Cloudflare Says Cutting Off Customers Like 8chan is an IPO 'Risk Factor' (techcrunch.com) 157
Networking and web security giant Cloudflare says the recent 8chan controversy may be an ongoing "risk factor" for its business on the back of its upcoming initial public offering. From a report: The San Francisco-based company, which filed its IPO paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, earlier this month took the rare step of pulling the plug on one of its customers, 8chan, an anonymous message board linked to recent domestic terrorist attacks in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, which killed 31 people. The site is also linked to the shootings in New Zealand, which killed 50 people. 8chan became the second customer to have its service cut off by Cloudflare in the aftermath of the attacks. The first and other time Cloudflare booted one of its customers was neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer in 2017, after it claimed the networking giant was secretly supportive of the website.
"Activities of our paying and free customers or the content of their websites and other Internet properties could cause us to experience significant adverse political, business, and reputational consequences with customers, employees, suppliers, government entities, and other third parties," the filing said. "Even if we comply with legal obligations to remove or disable customer content, we may maintain relationships with customers that others find hostile, offensive, or inappropriate."
"Activities of our paying and free customers or the content of their websites and other Internet properties could cause us to experience significant adverse political, business, and reputational consequences with customers, employees, suppliers, government entities, and other third parties," the filing said. "Even if we comply with legal obligations to remove or disable customer content, we may maintain relationships with customers that others find hostile, offensive, or inappropriate."
CloudFlare is a risk to free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Because CloudFlare controls access to roughly one third of the internet, and pretty much gets to dictate who has the right to say or access what and how on vast swathes of the internet and how. They've become the de-facto censor of the internet, and they obey a logic of money-making business, not one of free speech protection, however hard they'd have you think otherwise.
Don't believe me? Try browsing normal sites through Tor: it's a total nightmare - recaptcha'ed page after recaptcha'ed page, all courtesy of CloudFlare.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that a troll?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you speak the truth to those who don't want to hear it.
Re: (Score:3)
A company like this going public probably means the end of CloudFlare being a good company. Before they were trying to attract as many customers as possible. After the IPO, they will focus on milking customers for whatever they are worth.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is worrisome on a meta level. First it was obviously fringe sites. However, that bar for being unplugged is coming down. When does this go from dealing with hate speech to good old fashioned political censorship?
This sort of stuff will not stop the extremism. More sites will just move to .onion domains, and once there, not even LEOs can do anything about them. At least with normal sites, one can figure out who is connecting to them, but once they go dark, it only makes police work a lot harder. T
Re: (Score:3)
Not booting those site is a threat to his business. Naturally people will be upset that Cloudflare provides services to sites linked to mass shootings and literal Nazis, and not want to do business with them. There will be pressure not to invest in Cloudflare.
Which is all fine, after all it's freedom of speech and freedom of association.
translation (Score:2)
Not booting those sites is a threat to his business from authoritarian tyrants. Naturally people will be lied to that Cloudflare provides services to sites linked to mass shootings and literal Nazis, and not want to do business with them. There will be pressure not to invest in Cloudflare from authoritarian tyrants that want to shut down their opposition.
Which is all fine, after all it's freedom of speech and freedom of association. Now bake my cake or else.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't boot those sites because they serve a public purpose, they get people to foolishly expose themselves. Got to them fresh though, start off with hate speech, more likely to be believers, then the old hands who have fun with hate speech, like twisting the heads on newbies into cerebral pretzels.
Shutting those sites down just hides the problem, leaving them up, just expose those societal sores to public scrutiny and treatment.
News services just choose to blame those sites because they know that for
Re: (Score:3)
I'm no fan of corporate media at all. It also happens to be infested with leftists who constantly utilize psychological manipulation with the aim to control everybody's speech.
They constantly lie and smear and slander while under the guise of being magnanimous, for the purpose of their modern day witch burnings. "oh but they're nazis," they say to gullible fools, and after all the low-hanging fruit is gone, surprise! the term gets redefined to mean whatever they want it to mean so the attack on free speech
Re: (Score:3)
when he gave into the mob and deplatformed them without a criminal complaint by a competent domestic law enforcement agency
He didn't. Cloudflare dumped them after the Daily Stormer claimed that because Cloudflare was protecting them it implied that Cloudfrare secretly supported their cause. It was the Daily Stormer who forced Cloudflare's hand there, ceasing to protect them was the only effective way to refute that claim. The Daily Stormer did that to themselves.
8chan was different, that was on Cloudflare's initiative. That one was probably thanks to the murdering.
