense and is very easy to do. And yet here we are over two years later still talking about it, so clearly it's not a simple thing to do.
For context, I said before that CF's ethics were impeccable, and I also backed their decision to terminate TDS. To me, this post makes a lot of sense and shows that they really do think about their ethics and the impact their actions have.
Deplatforming works. Suggesting that people are responsible for ethical thinking regarding what they allow their business to do/support is the centerpiece of most modern corporate philosophies. Including that of tildes.
I'd say a lot of people who defend people's rights to earn money off hosting/supporting/enabling those of questionable morality is a discussion that's largely been taking place within the tech industry itself. I've yet to encounter people who aren't deep in tech feel it's reasonable to host nazis, terrorists, violent extremists, dangerous fundamentalists, pro-ana forums, and a number of other unequivocally reprehensible groups.
techno-libertarians seem to be the only people who view any sort of dilemma or morally difficult choice here. Dumb-pipe-theory is extremely commercially practical. It's a morally bankrupt way of avoiding moral culpability for ones business decisions. I would argue strongly that companies present these veiws because they're practical and profitable, rather than morally sound.
That is not seeing the world in simple terms, it's recognizing the agency that every business has beyond the bottom line. IF companies in Europe were to hold these same views under the Second world war, they'd be suppliers of materials used for building nazi concentration camps, furthering the war needs of the Nazis in their occupied native countries and so on.
This transparency report seems to get at ethical concerns in a reasonable way, while simultaneously writing their actions off as responding to external pressures, not because deplatforming nazis is the right thing to do.
A landlord leasing a storefront to a bar doesn't want to check people's ID's or hire the bouncer. They expect the bar to handle it. Similarly, the big dumb pipe providers have no interest in moderating Internet forums, provided that their customers do it.
There are good reasons for this. Moderation depends on nuance and someone busting in suddenly who doesn't know anyone in the conversation is likely to make a mess of things. We wouldn't want Tildes' ISP to be stepping in here either.
A problem with the big, flat social networks like Twitter is that there are no local moderators who can step in, so it gets outsourced to hidden workers in some other country who inevitably do it badly sometimes.
One of the interesting aspects about Cloudflare in particular is that when a site uses Cloudflare, it hides who their actual host is. So with the landlord analogy, it would be like having a landlord that also actively hides who's running the bar, and refuses to tell anyone who it is. "Sorry, we don't do anything about that, complain to the host. No, we can't tell you who that is, and we're also making it impossible for you to find out."
When Cloudflare kicked off 8chan, it made it so that people could see who was hosting them, and then they immediately got kicked off their host too after they were contacted. Before that, it had always been impossible to tell who the host was, so there was nobody else to contact.
I think that's a big part of why Cloudflare feels less like a "dumb pipe". They're a pipe that's also concealing where the pipe leads.
I think your landlord example proves the opposite of what you want it to.
Landlords are generally responsible for ensuring that nothing illegal goes on om the premises the own and let.
This basic legal responsibility for what goes on in the equivalent of their "dumb pipes" shows that the social expectation in our society is that you are morally culpable for taking reasonable steps to ensure that what you sell/let/do doesn't facilitate or aid morally reprehensible people or behavior. The point of contention is how far you're obliged to ensure that's the case. But when you know, you're ethically required to act.
Obviously the law doesn't go further than ensuring legal compliance, but the moral thing is to apply standards of basic decency, as is the reasonable expectation everywhere else.
IANAL, but landlord responsibility for such things is mostly only for residential leases, not commercial leases like a bar would have. This link seems to back that statement up: https://www.macelree.com/commercial-real-estate-leases-let-the-tenant-beware/ It might be different for bars specifically, but if you transplant say 'money laundering drug front' for bar, landlord isn't going to be liable unless the landlord was aware of the nature of the business renting the space.
Commercial landlords very much try to be 'dumb pipes' as much as possible....collect rent, pay taxes, and pass as much liability as they can to their tenants. Because it's 2 businesses negotiating a contract, the law often considers it a more fair negotiation, and many consumer protection laws you're referencing don't apply.
Tildes's policy is 'if your site's filled with assholes, it's your fault', probably the most pro-deplatforming policy out there :/