Cloudflare Removes Neo-Nazi Site From DDoS Mitigation Service

[ssmith512]

Cloudflare has many "clients" that are doing illegal things (ie. Pirate and torrent sites as well as hacking and illegal drug information.) If you are going to make a line in the sand you should make sure you know which side everyone is standing on and just hope nobody changes sides.

 

[Matt Booth]

Sorry but Cloudflare refused to take down piracy sites.

There is NO concern of Cloudflare policing the internet. They just don't want to provide service to Nazis breaking the law and spreading hate speech. If the Daily Stormer is left online, more people could die if they're given a platform to organise.

Cloudflare did the right thing and the subject shouldn't even be up for discussion. They refused service to actual Nazis. There's no grey area. They stopped white supremacists from having a platform and did the world a favour.

What these people are doing goes beyond free speech and they should be imprisoned.

 

[Reynod]

Private companies can pick and chose their customers ... Toms Hardware and Toms Guide certainly have.

Once upon a time our forums were like the Brown section of Babylon 5 but we collectively cleaned it up.

Now the standard test for a post for me is ... will my mum approve of what I posted?

I have no problem with that because our primary focus in the forums is technology ... keep that in mind ... this is a tech forum.

Technology effects society in many ways ... consider how many people are currently hunchbacked bent over their smartfones?

We will have to start a new forum subsection called "Chiropractic Exercises" soon.

The nazis are the least of our problems.

 

[southernshark]

It's true that a private company isn't constricted by the 1st Amendment. However, laws that prohibit discrimination against race were passed because in much of the country it was virtually impossible for black people to travel normally or to socialize normally, even though most of the country did not have explicit laws on this (it was just that every business did it). When every business is pressured into doing the same thing, then it creates a bad situation. Also when you talk about government policy, what does that mean exactly? The government is huge. It may not need a law to pressure a company into doing something. It could simply withhold business contracts. That's a scary situation, and it needs to be addressed. We are rapidly seeing an internet controlled by a few companies, and realistically even a few people. I'm not sure that's a good idea.

 

[Matt Booth]

It's true that a private company isn't constricted by the 1st Amendment. However, laws that prohibit discrimination against race were passed because in much of the country it was virtually impossible for black people to travel normally or to socialize normally, even though most of the country did not have explicit laws on this (it was just that every business did it). When every business is pressured into doing the same thing, then it creates a bad situation. Also when you talk about government policy, what does that mean exactly? The government is huge. It may not need a law to pressure a company into doing something. It could simply withhold business contracts. That's a scary situation, and it needs to be addressed. We are rapidly seeing an internet controlled by a few companies, and realistically even a few people. I'm not sure that's a good idea.

But there's nothing stopping the far right nazis from using another DDoS mitigation service, or creating their own.

At the end of the day, the owners of the nazi said basically said Cloudflare agreed with them, and to prove they didn't, they stopped providing their service.

ICANN has been in control of domain names for decades. No-one kicked up a fuss when they can and have removed names from piracy groups. Even though ICANN should be independent of the law civil matters of copyright.

Cloudflare refusing service to a nazi group spreading hate messages that lead to deaths isn't an issue we should be worried about.

 

[Joe Black]

Freedom of speech is not without consequences. Nobody was arrested so no wrong was done. It's not much different from an employee being fired for posting hate speech on social media.

Individuals and companies have the right to choose who they want to associate with.

They are being crybabies if they are crying foul now. They should get fox to give them a platform. They would arguably have better luck.

 

[coolitic]

Welp, Toms seems to enjoy testing the limits of what would be considered GRAPES or not.

 

[RomeoReject]

Who said anything about accepting an ideology of genocide, or that the dialogue would even be with the Nazis? If the company can censor Nazis without concern, they can censor anybody without concern. My concern is the bad behavior of forcefully shutting up the people who's opinion is disagreed with, which is what Cloudflare has done. It would appear that Cloudflare has decided it will not render a service based on their feelings and their view of the feelings of others toward the person or group they are rendering the service for. I suspect if this was based on a legal matter, it may not have even made headlines. I find it unfortunate that there hasn't been consistency on allowing private businesses to exercise this sort of discretionary service. Other service businesses have been sued, with very heavy fines levied against them for refusing to provide their services, based on the private owner's discretion, so what makes Cloudflare special?

You did, in your very first comment.

