zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. zackbl+(OP)[view] [source] 2018-09-27 16:13:19
I appreciate that these decisions can seem easy, but broadly do you want a private company deciding what can be on the internet, or do you want that decision made by a judge with due process?
replies(2): >>daxori+IB >>johnkl+FZ
2. daxori+IB[view] [source] 2018-09-27 20:20:13
>>zackbl+(OP)
Matt Prince already decided "what can be on the internet" when he banned Daily Stormer. As far as Cloudflare is concerned, that ship already sailed.
replies(2): >>jjeaff+4O >>jopsen+ZU
◧◩
3. jjeaff+4O[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-09-27 21:34:08
>>daxori+IB
That's completely different really. They just stopped proxying their traffic. Daily Stormer could continue on, assuming they pay enough to handle the traffic.

Turning off your domain name is a different story. You are sunk until you can regain control of it.

◧◩
4. jopsen+ZU[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-09-27 22:27:47
>>daxori+IB
I think the issue was that the Daily Stormer communicated that the fact that cloudflare hadn't banned them was a form of support or endorsement.

It seems reasonable to put a lid on that.

I do see the moral dilemma though.

5. johnkl+FZ[view] [source] 2018-09-27 23:09:48
>>zackbl+(OP)
Fake Adobe Flash update web sites are outside of the scope of subjectivity when it comes to free speech. Or would you like to assert otherwise?
[go to top]