Cloudflare Removes Neo-Nazi Site From DDoS Mitigation Service

[Math Geek]

I think you are confusing freedom of speech with discrimination laws. Very different.

those were not laws but business decisions. sure the states had segregation laws but those did not include restaurants and so on that did it as well. they were purely a business decision to serve who they wanted to and exclude those they did not want to serve. that's what makes this such a hard topic, looks great in some cases, but terrible in most others

 

[slicedtoad]

Dropping them for their views would have been a mistake. Dropping them for accusing CloudFlare of implicitly supporting them because CloudFlare hasn't dropped them is a good idea. They were asking to be dropped. You don't attack your service provider with a, "if you sell me your service then you support me," type statement.

 

[Math Geek]

On a broader note, how does this fall very far from the net neutrality argument? If a service provider that is transferring data wants to differentiate the value of bits based on their content, shouldn't this fall under the same private enterprise discretion argument given above? If Comcast decided that Netflix was "vile," would it then be okay for them to refuse routing of their service altogether? That would certainly get people's attention. I would love to see some consistency here.

had this same thought as well. def a net neutrality crossover here. not 100% for sure but in the same neighborhood

 

[LORD_ORION]

Reality: Large corporations have revolving door policies.

You cannot reasonably say 1st amendment doesn't apply to these corporations when they are literally part of setting the regulations and policies. Especially when they are monopolies.

 

[Math Geek]

or is it that they get a louder right to free speech SCOTUS ruled that last year when they ruled money was speech and it was unlimited in how much you could give...

their speech just means more than ours

 

[John Kiser]

@IBJEEPR That freedom of speech is only guaranteed vs what the government can do to you for that speech however. IE the government cannot lock you up unless your speech specifically incites violence or murder or illegal activity specifically, however you are granted no protections other than from physical assault or protection of your own property for what you say when it is between two individuals or an individual/group/business and another individual/group/business.

There are repercussions if you say or do something and while those repercussions themselves cannot be criminal in nature (obviously physical assault/murder/destroying property is illegal) they can do anything that is within their legal right to do such as throw you out of their establishment/off their property, fire you, not let you use their service, ban you from using their service, and tons of other crap that is within their legally defined rights under the right to association found under the same amendment as the right to free speech that some people seem to completely and utterly forget about.

 

[ibjeepr]

There are many consequences, both immediately seen, and some that people may miss. The group in question may not be a nice group espousing healthy viewpoints, but they have been vicariously involved in spurring a reasonably well mannered discussion about censorship, the role of government in steering the decisions of private individuals in private enterprise, and whether the internet should be a place where there is freedom for all ideas.

If enough of these cases start making headlines, you may see other special interest groups lobby for and receive special legal status. The consequences for private enterprise at that point may be worse than a little lost business, which isn't actually mentioned as having happened.

The site was refused service because it is "vile." I imagine there are other sites hosted that too are considered "vile," but are not controversial and as such are likely profitable enough to remain.

The statement, "... have had thoughtful discussions for years,.." really smells of somebody wanting censorship and looking for a good way to get it across the threshold. The line has now been crossed, so further censorship will likely be of lighter consequence to the company.

On a broader note, how does this fall very far from the net neutrality argument? If a service provider that is transferring data wants to differentiate the value of bits based on their content, shouldn't this fall under the same private enterprise discretion argument given above? If Comcast decided that Netflix was "vile," would it then be okay for them to refuse routing of their service altogether? That would certainly get people's attention. I would love to see some consistency here.

Net neutrality is essentially a law, so that makes it different from this situation right there.
It forces ISP's to treat all data equally. Access to all services on the internet (for the most part.)
Like paying a toll to get on the highway, not just whatever parts of the highway they feel like.

This case is a business refusing service to a potential (existing) customer.
Netflix is not Comcast's customer.
Comcast can't say "we will no longer do business with Neflix" because they aren't doing business with Netflix.
Ironically, destroying net neutrality would make that very situation possible though.

 

[AnimeMania]

I wonder if this is like the baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding. All I know is that I wouldn't want to put something into my mouth if I knew it was made by someone who hated me. I wonder if Cloudflare should drop the client because it is too much work. If 80% of your DDoS fighting is to protect one client, then that client might be more trouble than they are worth, but if you are able to keep that client protected, you know that your services are top notch.

 

[tmcarter]

@VELOCITYG4: You hit the nail square on the head; and I could not have said it better myself; and actually made this same observation yesterday! Some of this crazy, out of normal status quo; makes my stomach turn; however no one ever said an open and free society was pain free... There have been quite a few of our predecessors that have died for less...

 

[ibjeepr]

@IBJEEPR That freedom of speech is only guaranteed vs what the government can do to you for that speech however. IE the government cannot lock you up unless your speech specifically incites violence or murder or illegal activity specifically, however you are granted no protections other than from physical assault or protection of your own property for what you say when it is between two individuals or an individual/group/business and another individual/group/business.

There are repercussions if you say or do something and while those repercussions themselves cannot be criminal in nature (obviously physical assault/murder/destroying property is illegal) they can do anything that is within their legal right to do such as throw you out of their establishment/off their property, fire you, not let you use their service, ban you from using their service, and tons of other crap that is within their legally defined rights under the right to association found under the same amendment as the right to free speech that some people seem to completely and utterly forget about.

At no point did I imply some negative effect may or may not result from what you say and the rest of your statement simply expands my comments further, not counters them. I'm not sure what you read into my statement but you brought your assumptions with you.

 

[darkone999]

No shoes no shirt no service..The The Daily Stormer can pool there money and open there own server or cloud service..Cloudfare is a private company and has the right to terminate service..Do I agree with them terminating service for The Daily Stormer no I do not..Because free speech should trump individual sensibilities and if we do not learn to understand this we in America our doomed to self oppression and self inflicted obedience to social norms that we may not agree with..Unless Americans educate themselves on such matters as free speech we our going to lose it and by the time they see the error of there ways it will be to late..I do not agree with or ever read The Daily Stormer but as long as they do not step on my rights I will defend there right to free speech..Cloudflare is like a sheep following the herd over the cliff..Just proves they our very few real men or women left with any self respect confidence,bravery or honor..Thanks for another link in the chain to an oppressive dictatorship Cloudflare..

 

[ibjeepr]

I think you are confusing freedom of speech with discrimination laws. Very different.

those were not laws but business decisions. sure the states had segregation laws but those did not include restaurants and so on that did it as well. they were purely a business decision to serve who they wanted to and exclude those they did not want to serve. that's what makes this such a hard topic, looks great in some cases, but terrible in most others

Incorrect, it is federal law that you can not discriminate against federal protected groups i.e. race, religion, etc.
Those laws apply directly to businesses.

Edit: Now that is. Maybe you are talking about the past, in which case I don't see the relevance to this case.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

It's not a healthy practice to allow some enterprises to put a value on a bit and while at the same time telling other enterprises they may not. If you think the state of the internet in the United States is bad now, let's continue down the slope of censorship. Remember Zuckerberg's response to Angela Merkel when she pushed him about censoring posts on Facebook. He affirmed to her that it's being worked on.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, at least, that's how it was viewed in the United States when laws were drawn up to protect it. Obviously, not every human right is granted the status of a legal right, especially in other jurisdictions. As one of my favorite quotes points out, "In Russia is freedom of speech. In America is also freedom after speech." I am actually glad that Cloudflare has the freedom to drop a customer as they see fit, as private enterprise should be free to operate according to the private whims of it's owners, but I also am free to disagree with their decision.

When you go to work for a private enterprise, you are not granted freedom of speech by the government while on the clock. *edit* Cloudflare is under no legal obligation to protect the freedom of speech of their customers.

