They get shit on a lot here. Why? What do they do and how is that different from other companies that offer similar services?
What I know of them: they offer DDS brute force/spam protection for websites.
They get shit on a lot here. Why? What do they do and how is that different from other companies that offer similar services?
What I know of them: they offer DDS brute force/spam protection for websites.
I’m not talking about the free speech of Cloudflare, aside from like one paragraph. I’m talking about the free speech of law abiding US citizens.
Cloudflare isn’t a monopoly. Why do you think it is?
Cloudflare acted against their self interest by not taking down TDS sooner. It would have been in their self interest from a public image perspective to do so. Why would you suggest otherwise?
Why do you think that both the EFF and I are the ones who are confused here?
I don’t think you’re confused. I think you have different expectations than me.
You value an ideal of free speech that in my mind doesn’t exist, and you think the harm that can be done in trying to attain it is not the biggest issue.
I see it that other way around. I think that private monopolies actively protecting platforms used to spread hate is a bigger issue, because it’s causing real world harm right here and now.
You don’t think that the concept of free speech exists?
Exactly. There is no such thing as complete free speech. Every implementation of free speech is speech with limits influenced by societal norms. So in my mind, arguing for an ideal that doesn’t and never will exist is a pretty poor reason to sustain harm to vulnerable folk.
So your stance is basically “We can’t be perfect, so why even try?”
Would you prefer a world without the first amendment in the US, for the UN to abandon the idea of freedom of expression as a human right, and all that entails? Or is it just censorship by corporations that you’re cool with?
I don’t consider complete free speech to be perfection.
I’d prefer a world in which we protect the vulnerable rather than protecting the folk who are trying to hurt the vulnerable
So your stance is “We can’t be perfect when it comes to implementing free speech, so why even bother defending people’s right to freedom of expression at all?”
Encouraging censorship would hurt more marginalized people than it would help.
You think free speech is an unattainable ideal, but when you’re asked to clarify whether you’re talking about government censorship, too, or “just” corporate censorship, you reply with this fairytale nonsense?
Even if we limit the scope of that to just Cloudflare and other internet infrastructure companies, they’d basically have to stop offering their services to anyone to the political right of Bernie Sanders. Not that I’d have a problem with that, but it’s never going to happen. Sure, a single company could do that, but that wouldn’t change the fact that the rest of them don’t.
Being upset about Cloudflare “protecting” nazis is misplaced anger. It’s like being upset because the police stop you from hurting nazis. Like, there are so many reasons to be anti-police, but this isn’t one of them. Being frustrated because they’re in your way is one thing, but saying they’re shitty people because they protect people (even when those people are nazis) is toddler level logic.
Are there things to be angry about with TDS? Absolutely. There’s the nazis. There’s Trump. And there’s the people whose actual responsibility it was to protect the vulnerable - law enforcement, mostly, but government in general here - and who did nothing, as far as I can tell.
No, I think the thing that you’re calling free speech isn’t free speech at all because there is no such thing implemented anywhere that works. A genuine implementation of it would be explicitly more harmful than helpful.
What we have is speech restricted by the norms of our societies. All you’re arguing for is shifting the line to a different (more harmful) place, in the name of hypothetical ideal
And what we have with CloudFlare is a private entity that is virtually a monopoly, sustaining literal hate speech despite the harm hate speech does and doing so for the same reasons you’re here defending them. Because you value chasing an ideal that doesn’t exist over the needs of real people.
It’s also interesting that you conflate “anything to the right of Sanders” with Nazis and other hate groups. The fact that you’re painting my issue with the latter as being equivalent is cheap.
I don’t give a fuck whether you agree with me. I answered the OPs question. You’re not going to magically convince me that actually, hate speech is ok sometimes and should be protected.