Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> If because someone used your property for offensive purposes, the water company cut off the water supply, or the electricity company refused to provide electricity, or your phone provider cut off service or what not.

I think it's key that in this case cloudflare are actively between you and 8chan. The phone provider is the most reasonable comparison, were you able to switch provider. I wouldn't be hugely shocked if one phone company out of several options (which when you call the line occasionally puts their branding in your face) dropped you if you were running a line that read out terrorist manifestos. I'd be surprised if something similar hasn't happened.

> Because at the moment, it seems any controversy at all means losing access to anything internet related.

This is, what, the second time cloudflare have done this? That's a far cry from any controversy.



What’s wrong with hosting a manifesto? Getting insight into the state of mind of such an individual seems valuable, no?


What’s wrong with hosting a manifesto? It should be blindingly obvious: when they spread extremism and terrorism like a virus, there’s plenty wrong.

It might make the tiniest bit of sense if we were collectively able to do something preventative about mass murders before they happened by using that “insight”. That certainly does not seem to be happening.

No, I think the time is coming where white supremacist manifestos and the like should be actively stamped out by society.


>What’s wrong with hosting a manifesto? It should be blindingly obvious: when they spread extremism and terrorism like a virus, there’s plenty wrong.

Yeah, a state that is constantly in war(s), paints the target countries du jour as the enemy building racism against their citizens, tolerates torture and police shootings (letting officers that do that shit free), and is obsessed with violence and gun ownership, suddenly is worried about "spreading extremism".


Surely there is a name for this kind of logical fallacy? That a country is flawed because of "X" means that they can't be correct about "Y"? It also assumes a homogeneity among the population about all of those issues, which clearly isn't the case.


So let’s open the floodgates because some things are wrong in the world? Nah, no thanks.


No, "let's fix the way worse systemic things helping breed, nurture, and arm wackos, and then you can decide about them posting on some board".


We’re doing a bang-up job of fixing those “way worse systemic things”. How’s that working out?


I guess that's sarcasm, since I don't see anybody doing any kind of job (much less a bang-up one) of fixing those "way worse systemic things".

In light of this, worse than band-aids like "let's close the internet forums they frequent" is the new blaming heavy metal and computer games for mass shootings...


The United States is not homogeneous, and the current government does not reflect the will of 100% of the people.

It is entirely possible for one fraction of the population to be concerned about spreading extremism while another fraction does as you describe.

If you assume that the people of a nation stand in line behind those in charge, you will be continually surprised.


So are you in favour of hunting down every copy of Mein Kampf and burning them? What about all the other things said by Hitler?

What about Stalin?

What about non-white supremacist manifestos? They do exist, you know.

How much history would you erase due to your belief that words are capable of 'infecting' (presumably) lesser minds?

There's no evidence that manifestos spread "extremism and terrorism like a virus". Words are not able to infect people against their will. There are only ideas, and they can only be fought with reflection, more words and more ideas.

In the end, white supremacists and other kinds of supremacists existed before the internet. By supporting China-style censorship you're not actually eliminating those ideas, or even stopping their spread.


> In the end, white supremacists and other kinds of supremacists existed before the internet. By supporting China-style censorship you're not actually eliminating those ideas, or even stopping their spread.

They existed before the internet, but the internet has given them a tool to organize that they didn't have before. And by censoring them online effectively, you take this tool away from them.

Which is exactly what happens in China. I am sure Chinese officials know ideas and philosophies spread on the mainland, but as long as the people who believe in those ideas and philosophies can't organize effectively then they can be controlled.


Yes, let's be more like China! I'm looking forward to requiring loyalty oaths from our many religious groups. Where do you think we should put the reeducation camps?

Edit: in a less sarcastic way, a government can accomplish quite a bit if it has no concern for the rights of its citizens. There is a reason we don't do this kind of thing in the West; it's a good reason and it's one that China will eventually learn the hard way.


I never said we should be more like China. I just said that internet censorship can prevent extremist groups from organizing (which it can).


> I just said that internet censorship can prevent extremist groups from organizing (which it can).

That's exactly what China does, for their definition of extremist.

But, of course, that could never happen in the US, right? I mean, it's about as likely as a bombastic demagogue being elected to the presidency. /s


> Words are not able to infect people against their will.

... are you kidding?


The idea that words can control people's minds against their will is the stuff of sci-fi and fantasy stories, not reality. As observed in a reply, it's literally the Jedi Mind Trick. Where did you get the idea it's real?


[flagged]


If you think words can’t infect people, you’re kidding yourself. And yes, I know exactly what forum I’m on.


You can probably mitigate their spread. However, as the poster does seem to want Chinese-style authoritarianism, I can only conclude they have limited experience of what that looks like in reality.

As an aside, I've defended certain versions of democratic socialism (though I'm not a fan of it) to some of my friends that are recent immigrants from China (having worked grown up there and worked in the corporate world). All of them think capitalism and Western democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread.


The people you know from China are a highly biased sample, most Chinese are very happy with the way China is run.


If that's your goal you need to put it in context, like what museums and libraries do. When mixed inbetween memes, there's no context. It's just vitriol being spread



Maybe to you and me, but we're not its target audience. Its target audience is other 8chan users, some of which might be just a step away from committing such atrocities themselves.


And not seeing the manifesto will stop them, right?

Sounds like a genius plan.

Don't ban easy access to guns, don't change a crazy individualistic/every man for themselves/violence loving culture.

Just hide the manifestos, that should work.

(Cue the "one doesn't prevent us doing the other" answers).


It's not just the manifesto. Places like 8chan are positive feedback generators for this kind of extremism. Every time one of these events happen it fuels the sort of unofficial contest to see who can be the next one, to be the next hero/martyr of the community. Easy access to guns is certainly a problem, but easy access to these radicalization factories is also a significant component that needs to be addressed.


Where did I claim it's the only thing needed to stop a person like that?

You gotta start somewhere. This is a nice and easy way to do that's completely within the reach of the tech community. There are no laws requiring that, just a sign of a good will.

If it were up to me, Cloudflare would block at least 30 other websites, starting with Gab. Unfortunately, it takes a shooting or two for them to realize that they have a problem with a client of theirs.


>Where did I claim it's the only thing needed to stop a person like that?

Nowhere, but I already covered that.

I wrote "(Cue the "[doing this] doesn't prevent us doing the other" answers)".


Giving hate manifestos easy access to a global audience can help get more people killed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: