undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsbelltaco6y ago0 comments

ISPs use the public's right of way and air wave spectrum licenses, so I don't think they're good examples.

An example right of way agreement between a municipality and Cable company: https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086

Summary of right of law statutes in different states:

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/rowtable.p...

>but you can't both be for something like net neutrality while simultaneously spouting this argument that "private companies can do whatever they want".

One can definitely pick and choose what you want to support, all those laws did exactly the same. Charities are 'picked and chosen' not to pay taxes, even though they are basically private companies. I don't see a contradiction between supporting net neutrality and supporting Cloudflare's decision.

>We have literally centuries of laws that specifically say that no, companies cannot do whatever they want just because they are private

We have literally centuries of law stating that 'Neo-Nazi White Supremacists' isn't a protected class, hence can be refused service.

If and when this is abused by companies causing real problems which society thinks is unacceptable, new laws will be passed restricting discriminating against neo-Nazis.

Maybe write to your local congressman and senator asking them to pass a law forcing Cloudflare to serve neo-Nazis.

0 comments

tidepod126y ago

>ISPs use the public's right of way and air wave spectrum licenses, so I don't think they're good examples.

And Cloudflare's business is similarly dependent on these very same rights of way and spectrums. So why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions?

Hint: it's because the argument for net neutrality has nothing to do with the ISP's usage of ROW or public spectrum, and everything to do with the effect that it would have on society if ISPs were allowed to arbitrarily filter whatever they want.

What's funny about this is that I actually don't need to make this argument, because Cloudflare's CEO Matthew Prince has already made it for me. The entire blog post that he wrote [1] when Daily Stormer was taken off CF is one big explanation of why companies like Cloudflare having the ability to arbitrarily filter sites is bad. That didn't seem to stop him, I guess.

> Due Process requires that decisions be public and not arbitrary. It's why we've always said that our policy is to follow the guidance of the law in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Law enforcement, legislators, and courts have the political legitimacy and predictability to make decisions on what content should be restricted. Companies should not.

1: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

belltacoOP6y ago

>And Cloudflare's business is similarly dependent on these very same rights of way and spectrums. So why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions?

Did Cloudflare sign a document like this one?

https://www.avondalelibrary.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7086

Then 8chan should sue them in court and win.

Why didn't Daily Stormer sue them?

FireBeyond6y ago

> Then 8chan should sue them in court and win.

In order for them to win, you'll have to ignore the fact that when they created a CloudFlare account, they agreed that CloudFlare had the right to terminate such services for any or no reason.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse