Cloudflare terminating 8chan's service tonight

[LittleRaven]

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.

The issue in that case wasn't really discrimination at all - it was whether or not a service provider must create things that he finds morally objectionable just because a client orders it. People don't tend to be very consistent about that - most people don't have a problem with a Jewish baker telling a neo-nazi that he won't make a swastika cake, but Colorado was unwilling to extend that courtesy to Jack Philips. Personally, I'm pretty firmly on the side of the creator in both cases, though I'm willing to admit that taken to the extreme it can cause problems.

I have no idea what bearing any of this has on Cloudfare kicking 8chan to the curb, because the client-provider framework is fundamentally different here.

[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.

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

The point of contention is whether Facebook and Twitter are not protected as distributors instead of publishers. Trolls suing Youtube is a matter of sabotage. It's like saying that someone isn't protected by law when trolls steal all your food and thus you are unable to adequately defend yourself legally when you are unable to eat because you'll then be ded.

You have to have a point that breaks their protection as distributors. Your initial reply was because they moderate their content to a degree, but they don't lose their provisions for that. You never brought how they violated their status, you broke it into anecdotal pieces, vaguely referring to how Facebook breached their protections without any context except to ask if I've been living under a rock (they aren't being held legally liable for collusion). Sorry but you have to be more specific than that. Then you said something about Youtube not having a reason to not host something that isn't illegal. They don't need a reason.

Seriously, you breaking this up to focus on particular points is just horseshit.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.

The issue in that case wasn't really discrimination at all - it was whether or not a service provider must create things that he finds morally objectionable just because a client orders it. People don't tend to be very consistent about that - most people don't have a problem with a Jewish baker telling a neo-nazi that he won't make a swastika cake, but Colorado was unwilling to extend that courtesy to Jack Philips. Personally, I'm pretty firmly on the side of the creator in both cases, though I'm willing to admit that taken to the extreme it can cause problems.

I have no idea what bearing any of this has on Cloudfare kicking 8chan to the curb, because the client-provider framework is fundamentally different here.

I recognize that it had to do with the creator expressing their first amendment rights, but that itself was in contention with the accusation that the actions in question violated non-discrimination laws. I stated earlier that they were laws pertaining to federal statute, but apparently they were Colorado laws.

[Admiral X]

The point of contention is whether Facebook and Twitter are not protected as distributors instead of publishers. Trolls suing Youtube is a matter of sabotage. It's like saying that someone isn't protected by law when trolls steal all your food and thus you are unable to adequately defend yourself legally when you are unable to eat because you'll then be ded.

Except that isn't what's happening. What's happening is that between their own robot and people abusing the hell out of the DMCA report function, YouTube is taking down things they have no real reason to do so with.

You have to have a point that breaks their protection as distributors. Your initial reply was because they moderate their content to a degree, but they don't lose their provisions for that.

Because it isn't just "to a degree."

You never brought how they violated their status, you broke it into anecdotal pieces, vaguely referring to how Facebook breached their protections without any context except to ask if I've been living under a rock (they aren't being held legally liable for collusion).

Again, Google is being investigated for that, not Facebook. Are you intentionally ignoring that point?

Sorry but you have to be more specific than that. Then you said something about Youtube not having a reason to not host something that isn't illegal. They don't need a reason.

They would if they want to keep in business. People are not going to want to post there if they just randomly take videos down and don't even bother to say why. The thing that they should lose their protections as a platform over is how politically biased some of their takedowns are.

Seriously, you breaking this up to focus on particular points is just horseshit.

Is my posting style making you butthurt? Why? You don't like people being able to focus on particular points you've made?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.

Are you saying that that prevents Cloudfare from associating with 8chan though? 'Cause I don't think that it does.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Is my posting style making you butthurt? Why? You don't like people being able to focus on particular points you've made?

I just consider it trolling.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Anyways, "digital distributors" aren't immune from cases of intellectual property or federal crimes. Youtube avoids legal hassle by honoring hasty strikes against producers.

[CharlesPhipps]

I think this is an open and shut case really. It's a private corporation and can, at their leisure, choose to terminate any service they want for any reason. In this case, it's, "We believe these guys are a hate group materially tied to criminal activity." They don't need to prove that in a court of law. They could drop them just because they don't like them.

This is notably a common conservative position. That businesses should have the freedom to serve who they want at what they want.

There's nothing hypocritical about this.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service."

"No hate speech on immigrants."

[Admiral X]

Are you saying that that prevents Cloudfare from associating with 8chan though? 'Cause I don't think that it does.

No, I'm saying that if you're going to argue it as a way of getting around the spirit of the First Amendment (at least in your own head), then freedom of association also applies to the bakers and gay wedding cakes, and many, many other examples.

I just consider it trolling.

That's funny, because I've always considered you something of a contrarian troll who is only really here to stir the pot.

In any case:


I'm not trying to troll you - I'm doing exactly as I said I was. Unlike you, I'm a pretty straightforward guy.

[Admiral X]

I think this is an open and shut case really. It's a private corporation and can, at their leisure, choose to terminate any service they want for any reason. In this case, it's, "We believe these guys are a hate group materially tied to criminal activity." They don't need to prove that in a court of law. They could drop them just because they don't like them.

I have a feeling you'd feel differently if the shoe was on the other foot. In fact I know differently because of the reactions from the few times Twitter and Facebook actually tried to enforce their rules in an unbiased manner.

This is notably a common conservative position. That businesses should have the freedom to serve who they want at what they want.

Unless, of course, it comes to Christian businesses not wanting to make cakes or cater for gay weddings.

There's nothing hypocritical about this.

The hypocrisy comes from the "not the letter of, but the spirit of" stance. It's an academic point since 8chan will just migrate to another server, but the point still stands. You cannot claim to be for First Amendment rights and support an action like this.