One is censorship and the other isn't. One need not carry a brief for Cloudflare to recognize that, protected categories aside, like any business they have the right to refuse service to anyone. 8chan falling into no protected categories, and there in any case being no shortage of other network service providers, you need first to establish that Cloudflare has acted wrongly, and your arguments thus far fall somewhat short of compelling agreement on that score.

> Yes, compared to a censorship coming from companies.

This is literally the exact opposite intention of the 2nd amendment.

> If you have a different position, could you explain why censorship coming from CloudFlare is better than censorchip coming from US government?

Cloudflare isn't an entity supported (e.g. paid) by the general populace. CF not hosting their site isn't censoring their content, they are just actively choosing not to do business with them. People on 8chan can certainly say the same exact thing on any other medium (pen/paper, facebook, etc) and no one is stopping them from doing so.

1. The speech is wrong.

2. You can think the speech is wrong, and that CDNs shouldn't host it, while having concerns about the US government getting involved in censorship in direct violation of the First Amendment.

I'd say every CDN decides to not host it is effectively similar to US government bans it.

That's why I'd rather see an open process of making such judgement.

Also, let's not kid ourselves. US does censor certain kinds of speeches.

The chances of every CDN in the world jumping on the bandwagon is vanishingly small. The Daily Stormer managed to find hosting. Even child porn manages it. That doesn’t mean Cloudflare has to be the one to do it.

That there are minor exceptions to the First Amendment doesn’t mean we should throw it all out.

Ok, so your position is:

- the speech is bad

- Cloudflare's action is ethical.

- Other CDNs are also ethical for not banning it.

- Government shouldn't ban it even though the speech is bad.

- You are okay with the speech being hosted elsewhere.

We aren't talking about a grey area here. We are talking about promoting mass-shooting. Every sane person, including you and me, agrees the speech is extremely bad.

Wouldn't you want it to be banned everywhere?

This is the main point I'm trying to drive. We are somehow oddly satisfied that the speech is banned on CloudFlare.

Shouldn't we try to get this specific speech banned everywhere?

> Other CDNs are also ethical for not banning it.

No, this is where you're missing the point.

There will be some CDNs who do not make the ethical choice. That's a fact of life.

I am uncomfortable with government intervention that makes the ethical choice the legally required choice in this case, as I'm wary of fucking with the First Amendment. (It's also somewhat a fool's errand, as you can host a CDN outside of US jurisdiction if you really want.)

It's still absurd to me.

> There will be some CDNs who do not make the ethical choice. That's a fact of life.

- We want everyone to ban it (because that's the ethical way). But government banning it is not okay.

- Government enforcing the ban is not okay. But CloudFlare enforcing it is okay.

I don't think CloudFlare (or any company) is equipped to make this kind of judgement. The process would be secretive and biased.

Government is much better equipped, and the process would be more open.

That's why I would be more comfortable with government taking the lead on this kind of judgement.

I guess we're just gonna agree to disagree on this one.

> you can host a CDN outside of US jurisdiction if you really want.

I'd say outside of US is really out of the scope here. We don't really have much power to enforce anything outside US.

If we're gonna expand our scope to outside of US, there will many many more horrendous things to discuss. And the discussion would never end.

> Government is much better equipped, and the process would be more open.

Maybe - I tend to think governments have a harder time with rapidly changing scenarios, as in privacy issues in the tech world - but the flip side of that is there's little recourse if the process makes a bad decision. Both companies and government are susceptible to bad decisions.

I can switch CDN providers if one makes a stupid call. Switching governments is far less doable.

> US does censor certain kinds of speeches.

Which ones? Please elaborate.

Here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-...

> If you have a different position, could you explain why censorship coming from CloudFlare is better than censorchip coming from US government?

I can engage a different CDN provider. I can't (easily) engage a different government.

I think Cloudflare kicking them off their service is the moral and ethical thing to do.

I don't think 100% of the CDN providers in the entire world will do the moral and ethical thing, and I recognize that the First Amendment would (should) handily prevent legislation requiring that they do.

> 100% of the CDN providers in the entire world

At best, it seems inconsistent that we are okay with other CDN providers not doing moral and ethical things. (Since we are okay with the speech being hosted elsewhere).

“It will happen” and “we are okay with it” are not the same thing.