See here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/04/three-m...

There is an article in the Washington Post about how they're not taking action, and quotes from activists about how they need to take action. Their general counsel had to answer questions from a journalist (on a weekend!) about whether they were taking action. That constitutes significant pressure.

Further, as the article helpfully mentions, they took action before. After you take action once, a failure to take action a second time stops being a principled "we never take action", and starts being, at least partially, a defence of the target. If you drop the Daily Stormer but not 8chan, you're saying, implicitly, that 8chan is not as bad as the Daily Stormer.

This may or may not be true, but it's absolutely not a discussion a company wants to have in the national media in the context of the aftermath of a mass shooting.

> By staying idle

Arguably that was never an option. Today, it's absolutely not an option.

> Why does Cloudflare feel the need to take action here?

The linked article gives their reason.

> Only a minority believe that 8chan is the culprit in creating these gunmen

I seriously doubt this, even amongst people who were aware of 8chan before today's spate of articles. After them, I'm pretty sure that 99% of people aware of 8chan blame it for this stuff. Which is also why Cloudflare needs to take action, because it becomes endangered itself.

The founder is saying that it should shut down in the NYT; if that's not a demand for a response, I don't know what is.

edit: I agree that it's a scapegoat, I read militia newsletters circulating in the early 90s, and I'm a collector of old John Bircher stuff. Angry white people will find and act out this model no matter what; it's part of the fabric of the US (and the rest of the West.)

And I'm not saying this hypothetically, those newsletters were in the air leading to OKC. It's actually a good sign that these remain loner shootings by the socially rejected; race riots and pogroms are basically when this happens, but other people on the verge decide to join in. When one of these mass shootings happens, and two or three other people who don't know the shooter come and help, that will be the scary transition for me.

Is it just a scapegoat though? Allowing these groups of disaffected people does seem to be a significant part of mass killings.

There were a lot of ISIS inspired attacks until ISIS was destroyed. Which effectively shut down the community.

This entire age of frequent mass shootings coincides with the internet and media coverage in general.

I personally believe that this has more to do with the notoriety and following these attacks inspire than gun laws, which have always been very weak.

A lot of these attacks are similar to streaking imo, which basically stopped when the media coverage stopped.

Political discussion happens all the time on Hacker News, but you don't see many mass shooters from HN. Culture of the online communities matters a lot (and moderation). I don't think chans create gunmen per se, but they assist to radicalize antisocial young men.

I don't think anything is gained from political discussion on *chans. Free speech is important, and no company should be legally punished for providing these spaces, but that doesn't mean discouraging them from existing is wrong.