And Cloudfare isn't "censoring" the Nazis, or anyone else. They're a business, and as a business, they have the right to work with anyone they choose, and not to work with anyone they choose as well. This is no different than if ADT had said "we don't want to provide security to those losers" or Ford says "we don't want to lease stuff to them, because we don't want the association". The government allows their dumb ideology - that's where their rights begin and end. That companies don't want to deal with them is their own problem.

 

[leoscott]

"What kind of a dialogue do you reasonably expect with literal Nazis?"
None actually. I ignore them. And had Antifa and BLM ignored them they wouldn't have gotten all the press they have received this last week.
The real question is where is the line drawn? And next, what will you believe when the line is drawn on the other side of you? Who is the decider? That is the problem with restricting free speech. Someone decides. Which is great as long as they decide the way you like. But it's never the same people always deciding. I prefer free speech as long as it passes muster defined by SCOTUS. If I don't like it, I don't listen and on comment sections, if I don't like it enough, I provide counter comments.

That goes without saying. But there is the principle involved which should be close to every American's heart, which is what I was speaking to.

Except that American freedom of speech doesn't apply to private corporations, many of which can make their own policies toward what they deem acceptable. Like our own website here, where the terms of service can dictate who can be a member and who cannot be a member. Every forum on the internet has rules. Every corporation out there can make their own policy toward who gets a membership and who doesn't. American freedom of speech laws *ONLY* apply to when the government attempts to censor speech, and this was not the case here. It does not apply to corporate entities.

 

[RedJaron]

Cloudflare did the right thing and the subject shouldn't even be up for discussion.

The mentality of, "This is right/wrong and there's no room for any discussion whatsoever," is quite perilous as the line of what's acceptable and not for a society can change quite fast. You never know when you'll be on the "wrong" side of the line, and when you do you'll need to face all the barricades you help set up.

They refused service to actual Nazis. There's no grey area. They stopped white supremacists from having a platform and did the world a favour.

This same basic argument has been used throughout history, sometimes with devastating effects. "I find that person's/group's ideas repugnant so therefore they shouldn't have the same rights as me." Be very careful what you wish for. Voltaire's friend's principle is even more important today. "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

What these people are doing goes beyond free speech and they should be imprisoned.

By your spelling "favour" I take it you're from Canada or UK. The concept of freedom of speech there is quite different from the First Amendment and laws in the USA. Unlike the UK, you literally can say almost whatever you like in the US without fear of gov't reprisal ( short of threatening the president and very few other things ). It doesn't matter how hateful, stupid, or morally wrong your opinion might be, you're allowed to express it. It's a very tricky thing to prove in court that a person was intending to incite violence or a riot and not just giving an impassioned speech.

The KKK and neo-Nazis have been marching, protesting, and demonstrating in the US for decades. They have the right to do so. And 99.999% of the time those demonstrations go off with no problems. Most of the time it's because they're ignored. This last rally had been under planning for a year and was advertised all across the USA. And the best they could draw was a few hundred people.

But there's nothing stopping the far right nazis from using another DDoS mitigation service, or creating their own.

Do you realize this was the same argument used in defense of the bakers, florists, and photographers? If it wasn't good enough back then, from a legal standpoint, why is it good enough now?

Cloudflare refusing service to a nazi group spreading hate messages that lead to deaths isn't an issue we should be worried about.

You'll have extreme difficulty proving that the people running the Daily Stormer were directly involved in or responsible for any deaths. The site has been up a long time. If there was anything there that was deemed inciteful and illegal, why was it not forcibly taken down and charges pressed years ago?

Nobody was arrested so no wrong was done.

This is an incredibly short-sighted argument. Plenty of wrong things happen without anyone getting arrested, and I'm not just talking political. People lose their jobs and livelihoods for unethical but not illegal reasons. Retirement and pension plans can be lost due to immoral company executives. Don't be so quick to embrace a principle just because one instance of it is on your preferred side.

It's not much different from an employee being fired for posting hate speech on social media.

Actually there are some very distinct differences between this case and your example. A contract of employment is rather different from a contract of commercial service. Daily Stormer was paying Cloudflare, so in your instance, Daily Stormer would be the employer, not the other way round.

They are being crybabies if they are crying foul now. They should get fox to give them a platform.

First, last, and only warning. Leave the ad hominems out of it. Neither Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or any other big media outlet has anything to do with it, so disparaging remarks about them are completely unnecessary.

Welp, Toms seems to enjoy testing the limits of what would be considered GRAPES or not.

On occasion there are some tech related stories that directly related to a GRAPES topic so the rules are ever so slightly suspended to allow discussion. During those times, the moderation team watches the thread very carefully to ensure it doesn't go too far out of line.