I don't see this as a freedom of speech matter. I see this as discrimination. Cloudflare is valuing bits based on their content, and those they consider "vile," they are choosing not to serve.

 

[Mad_3_]

Seems to be rather a misconception here, that somehow not being behind Cloudflare means instant DDOS. I have sites, several of them, and I've never signed into Cloudflare or any Cloudflare service.

None of my sites have ever published anything celebrating the violent death of another human being. Nor have they encouraged anyone to troll or threaten anyone, nor have I ever found it necessary to lie about my location and pretend to be in Nigeria to avoid a warrant to be served on my person.

Yet the operators of Daily Stormer have done all these things, and somehow it's "censorship" to believe that after this, they deserve not the protection of the law nor the government, but the ability to be protected from others outraged at their behavior. There is NOTHING in the US constitution that even HINTS that I, as a citizen or business owner, may be forced to protect someone else who is performing despicable acts. To claim such is simply to reveal total ignorance of what the first amendment actually SAYS about such matters.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I AM NOT CONGRESS. NEITHER IS CLOUDFLARE!

There is no first amendment issue here whatsoever. NOTHING in the Constitution says you must be protected from your own bad and ill thought out decisions.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

There are many consequences, both immediately seen, and some that people may miss. The group in question may not be a nice group espousing healthy viewpoints, but they have been vicariously involved in spurring a reasonably well mannered discussion about censorship, the role of government in steering the decisions of private individuals in private enterprise, and whether the internet should be a place where there is freedom for all ideas.

If enough of these cases start making headlines, you may see other special interest groups lobby for and receive special legal status. The consequences for private enterprise at that point may be worse than a little lost business, which isn't actually mentioned as having happened.

The site was refused service because it is "vile." I imagine there are other sites hosted that too are considered "vile," but are not controversial and as such are likely profitable enough to remain.

The statement, "... have had thoughtful discussions for years,.." really smells of somebody wanting censorship and looking for a good way to get it across the threshold. The line has now been crossed, so further censorship will likely be of lighter consequence to the company.

On a broader note, how does this fall very far from the net neutrality argument? If a service provider that is transferring data wants to differentiate the value of bits based on their content, shouldn't this fall under the same private enterprise discretion argument given above? If Comcast decided that Netflix was "vile," would it then be okay for them to refuse routing of their service altogether? That would certainly get people's attention. I would love to see some consistency here.

Net neutrality is essentially a law, so that makes it different from this situation right there.
It forces ISP's to treat all data equally. Access to all services on the internet (for the most part.)
Like paying a toll to get on the highway, not just whatever parts of the highway they feel like.

This case is a business refusing service to a potential (existing) customer.
Netflix is not Comcast's customer.
Comcast can't say "we will no longer do business with Neflix" because they aren't doing business with Netflix.
Ironically, destroying net neutrality would make that very situation possible though.

Comcast and other ISPs are enterprises that are now forced by the government to not value the contents of bits due to special considerations, not because they are somehow any less of a private company than Cloudshare. If enough people lobbied and the government bodies agreed, Cloudshare would be made to take on customers they didn't want to.

Why did Netflix lobby for net neutrality in the first place? They wanted to send traffic through their transit providers in quantities that exceeded the peering agreements between their transit provider and the ISPs. Bottom line is, Netflix wanted to pay less to get their product to market. What the American people got was more regulation and the incorrect assurance that this somehow guarantees a certain quality of service for the last mile connection, no matter the data. It never did and ISPs don't even sell that as a product. At this point, Netflix is a Comcast customer, and they pay to connect directly to the ISP in many locations, rather than just relying on their transit providers. Comcast certainly could refuse to service Netflix as a customer in this regard, but they have actually integrated a Netflix app into their product line-up, so instead of fighting the streaming service, have decided to work with them.

The Comcast / Netflix deal seems to me to be a reasonably amicable compromise.