Re:The biggest risk is the precedent (Score:5, Interesting)
That is not a Tragedy of the Commons. Abusing rights? More speech is not the answer! Fair trials are not the answer! Blind justice is not the answer! Mob rule is the answer! Corporate oligarchies are the answer!
Freedom is slavery.
What happened that so many people abandoned the idea of free speech?
Re:The biggest risk is the precedent (Score:5, Informative)
Since comprehension seems to be a problem:
The tragedy of the commons is a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users, acting independently according to their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all users, by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How can using rights be contrary to the common good?
You are saying freedom is slavery. I just... I am dumbfounded.
Re: (Score:2)
sure sparky, take it up with wikipedia
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The biggest risk is the precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened that so many people abandoned the idea of free speech?
1. Certain faction of people deciding that words hurt as much as a 2x4 to the forehead and demand that speech be limited because "it hurts their feelings". Schools and businesses oblige. The overly sensitive are protected, everyone else has to suffer through it. This needs to change. People need to realize that words hurt only if you let them. You can become invincible to verbal abuse, you just need more steel in the spine. And yes I speak from experience here. Words hurt only if you let them. It is something you can control with some effort.
2. Governments don't like their subjects talking trash about them. Comes from weak, insecure leaders that let words hurt them.
There are more, but I think these two cover the main ones. Here in the US #1 is more prevalent than #2.
Re: The biggest risk is the precedent (Score:4, Interesting)
Saying "Hey let's go murder a bunch of people" can cause more harm than someone with a 2x4
Re: The biggest risk is the precedent (Score:3)
Depends. If somebody says that, will somebody actually do it? At least, the feds have to ask that question when deciding to prosecute.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First off, show my anyone that says that? I'll help you condemn them.
Complaints from the same group that shouts "Punch a Nazi" and everyone to the right of Bernie is ... "a fucking Nazi", and "Words are violent microaggressions needing macro violent response" are just pure hypocrisy.
When you up the violent rhetoric because you can't make articulate arguments, and then are surprised by up ticks in violence, you might be a liberal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I always thought they were talking about antifa when they said 'punch a nazi'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech has never been complete, there has always been a multitude of lines that companies, governments, and societies constantly reexamine and debate about. Adjusting the line is not anti-free speach, it is a fundemental part of it.
Like how the EU court of 'human rights' adjusted the line to appease political correctness? [coe.int]
"...the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements, and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected and to have religious peace preserved."
There's free speech, and there's free speech in name only, where the goal posts are constantly being moved in a direction of more authoritarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The biggest risk is the precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech was intended to protect unpopular speech. Speech that goes against the prevailing 'wisdom' of the day. Please don't confuse that with a heckler's veto.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened that so many people abandoned the idea of free speech?
Some of the champions of free speech are only champions so long they are the underdog. Once they rise up to enough power to control conversations, they are no longer champions of free speech, and will instead promote the idea that free speech is dangerous and must be controlled.
A large number of people who used to champion free speech apparently did not do so out of a deep understanding of the need for free speech, but rather their support for the underdogs who were once championing free speech. Now that
Re: (Score:2)
What happened that so many people abandoned the idea of free speech?
2016 happened, and it was discovered that the legacy media was no longer effective in reliably shaping public opinion. Things were getting out of control.
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, I'm a Gab user, and it's rapidly becoming my favorite platform, because it really walks the talk on supporting free speech, and is pioneering a distributed social architecture that is at least somewhat resistant to censorship and control. (Gab already totally dominates the Mastodon fediverse by traffic, even though it's blocked by much of it...)
Like the old Usenet News groups, there is lots of reprehensible garbage there, but there's also a lot of really good stuff there, too, and Gab provides easy t
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom is slavery.
American freedom is capitalist freedom. You are free to do whatever you want so long as you submit to your gilded overlords and you have enough money to pay lawyers to fuck other people over for you. Freedom. The freedom to rape and pillage and plunder and be a paedophile so long as you can afford it. That is what American freedom is all about.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened that so many people abandoned the idea of free speech?
We saw the world continued to function without it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, never-mind you are the ham sandwich guy. knew there was a reason to remember ham.
Re: (Score:3)
people ABUSE their common rights by attempting to impose injustice through free speech provisions
All social progress starts with ideas that are very shocking at the time. People said just what you said about ideas like de-segregating the schools, or gay marriage, when those ideas were new.
"People saying X are just out to destroy society". Every. Damn. Time.
So, accept the bad with the good, or just give up the idea of social progress without violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no this is a regression to ideas that have already proven to be destructive to everybody, even those who think it helps them
Re: (Score:2)
People saying these things are just out to destroy society.
How do you not see that similar objections are made to every new idea. Most ideas about which direction to take society are stupid and wrong. We remember the rare exceptions as "progress".
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, we are responding to OLD ideas that hacks are attempting to use to abuse other people for their own aggrandizement
Re: (Score:3)
Dismissing ideas for change as "old" is also, well, old. You don't like these ideas. That's great. Most ideas for social change are stupid and wrong. But don't arrogantly assume you're the one who'll be able to tell the shocking ideas that the future will see as progress. You won't you'll object to them too, at first. So tolerate the existence of objectionable ideas - that doesn't mean you have to accept them, merely the idea that society need platforms for objectionable ideas.
Re: The biggest risk is the precedent (Score:2)
Desegregation was at most controversial. White supremacy and genocide are no longer controversial. You can protect controversial topics like segregation while taking a stand against uncontroversially awful and wrong.
If it has merit and you can pursuade lots of people it will move from unconteoversial to a controversy.
There is a difference in degrees between flat eartherism and whether string theory is true. One is as far as human knowledge allows settled fact and one is hotly debated.
Re: The biggest risk is the precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Segregation was once considered "bad", but the left has 100% flipped it around now and now "segregation" is okay, if you're just keeping certain people out or only allowing certain protected classes in.
Desegregation was once considered a solution to integrating minorities into society, now desegregation is considered "Hate" because certain minorities want to be left alone.
The problem is, as I see it, is that use of government force hasn't fixed race relations one bit, and in some cases, has given cause to make it actually worse. At what point is "historical" no longer a crutch? When can we actually start going back to a full meritocracy society, where content of character matters first and only, and skin color is irrelevant?
Because you can't have skin color irrelevant if you use it as a marker for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The biggest risk is the precedent (Score:2)
Why do you hate freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
I for one, really appreciate what cloudlflare managed to do to dailystormer, 8chan, etc... and I even welcome losing AC on /.
Ah, so you'll support my campaign for Cloudflare to refuse to do business with Facebook then, on the grounds Facebook has live streamed two mass shootings and several murders, and continues to be a home for racists and sexists across the world.
Delighted to have you aboard.
Censorship is a business decision (Score:2)
It would be nice to see a real economic backlash against it, but whaddya gonna do?
Re: (Score:2)
HATE is a business decision, and I for one, do not want to see people profiting from promoting hatred
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't patronize their businesses. Buyers and sellers play an equal part.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem confused sir
The only thing confusing me is your ability to post AC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just start using the free parts of the internet in preference to the censored parts:
* bitchute.com [bitchute.com] for videos
* telegram.org [telegram.org] for messaging
* minds.com [minds.com] for a social network
You don't have to solve the world's problems, but you should do your part to patronize the free internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Just start using the free parts of the internet in preference to the censored parts:
* bitchute.com [bitchute.com] for videos
* telegram.org [telegram.org] for messaging
* minds.com [minds.com] for a social network
someone made a useful graphic [reddit.com] of the alternatives.
gab.com [gab.com] for microblogging (twitter)
Brave [brave.com] for a web browser
Duck Duck Go [duckduckgo.com] for search, though it is contested in some circles about whether it is actually "free" or not.
8chan was not even source of manifesto! (Score:5, Insightful)
At the time I said it was a bad idea, and that was confirmed days later when it turned out someone else uploaded the manifesto to 8chan - it wasn't the shooter [theguardian.com] that posted it there at all!!
It was (as the article states) originally uploaded to Instagram - why are we not shutting *them* down, taking down any access they have to a CDN?
Obviously there is something else behind the attempt to kill 8chan or any other subversive source of information. Do not allow, condone or support the actions of tyrants who will use any excuse to kill dissent.
Slashdot anonymous AC ban... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Slashdot anonymous AC ban... (Score:4, Insightful)
Did anyone noticed that the ban on AC comments took place not long after 8chan got booted from the Internet? Coincidence...
The recent cessation of Anonymous Coward postings on /. has (so far) resulted in an amazing increase in the quality of the discussions. Although I recognize the utility of folks being able to occasionally publish their thoughts without fear of retribution, it was being abused on /. to the point of ludicrousness. Perhaps the new "can post AC if logged in" approach will yield a useful middle ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Slashdot anonymous AC ban... (Score:2)
Perhaps there's a new secret law or new ruling by a secret court.
Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But can they survive without Section 230 protection? If they become the deep pockets for civil suits over content, do they still have a viable business model?
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch (Score:2)
That's not how CDA 230 works. Not how the actual law is written; not how it has hitherto been (mis)interpreted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Nothing survives if Section 230 goes away (Score:2)
That's ok (Score:4, Insightful)
No common carrier. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only for CDNs or for everyone? Should every site be required to be free-for-all or 100% curated? Because that's not going to work with user-generated content. Even Google/Facebook couldn't keep up with the flood of user content for full curation. I just don't see how that's workable. Unless you want the internet to be even more of an echo-chamber with no user content.
How about a middle option... Platforms can remove anything, but they have to archive it and make it clear something was removed, allowing peop
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with removing common carrier status from anyone who removes anything is that it would destroy spam filtering and DDOS protection. We don't want to go back to the days before spam filters.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you could find a distinction between sending unsolicited data and merely being available for people to request. The other thing, at least with spam that I'm aware of, is the recipient who is being protected can generally still access it (spam folder). If people want to opt in to a censorship service, I think that's fine, but it's different when the choice is removed entirely.
They never had them in the first place (Score:2)
Common Carrier is a ridiculously high bar. One the Internet couldn't exist with had that been the only source of protection from libel/slander lawsuits.
And believe you me you do _not_ want CC to be the only safe harbor on the Internet. Doing that won't turn the internet into a free speech paradise or even an 8chan style hell h
Re: They never had them in the first place (Score:2)
As you very well know, my brother, those who are seeking clarification and/or reform of CDA 230 want internet companies to make a choice. They can be common carriers, who must uphold freedom of speech, or they can be publishers who are free to censor but must accept liability for what they publish.
Remember that your team will not always be in power. If you don't value other people's rights to free political speech, do you at least value your own right?
Everyone should read the actual text of CDA 230. It's no
Patently False ... (Score:3, Insightful)
"8chan, an anonymous message board linked to recent domestic terrorist attacks in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, which killed 31 people. The site is also linked to the shootings in New Zealand, which killed 50 people"
8chan is not "linked" to the events which transpired any more than a regular newspaper is "linked" to actions carried out by whackjobs who send their missives to that newspaper. 8chan did not carry out the actions, it merely carried writings about them. Similarly, newspapers reporting on such "events" did not carry out those events, they merely printed information on them.
I do not see any difference.
Re: (Score:2)
If you did a search of how many of the "whackjobs who send their missives to that newspaper" actually got published, you'd find that they rarely are.
Telephone lines. (Score:2)
For an infrastructure provider to shut down a 'deviant' web site because they don't like what it says, is a lot like if the telephone company were to start closing cell phone plans for people who don't have the correct type of politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it five years.
Re: (Score:2)
For an infrastructure provider to shut down a 'deviant' web site because they don't like what it says, is a lot like if the telephone company were to start closing cell phone plans for people who don't have the correct type of politics.
If your politics include an outright call for genocide, then your politics are no good and deserve to disappear from the marketplace of ideas.
Sorry, but tolerance has its limits, like it or not. It's not a perfect world and sometimes you have to do things you may not agree with at a fundamental level in order to keep the lights on.
If you want to frame this as a free speech issue (which it's not) then please remember that free speech doesn't include a guarantee that there won't be repercussions for saying wh
Re: Telephone lines. (Score:2)
"free speech doesn't include a guarantee that there won't be repercussions for saying whatever you want"
Actually, broham, that's _exactly_ what freedom of speech means.
Does the CCP pay you for your anti-freedom shilling? Or did you just decide to become a unamerican Nazi without financial inducement?
Re: (Score:2)
"linked" (Score:4, Insightful)
This has become the most poisonous political weasel-word in history. Don't trust it.
from the why-go-on dept. (Score:2)
Works for me (Score:2, Troll)
Cutting off toxic shitholes like pro-Nazi forums just doesn't send me into a panic like the doom-and-gloomers insist I should be doing.
Yes, censorship exists, and sometimes it's a good thing. Sometimes it's necessary to prevent total ruination of a resource (like Slashdot, for example).
Am I sad that nazi scumbags can't overrun Slashdot now like they've been doing for years? Nope.
Am I sad that shitheads like APK can't keep posting endless reams of his insane crap? Nope.
Am I sad that bigoted freaks can't post
Re: Works for me (Score:2)
"nazi scumbags can't overrun Slashdot"
You're still here, so clearly that part is not working.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny that you say that, considering the fact that most 4chan/8chan /pollers denizens constantly say that regulation is "evil socialism". Then again, I think we already know how these things work. When it is about state sponsored healthcare and helping poor people, it is evil, when it is about making sure that neo nazis have the right to speak, it's good.
Re: (Score:3)
>4chan/8chan /pollers denizens constantly say that regulation is "evil socialism"
You have everything on those sites. Communists. Feminists. Christians. Fascists. Pagans. Furies. The entire point is to have anonymous speech and with that means everything.
What happened that made censorship so popular?
Re: (Score:2)
>What happened that made censorship so popular?
People like you acting innocent and being apologists for people who seek to control others through hate and violence
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
aw lookee there a astro-turfing troll attempting to seem magnanimous
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Ham Sandwich, moist be thy name.
A leaf of lettuce on whole wheat we give to thee.
To hold this Ham to Sandwiches
We ask thee, oh Ham Sandwich
Which be thy condiment of choice?
With sliced pickle
A tomato.
Ham Sandwich.
Re: (Score:3)
What happened that made censorship so popular?
The day that the opening statement "I think we can all agree ..." was replied to with "No" this challenge to manufactured consensus had to be shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what happened is that millennials came of age and started to run things. People think millennials are college students, but they aren't. Most are in their 30's. Mark Zuckerberg is a millennial. I am as well. And our entire childhoods from the 80's on was coddling. We got participation ribbons, we weren't spanked and we told we didn't have to put up with being called mean things on the playground. I don't blame the generation for how they were raised, that is their parents fault. But we were raised t
Re:Cutting off 8Chan was a terrible move (Score:4, Funny)
You have everything on those sites. Communists. Feminists. Christians. Fascists. Pagans. Furies.
Yeah, but 8chan was like 80% Nazis, 19% memes/porn and 1% everything else. And even some of the porn was illegal.
Actually I'm surprised the child porn didn't get them booted off first.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't they immediately remove any child porn, ban the person that posted it and report it to the relevant authorities?
I'm not sure what else you were hoping they'd do?
Re: (Score:2)
They removed stuff that contained actual nudity, although the mods were not that fast in some cases. But they also tolerated a lot of "model" stuff that was non-nude but provocative, or links to downloads of archives containing nudes that were not clearly marked as such.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cutting off 8Chan was a terrible move (Score:2)
Thank you, Dr Pedant, for that learned and insightful commentary.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck are you or the government to tell me who my insurance and doctor should be.
They already tell you who your doctor can be through the licensing process. If you don't have a license you can't be a doctor, and you can't pick them to be your doctor.
Are you in favor of doing away with licenses to practice medicine?
As for insurance companies, most civilized countries on the planet don't have a problem with providing health care to their citizens. Why is this such a scary boogieman to you?
If you were sick and couldn't afford a doctor, should you just go without and possibly die?
Re:Cutting off 8Chan was a terrible move (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry I'm confused where in the US constitution does it say the government can't offer free health care?
However from the declaration of independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
If life in unalienable right, how is allowing people do die from sickness that can be prevented not breaking that right?
Re:Cutting off 8Chan was a terrible move (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry I'm confused where in the US constitution does it say the government can't offer free health care?
The Constitution is a list of things that the US government may lawfully do. It's a short list of about 18 items and includes things like coining money, maintaining armed forces, and the US postal system. Healthcare is not included in the list.
The Constitution was later amended with a list of areas that the government is strictly forbidden from doing, such as restricting freedom of speech or the right to keep and bear arms. That list does not alter the list of things that it may legally do.
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare is not included in the list.
Yes it is. It's in Article I section 8 under "general welfare".
Re:Cutting off 8Chan was a terrible move (Score:4, Insightful)
Most rights, by their nature, must be free. A right to free speech does not mean the government must provide you with a printing press. The right to bear arms does not mean the government must buy you an AR-15. The right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects does not mean that the government must force everybody in your neighborhood to wear blindfolds if you decide to spraypaint your Social Security number across the front of your house.
Now, as a nation, we may decide that as a common good, we will all share the cost of something. For example, there is no right to have an Interstate Highway system, but we decided as a nation that it was worthwhile to do so, and the federal government funds it. We may decide to do the same thing with healthcare.
The problem comes when some people label this as a "right," which it manifestly is not. People who try to claim healthcare as a right are doing so for rhetorical and political reasons. I personally believe that our current system is terribly inefficient and is doing more harm than good, and support moving to a socialized healthcare system that works efficiently for all people. I do not imply that this is a right, however. It's an infrastructure problem that we need to solve, similar to how we built the Interstate system.
Re: (Score:2)
The Declaration is taken as a statement of intent, and does not establish law in the USA. IOW, it's propaganda bullshit.
It's long since been established (Score:2)
Then again, what have the Romans done for us?