 

[Co BIY]

I think the explanation that Stormer claimed to have Cloudflare's support could use some support. Maybe a quote from a Nazi saying "Cloudflare has our racist backs because they are our blood and soil cyber brothers, so bring it anynoantifahackers!"

As a company I would be worried that backing out now would appear to the market to be saying "We are not able to protect this site from the attacks that we claim to be able to address for all our other customers."

 

[Co BIY]

Agree with BIT_User I would be interested in more tech info.

Reading one of the links above about Chinese DDos groups and a common feature was that they were hosted on Cloudflare.

"which reminded us how many of the websites had been hosted on Cloudflare IPs"


What is the significance of that ?

 

[MeeLee]

Cloudfare did a right thing!
They terminated the attacker, and while the neo nazi site is attacking passively, their aggression remains on their own site (like I say whatever the hell I want to say on my facebook page; you may choose to read it, or ignore it).
But actively performing DDoS attacks, is like spamming someone else's facebook page, just because you don't like the person, or their ideology. That's just plain wrong.
Both are wrong, but you can fight wrong with right, by taking the site to court, or the site creators for hate speech, and see where that will lead you!

If a man is aggressive in public, it's not your duty to punch him in the face. Call the cops, and let them handle it.
Likewise here. They burned their own bridges.

 

[Reynod]

RedJaron Nazis being prevented from DDos attacks is a good thing ... there is no moral grounds for allowing hate groups an opportunity to attack others. (I misread this part of the article ... my apologies ... I did not realise it meant DDos protection))

This is not a question of rights ... its a question of preventing hate groups from targeting others ... its about keeping these morally bankrupt hatemongers from harming others.

Every carriage service should share this view ... or by allowing it they should be seen as part of the problem ... able to be taken to court along with the perpetrators ... complicit by association.

Nazis have nothing good to offer society ... nothing.

If I had my way the word would not be in our vocabulary.

 

[RedJaron]

RedJaron Nazis being prevented from DDos attacks is a good thing ... there is no moral grounds for allowing hate groups an opportunity to attack others.

That is Minority Report thinking. You're saying people and organizations should be punished for what they might do, not what they have done. How do you plan to remove all opportunities for someone to carry out an attack? It's not just about them speaking their mind. Should they not be allowed cell phones or internet access? Should they not be allowed driving licenses? Should they be barred from all air travel?

Every carriage service should share this view ... or by allowing it they should be seen as part of the problem ... able to be taken to court along with the perpetrators ... complicit by association.

That's not a slippery slope, that's already tumbling down the hill. By that reasoning, a landlord is guilty if a tenant cooks up meth. Auto manufactures, car dealers, and gas/petrol stations would be responsible for the horrific attacks in Barcelona. Comcast would be responsible for Anonymous' hacking and damages.

Aside from that, business and the economy would grind to a halt. No one would sell or trade with anyone else because you'd have to run the equivalent of a security clearance background check on every potential customer, client, and partner first. Most people are already worried about losing all their privacy to online surveillance and gov't databases. Now my dry cleaner and grocer have to know all that stuff about me, too?

If I had my way the word would not be in our vocabulary.

I really hate to say this, but that's Ingsoc and Ministry of Truth.

This is not a question of rights ... its a question of preventing hate groups from targeting others ... its about keeping these morally bankrupt hatemongers from harming others.

It is precisely about rights. Who's going to keep track of all the undesirables that fall on the wrong side of that line? Who's going to make sure one isn't wrongly put on that list? How would someone go about getting off that list? How would they repair their lives after being falsely branded like that?

Any time someone wants to draw a legal line, some person or people have to decide exactly where that line is. Gov't is REALLY good at assuming new power and really horrible about ever giving it up. If they have power to draw a line, they have power to move it. Do you trust gov't to never move it to disallow something you believe in? Think of the big controversial subjects and beliefs right now. Nearly all of them have flip-flopped in the last 50 years in the media's eye of what is and is not acceptable. It doesn't matter where you draw the line now, it will move. And judging how things have accelerated in the last 10 years, it will move fast. It's really easy to condemn others you disagree with. But what happens when the mob changes their mind and now you find yourself on the wrong side of the line?

 

[Reynod]

I make no apology for my stance ... there is no place for these people in our society.

CloudFlare and any other service providers who take the same stance have my vote of confidence.

Private companies can pick and chose their customers.

Perhaps the Nazis should just buy a carriage service ...?

