Cloudflare terminating 8chan's service tonight

[Admiral X]

Yeah, but who can afford to retain a ton of lawyers? In any case, the actions by Facbook and Twitter suggests that they want to be publishers rather than platforms, which is why they should lose their protections as platforms. And maybe Cloudflare, too, given their hypocritical stance of "8chan wasn't actually breaking any laws, but ... the spirit of them" while explaining how what they're doing totally isn't violating the First Amendment, which, while technically correct, still violates the spirit of it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Yeah, but who can afford to retain a ton of lawyers? In any case, the actions by Facbook and Twitter suggests that they want to be publishers rather than platforms, which is why they should lose their protections as platforms. And maybe Cloudflare, too, given their hypocritical stance of "8chan wasn't actually breaking any laws, but ... the spirit of them" while explaining how what they're doing totally isn't violating the First Amendment, which, while technically correct, still violates the spirit of it.

The lettering is pretty concise imo and lawyers don't play a huge factor in mediation.

It doesn't matter the actions. All digital websites under certain conditions are explicitly treated as distributors, not publishers.

Cloudfire isn't obligated to treat its clients impartially by this circumstance. It should be painfully obvious that Cloudfire as a private entity isn't an arbiter subject to first amendment rights of its clients. They're unable to break it on behalf of 8chan.

[Admiral X]

The lettering is pretty concise imo and lawyers don't play a huge factor in mediation.

They can when it comes to taking advantage of such protections. How many reviews and parodies that would be protected under fair use have been taken down on YouTube, just as an example? Yet YouTube itself would be protected from being sued because they are a platform (or are supposed to be).

It doesn't matter the actions. All digital websites under certain conditions are explicitly treated as distributors, not publishers.

And I'd say the "certain conditions" have been breached by the likes of Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Hell, it looks like for all the obsession with Russian collusion that Google did far more to interfere with the past two elections, and have had some internal email leaks that make it look like they're planning to take it to a new level for the 2020 election.

Cloudfire isn't obligated to treat its clients impartially by this circumstance. It should be painfully obvious that Cloudfire as a private entity isn't an arbiter subject to first amendment rights of its clients. They're unable to break it on behalf of 8chan.

You realize that people and companies actually can be charged with violating the civil rights of individuals, right? So of course they can break the First Amendment, and even if they haven't in this case, it still makes them hypocrites for breaking it in spirit, just as they claim 8chan has done by what they allege them to have done (I have my doubts given previous attempts to take 8chan down). At the very least, they could be taken to court for breaking the contract they had with whoever owned 8chan, unless they offered a refund, of course.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The lettering is pretty concise imo and lawyers don't play a huge factor in mediation.

They can when it comes to taking advantage of such protections. How many reviews and parodies that would be protected under fair use have been taken down on YouTube, just as an example? Yet YouTube itself would be protected from being sued because they are a platform (or are supposed to be).

The law isn't even coming into play in those cases. It's all being handled privately. Youtube isn't obligated to monetize or host anybody's videos. Lawyers can't really help any video producers in this case, and Youtube certainly doesn't need any really.

It doesn't matter the actions. All digital websites under certain conditions are explicitly treated as distributors, not publishers.

And I'd say the "certain conditions" have been breached by the likes of Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Hell, it looks like for all the obsession with Russian collusion that Google did far more to interfere with the past two elections, and have had some internal email leaks that make it look like they're planning to take it to a new level for the 2020 election.

What? What breach? The only condition is that they must be a provider of digital content supplied by a third party.

Cloudfire isn't obligated to treat its clients impartially by this circumstance. It should be painfully obvious that Cloudfire as a private entity isn't an arbiter subject to first amendment rights of its clients. They're unable to break it on behalf of 8chan.

You realize that people and companies actually can be charged with violating the civil rights of individuals, right? So of course they can break the First Amendment, and even if they haven't in this case, it still makes them hypocrites for breaking it in spirit, just as they claim 8chan has done by what they allege them to have done (I have my doubts given previous attempts to take 8chan down). At the very least, they could be taken to court for breaking the contract they had with whoever owned 8chan, unless they offered a refund, of course.

When has a private organization violated someone's first amendment rights by not associating with them?

[Admiral X]

The law isn't even coming into play in those cases.

It would if some kind of copyright troll tried to sue them for something.

It's all being handled privately. Youtube isn't obligated to monetize or host anybody's videos.

And why shouldn't they host someone's silly review videos or parodies, or anything else that isn't illegal?

What? What breach?

Have you been living under a rock?

The only condition is that they must be a provider of digital content supplied by a third party.

Which gives them no reason to censor anything since they can hide behind that law.

When has a private organization violated someone's first amendment rights by not associating with them?

In what way does a baker violate someone's rights by refusing to associate with them by not baking a cake or cater for an event of theirs? If you really want to bring up freedom of association, that would mean admitting to that double standard.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'm not doing this shit where you start with one post and then proceed to break it into three then five questions all branching into different discrete topics. Trolls suing youtube has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Youtube doesn't have to host anything whether it's illegal or not, but they're not liable for illegal content. Facebook hasn't been charged with collusion, it's a very complicated matter as far as anyone getting them to cooperate. The issue isn't whether Cloudfire has to censor anything, they're choosing to do it by their own stated conscience. The cake baker had to do with a newly developing legal circumstance dealing with discrimination recognized on a national level, and the supreme court sided with the baker against the freakin' state of Colorado.

[LittleRaven]

The cake baker had to do with a newly developing legal circumstance dealing with discrimination recognized on a national level, and the supreme court sided with the baker against the freakin' state of Colorado.

Kind of. The Supreme Court said that officials representing the state of Colorado were clearly not operating in good faith and vacated the state court's decision on the technicality. They explicitly did NOT "side with the baker." The issue of when exactly someone can refuse to provide creative services remains open.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The cake baker had to do with a newly developing legal circumstance dealing with discrimination recognized on a national level, and the supreme court sided with the baker against the freakin' state of Colorado.

Kind of. The Supreme Court said that officials representing the state of Colorado were clearly not operating in good faith and vacated the state court's decision on the technicality. They explicitly did NOT "side with the baker." The issue of when exactly someone can refuse to provide creative services remains open.

Yeah, you and I specifically talked about it.

Even given the deferment or proficient ruling on the actual case, the issue there revolved around a special case of discrimination pertaining to marriage equality. It wasn't really a general discrimination as far as I could tell, unless you have other thoughts as it pertains to this.

I mean, it might not have had any special legal parameters of new developments as far as your take on it. But I do have trouble seeing how 8chan with Cloudfare resembles that dispute.

[Admiral X]

I'm not doing this shit where you start with one post and then proceed to break it into three then five questions all branching into different discrete topics.

I break things up so I can focus on a particular point and anyone reading can know exactly what I'm talking about.

Trolls suing youtube has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

No, it doesn't, because I'm talking about reviews and parodies, which are protected under fair use.

Youtube doesn't have to host anything whether it's illegal or not, but they're not liable for illegal content.

Then why do they insist on deleting reviews and parodies for copyright strikes?

Facebook hasn't been charged with collusion, it's a very complicated matter as far as anyone getting them to cooperate.

Google is in the hot seat about collusion, not Facebook. Facebook is in the hot seat for its censorship of conservative groups.

The issue isn't whether Cloudfire has to censor anything, they're choosing to do it by their own stated conscience. The cake baker had to do with a newly developing legal circumstance dealing with discrimination recognized on a national level, and the supreme court sided with the baker against the freakin' state of Colorado.

It's more than just Colorado, and it's the exact same rational that you brought up yourself.

[Admiral X]

I mean, it might not have had any special legal parameters of new developments as far as your take on it. But I do have trouble seeing how 8chan with Cloudfare resembles that dispute.

Freedom of association.