I may not like what major ISPs were, and are trying to do, but it doesn't give me the right to dictate how they run their business, nor do I feel I should lobby the government to essentially put a gun to the head of enterprises to force them to do what I want either. That is not freedom. A gross excess of regulations imposed in the last 100+ years have stagnated a great deal of good, forward progress. Would the likes of cable companies be in the positions they are, without the government regulations that grant them the monopolistic privileges they enjoy?

In the case of the cake bakers, they consider the behavior they were being forced to support, "vile." So, where do we draw the line?

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

... If 80% of your DDoS fighting is to protect one client, then that client might be more trouble than they are worth,..

If 80% of your services are provided to 1 client, then that one client pays 80% of your overall service fees or gets better rates for buying so much service. It's not good business practice to cut services to a customer because they buy the most service. At the same time, any forward thinking business would be reinvesting in service capacity, especially in a field such as DDOS mitigation, where until a solution is found, business will only increase.

 

[John Kiser]

@MATH GEEK

Those were discriminatory practices though and this realistically is not. Hate speech and discriminatory groups are not protected by anything nor should they be by the very definition that they are hate groups to begin with. You can hate all you want, but the moment you cross into the realm of trying to push against other people's rights to freedoms and try and stir up hate speech or violence against a specific group of people is the moment you go to far particularly when that group is part of a protected group which falls under disabilities, race, religion, gender or even political affiliation.

 

[John Kiser]

@IBJEEPR because your statement was basically stating more so that it is defined in a method that protects you from more than just the government. Look at how you worded that and then you can make the connection of how someone would assume you meant something else than you did. Maybe you think you were being clear but you were not.

 

[John Kiser]

@ANIMEMANIA

No it is not the same. That was denying someone based on a discriminatory practice. Sexual orientation, race, religion, and disabilities are all reasons you cannot deny to provide service to someone as it is discriminatory and against certain laws. And the government afaik wasn't involved in the cake issue. The cake maker had backlash from the public as will be what happens when people disagree with what you do.

 

[John Kiser]

@BIGPINKDRAGON286

The founding fathers knew it was important to have free speech, but only saw free speech as being between the government and its people. Private entities/groups,companies/people while they have the rights from free speech where the government cannot do anything to you for what you say unless you incite illegal activities.

There was never free speech implemented that prevented repercussions when private citizens/business were dealing with one another. You seem to forget other parts of the 1st amendment that is right to association which is what this would fall under. A person has the right to associate with who they want to or not want to so long as it is not done out of discriminatory practices.

 

[sykozis]

There are many consequences, both immediately seen, and some that people may miss. The group in question may not be a nice group espousing healthy viewpoints, but they have been vicariously involved in spurring a reasonably well mannered discussion about censorship, the role of government in steering the decisions of private individuals in private enterprise, and whether the internet should be a place where there is freedom for all ideas.

If enough of these cases start making headlines, you may see other special interest groups lobby for and receive special legal status. The consequences for private enterprise at that point may be worse than a little lost business, which isn't actually mentioned as having happened.

The site was refused service because it is "vile." I imagine there are other sites hosted that too are considered "vile," but are not controversial and as such are likely profitable enough to remain.

The statement, "... have had thoughtful discussions for years,.." really smells of somebody wanting censorship and looking for a good way to get it across the threshold. The line has now been crossed, so further censorship will likely be of lighter consequence to the company.

On a broader note, how does this fall very far from the net neutrality argument? If a service provider that is transferring data wants to differentiate the value of bits based on their content, shouldn't this fall under the same private enterprise discretion argument given above? If Comcast decided that Netflix was "vile," would it then be okay for them to refuse routing of their service altogether? That would certainly get people's attention. I would love to see some consistency here.

Net neutrality is essentially a law, so that makes it different from this situation right there.
It forces ISP's to treat all data equally. Access to all services on the internet (for the most part.)
Like paying a toll to get on the highway, not just whatever parts of the highway they feel like.

