However, I certainly don't agree that Cloudflare should be content arbiter unless they've been instructed to chop 8Chan by the Government. And I believe there is great value in the ability for people to see these extremists ideas and not forget their existence. Not forget our past.
If that's your argument... why not just build a museum? Or have an educational program in schools?
Insofar as racially motivated terrorism is a plague, it seems like you're suggesting that we allow a reservoir for the plague so that we don't "forget our past" experiences with that plague. Contrarily, I'm happy to learn about Yersinia pestis in school or at museums, not by allowing an ecosystem for it to exist.
Fedposting is definitely a thing on the chans. One of the documents filed by police for the Poway shooting included screencaps from law officer posts.[1]
[1]https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGatorGamer/status/114009748979...
Think Deep State. 8chan was used by the QAnon movement for their communications signaling.
Now we're in the business of deciding whether a site has a legitimate purpose because potentially (and I haven't seen any data on this - it sounds true, but would be nice to have before making these big assumptions) an outsized proportion of its users discuss controversial subjects. So, okay, private companies don't have to associate with 8chan...now we're seeing supporters of 8chan creating their own companies and services and choosing to associate with them, who inevitably are accused of creating "havens for online extremism" and hate and often are cut off from payment processors, banks, and other essential services a company needs to get by. I wonder - when this "just build your own website/hosting company/payment processor/undersea cable" free market treadmill reaches its logical conclusion, if people somehow do manage to build their own banks and undersea cables and whatever, won't they all be accused of the same thing and face some fresh shutdown attempt?
Let's just be honest, many of you don't like the content of their speech and want it gone. I would rather have an honest debate about whether free speech should exist or not rather than these ancillary discussions that don't really have much to do with the true intentions at play.
There is a difference between a real discussion of controversial subjects and emotional-driven posts that don't further a logical point but just provide fuel to get someone to do something (i.e. incite). So it's possible to draw an actual, objective line.
> when this "just build your own website/hosting company/payment processor/undersea cable" free market treadmill reaches its logical conclusion, if people somehow do manage to build their own banks and undersea cables and whatever, won't they all be accused of the same thing and face some fresh shutdown attempt
Probably.
> Let's just be honest, many of you don't like the content of their speech and want it gone.
Content that does nothing but encourage/get other people to kill innocent people is useful for a society to suppress and I support it. I happen to also not like this content, but it's a coincidence.
Hard absolutist points of views in respect to rights leads to them eventually being trampled or effectively useless for real people. An example for speech - advertising/marketing is speech, but too much of it makes a communication medium useless (part of why no one wants a landline phone anymore).
If you penalize and normalize website censorship because of bad actors then what's to stop a big company from barraging a smaller site with malicious users to get it taken down thus removing competition?
It's a dangerous game to play if anything. You can only do so much with the money you have. I know I couldn't stop people from commenting hate on my websites, I don't have the resources or people to deal with that. Should I be taken down for something I can't control? Do I have to have a certain ratio of content to get by? How long is the window to fix bad content?