Great result anyway.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

But actively performing DDoS attacks, is like spamming someone else's facebook page, just because you don't like the person, or their ideology. That's just plain wrong.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that they were performing DDoS attacks. They may have been the victim of them - hence why they used Cloudflare.

Private companies can pick and chose their customers.

Perhaps the Nazis should just buy a carriage service ...?

I think I would have to reiterate RedJaron's point below. One may as well claim that their city can stop supplying them drinking water, or the lines company power. I hope we all agree that people, regardless of their ideologies, deserve to have access to basic utilities. Internet hosting may not be one, but it is still a service. Do you seriously think they have a chance of starting up their own domain registrar?

But there's nothing stopping the far right nazis from using another DDoS mitigation service, or creating their own.

Do you realize this was the same argument used in defense of the bakers, florists, and photographers? If it wasn't good enough back then, from a legal standpoint, why is it good enough now?

It is, of course, easier to change your religion or politics than your race. Holding services hostage until one does so nonetheless strikes me as rather concerning.

There is a large line between refusing to do business with someone and wanting not to be associated with them.

 

[Reynod]

I seriously doubt they do have a chance of starting their own service someone somewhere.

If they were not allowed to spread their bile on the internet so easily, and march around spouting hatred in the street at rallies, you wouldn't have lost 3 people and maimed 35 the other day at that rally.

Such is the heavy price of your first amendment.

I feel like I live in a different world here in Australia.

Personally I do not know a single Nazi ... but I know my history.

It is a topic I find hard not to get all emotional about so thank you all for being better able to discuss it than me.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

It ain't my first amendment... perhaps you forget which country I'm from? It is one of the few things I envy about the US's political system, though. Our Bill of Rights Act has nowhere near enough teeth.

Keeping the emotion at bay is certainly what keeps these kinds of debate civil.

 

[RomeoReject]

Something that seems to keep getting lost in the argument, is that these are Nazis: By considering their viewpoint equal, we're specifically empathizing with the viewpoint that the Jewish people's view is worth less. On top of that, this is a choice. This isn't equivalent to when blacks were denied travel rights, or when homosexuals were denied marriage rights - those groups are who they are, and they were targeted. This is a group who have CHOSEN to adopt the viewpoint of one of the worst groups to exist in the modern era. If they chose that viewpoint, they accept the consequences associated with it, notably that no rational person, business or group wants anything to do with you.

I sincerely cannot figure out what the issue is here. A company dropped a client, because that client was more trouble than they're worth. They weren't kicked off the internet. They weren't arrested. They weren't threatened. They were a-holes, and nobody wanted to deal with them. End of story.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Something that seems to keep getting lost in the argument, is that these are Nazis: By considering their viewpoint equal, we're specifically empathizing with the viewpoint that the Jewish people's view is worth less.

I fail to see the logic here. Considering a viewpoint is not the same as agreeing with it, and we are not even talking about that - we are talking about them having the right to broadcast it.

I sincerely cannot figure out what the issue is here. A company dropped a client, because that client was more trouble than they're worth. They weren't kicked off the internet. They weren't arrested. They weren't threatened. They were a-holes, and nobody wanted to deal with them. End of story.

Google "placed the dailystormer.com domain on 'Client Hold,' preventing the website’s owner from activating, using or moving the domain to another service"* - that amounts to 'kicked off the internet' as far as I'm concerned.

They have been kicked from multiple registrars; at what point does "private enterprises have a right to refuse service" become "I can't rent a home because of my politics"? Do we need a government-run registrar with a mandate to offer service to anyone not proven to be actively breaking the law?

People do have choice as far as their politics goes, but where do we stop?

We are in a situation where private enterprises have a (shared) power of veto over practically every form of communication. Previously, that was held only by the government, hence why we have freedom of speech laws protecting our speech from the government.

*https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/fighting-neo-nazis-future-free-expression

 

[RomeoReject]

They have been kicked from multiple registrars; at what point does "private enterprises have a right to refuse service" become "I can't rent a home because of my politics"? Do we need a government-run registrar with a mandate to offer service to anyone not proven to be actively breaking the law?

People do have choice as far as their politics goes, but where do we stop?

We are in a situation where private enterprises have a (shared) power of veto over practically every form of communication. Previously, that was held only by the government, hence why we have freedom of speech laws protecting our speech from the government.

*https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/fighting-neo-nazis-future-free-expression

And yet, they're already back on the internet. So not exactly a great suppression. Google and GoDaddy wanted nothing to do with them, because of course they didn't. Even if no one wants to host them, they can either go to the dark web, or make their own hosting service. They aren't owed a platform.

There's so many players in the digital age, no one company can possibly veto people off of it. And if your argument is that if they hypothetically all banded together they could do that, then the only solution that would appease that argument is to force any company to accept any ideology. I would argue that is a far, far more dangerous position to hold than that of "if literally every company on the planet finds you offensive, you can't go on the internet".

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

This article failed to inspire a response that any free-thinking, questioning, critically thinking human being should have pointed out above all else. Particularly disturbing were posts by a senior moderator, who assumes all readers, as he apparently does, accept the narrative presented by MSM networks regarding recent events at Charlottesville. And also seems to be unaware of contradictory evidence & independent footage on the net and YT which has since emerged painting a very different picture of events that day.

All the same, he used the MSM story to push his own narrative that surely "those who read The Daily Stormer must be stopped before they cost any more lives", while ignoring the fact Antifa members were responsible for most of the violence that took place that day up until the incident with the car.

By the way: A petition was filed to the White House some days after the incident in Charlottesville, VA, to declare Antifa a terrorist organization. It gathered the necessary 100,000 signatures in less than 3 days after it was started, and the number is now nearly at 250,000 signatures. All over the world, Antifa has time & again proven themselves to be a hyper-violent organization, the leadership of which is paid well for being violent counter-protesters.

However... By far, & most importantly:
In a healthy, open society, NO IDEA, political, historical, or otherwise, should EVER be off limits for honest, open dialogue & debate for those who wish to pursue said debate. Regardless whether we agree with a given idea or not.

Only the less than 1% of the world's population who rule the rest of the world's humans from behind the shadows, with something to HIDE, use their wealth, clout, their influence in general to concoct terms such as "hate speech", "terrorist", and so on. All in order to shut down debate & honest dialogue on issues they've already gotten criminalized in some despotic nations.

Was George Washington and the American revolutionaries terrorists? George Orwell said: "In a time of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act." I don't agree with any ideology that espouses "supremacy" or hatred of any kind. However, there will always be a fringe element that, one way or another, are entitled to their opinions, regardless how twisted we believe them to be.

When people have the freedom hold honest, open debate about any idea, and freely conduct research thereof, sooner or later, the truth of the matter is revealed. The internet is the most ideal forum for people who wish to hold honest debates & dialogue on any idea. Not long ago, we all had a free internet, one in which any ideological website or YT channel didn't face censorship of any kind.

Today that internet is long gone. Aaron Swartz must be rolling in his grave. We should all be outraged at how these monopolistic companies have continually censored website after website just over political ideology & commentary alone. Instead most of us are either ignorant of the truth or too spineless to say anything about it.

 

[sykozis]

I can't believe how many people are actually defending Dailystormer.... I get that everyone has a right to freedom of speech, but allowing groups like the KKK to spread hatred doesn't advance society. I applaud CloudFlare for dumping DailyStormer.

The stance from some moderators that CloudFlare exercising their right to choose who they do business with is wrong makes me wonder what those moderators do when they're not monitoring our posts. CloudFlare deciding not to do business with the DailyStormer in no way impacts their right to free speech. They're still free to spread their hate. The ability to choose who a company does business with, actually helps protect companies. There are a lot of people that look at who the President is and how they conduct business, and try to mimic them. Since "45" took office, the company I work for has seen a dramatic increase in customers making unrealistic demands and threatening lawsuits when their demands aren't met. If the company I work for wasn't allowed to choose who we do business with, we'd have to put out a lot more money on legal expenses, resulting in eventual bankruptcy. So, it's really not a difficult choice. The right of businesses to choose who they do business with, or the right of a hate group to spread their idiotic ideology that every other race is inferior. I'll take business rights and employment. To support an ideology rooted in hate and superiority is chosen unlike race, gender, nationality, genealogy or sexual orientation. If you choose to support an ideology rooted in hate and superiority, you have no right to whine and cry when reasonable people don't want to deal with you.

AntiFa is short for "Anti-Fascist Movement".... From what I've read, it's not an organized group like the KKK or BLM. Based on statements from the head of the BLM, they're really no better than the KKK.... It's time for the US Gov't to declare both the KKK and BLM as terrorist organizations.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Not wanting do deal with them is one thing. Release the domain and allow them to register it with someone else. But putting it on client hold, without a valid reason? I wouldn't be surprised if that breaks ICANN's rules.