This case is a business refusing service to a potential (existing) customer.
Netflix is not Comcast's customer.
Comcast can't say "we will no longer do business with Neflix" because they aren't doing business with Netflix.
Ironically, destroying net neutrality would make that very situation possible though.

Net Neutrality doesn't apply here. As someone else pointed out, Cloudflare is not an ISP. They provide DDoS mitigation services. Net Neutrality only applies to Internet Service Providers.

The 1st Amendment doesn't apply here either. There is actually no protection for speech that promotes or incites violence, which is typical of the supremacy groups.

There is actually no law, constitutional or otherwise, that prohibits Cloudflare from doing exactly what they did.

even that is not unlimited. for example, the old "whites only" and "colored only" businesses was deemed unconstitutional many years ago. fighting a new version of it today with business's trying to exclude muslims and gays. the courts i don't think have seen any cases on this yet but i am sure they are coming. though i think the old rulings should still apply here as well.

so i do feel business's have a lot of leeway, they do not get absolute control of who/what comes and goes in my opinion. especially when it is a vital business. for instance, your local power company is likely a private business who gets a protected monopoly from the local gov. can they decide tomorrow they don't want gays, immigrants or muslims (insert whatever group is under fire today here) using their power grid? they are a private business.......

i saw again slippery slope, slippery slope.

There are many consequences, both immediately seen, and some that people may miss. The group in question may not be a nice group espousing healthy viewpoints, but they have been vicariously involved in spurring a reasonably well mannered discussion about censorship, the role of government in steering the decisions of private individuals in private enterprise, and whether the internet should be a place where there is freedom for all ideas.

If enough of these cases start making headlines, you may see other special interest groups lobby for and receive special legal status. The consequences for private enterprise at that point may be worse than a little lost business, which isn't actually mentioned as having happened.

The site was refused service because it is "vile." I imagine there are other sites hosted that too are considered "vile," but are not controversial and as such are likely profitable enough to remain.

The statement, "... have had thoughtful discussions for years,.." really smells of somebody wanting censorship and looking for a good way to get it across the threshold. The line has now been crossed, so further censorship will likely be of lighter consequence to the company.

On a broader note, how does this fall very far from the net neutrality argument? If a service provider that is transferring data wants to differentiate the value of bits based on their content, shouldn't this fall under the same private enterprise discretion argument given above? If Comcast decided that Netflix was "vile," would it then be okay for them to refuse routing of their service altogether? That would certainly get people's attention. I would love to see some consistency here.

Net neutrality is essentially a law, so that makes it different from this situation right there.
It forces ISP's to treat all data equally. Access to all services on the internet (for the most part.)
Like paying a toll to get on the highway, not just whatever parts of the highway they feel like.

This case is a business refusing service to a potential (existing) customer.
Netflix is not Comcast's customer.
Comcast can't say "we will no longer do business with Neflix" because they aren't doing business with Netflix.
Ironically, destroying net neutrality would make that very situation possible though.

Power Companies are completely different. They are utility companies. They have a very strict set of regulations they have to follow.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

... Hate speech and discriminatory groups are not protected by anything nor should they be by the very definition that they are hate groups to begin with. ...

There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

"the right to express vile and repugnant thought is guarded by the Constitution."

... There was never free speech implemented that prevented repercussions when private citizens/business were dealing with one another. You seem to forget other parts of the 1st amendment that is right to association which is what this would fall under. A person has the right to associate with who they want to or not want to so long as it is not done out of discriminatory practices.

I already stated that I don't see this as a freedom of speech issue. It may stem from the fact that the Daily Stormer exercises very poor judgment in how they exercise their freedom of speech, but I consider this a matter of discrimination. Cloudflare doesn't agree with the ideas the Daily Stormer has put forth, therefore they have refused them service. In fact, it sounds like everybody is refusing service to the Daily Stormer based on their message, which is something the people trying to publish the Daily Stormer might want to reflect on and perhaps think more deeply about.

Shutting the site down is hardly going to fix the root cause of the site. It also further emboldens those who would use DDOS attacks as a means to censor any ideas they disagree with, or find amusing to attack, whether it's a foreign government or some disheveled haired ne'er-do-well sitting in somebody's attic. Once censorship by major internet hosting sites becomes common place enough, I don't think we'll have to worry about whether this falls under the first amendment.

 

[RedJaron]

Hate speech and discriminatory groups are not protected by anything nor should they be by the very definition that they are hate groups to begin with.

You're actually incorrect here. The term "hate speech" is merely something coined, originally to mean derogatory speech toward marginalized people, but unfortunately now is almost meaningless as many people use it to refer to any idea they don't agree with. Regardless, it is protected under the 1A and you can't be prosecuted for so-called hate speech in the USA. Other nations, yes. Some people are calling for changes to the law to allow for legal restriction of hate speech, but that's not the topic at hand.

You are correct that going beyond speech itself can be a crime, though it can be tricky to prove actual intent to stir up a riot instead of someone claiming they were simply giving an impassioned speech.

That was denying someone based on a discriminatory practice. Sexual orientation, race, religion, and disabilities are all reasons you cannot deny to provide service to someone as it is discriminatory and against certain laws. And the government afaik wasn't involved in the cake issue. The cake maker had backlash from the public as will be what happens when people disagree with what you do.

Ok, and the problem some people have with this is that it would appear on the surface that a company ( Cloudflare ) was denying someone ( Daily Stormer ) service based on their political leanings and personal viewpoint. Now, I'll admit I don't know exactly what states have declared political views as protected classes such sex, ethnicity, and religion ( as I do know that not all states explicitly list sexual preference/orientation as a protected class ). But it's not unreasonable to say that political views would be most analogous to religion in these terms. So if you can't discriminate on religion, you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on politics.

And yes, the government did get involved in the cake, and the photos, and the flowers because those business / owners were taken to court. The ruling against the businesses / owners wasn't that they just had to pay money like a civil case. They were made to pay fines, ordered to take sensitivity training, and forced to submit to additional inspections lest their business licenses would be yanked.

So the question becomes that of a double standard. People that say the bakers should have to bake that cake should also be saying that Cloudflare should have to serve the Daily Stormer. If you're going to say one person or individual has a right to their personal viewpoints, then it's only consistent to say everyone has that right.

Now, if it turns out the Cloudflare is correct and the Daily Stormer publicly, and incorrectly, claimed Cloudflare as a supporter and endorser, then Cloudflare would have every legal and moral reason to stop doing business with someone that was abusing the terms of service.

 

[ibjeepr]

@IBJEEPR because your statement was basically stating more so that it is defined in a method that protects you from more than just the government. Look at how you worded that and then you can make the connection of how someone would assume you meant something else than you did. Maybe you think you were being clear but you were not.

I'm not seeing it but if I wasn't clear I apologize.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Actually, the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) are protections of what the founding fathers considered pre-existing natural rights. That is, they are there to keep government from infringing on them, they don't grant what is already pre-existing.

The First Amendment is about stopping government from keeping you or I from complaining and pointing out where we believe they screwed up, screwed us over, or just the plain dislike of it, and allowing us to do so in numbers, peacefully. It is about keeping government out of religion: promoting or penalizing it and the dictation of its practice and beliefs. (They despised England saying where, when, how, and what exactly they could worship. The Founders were way more Theist than Christian.) It didn't ban religion from having a say in government. It was about allowing the press to say what was needed or felt about government: opinion through op-ed pieces and facts through, what is now practically dead, objective journalism.

This elitist hate speech is something else. Through free speech, the Gov't can't really do anything about it until it turns violent, intended or not, in which they can crack down on that. The First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals or corporate entities outside of guaranteeing us the right to let the government know how we feel without repercussions, so the private and corporate sector can say "Enough is enough! Now shut up or leave" their area of influence/control (home or work) for whatever reason, for Good or Bad.