Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> How do you determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad"?

Ultimately the courts determine which speech is "good" or "bad" by interpreting the law, but all property owners can determine what speech is permitted on their property (like what cloudflare is doing).

I accept some limits on free speech. I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause (yelling fire in a crowded theater). I think conspiracy is a crime. I think threats are a crime. I support the idea of copyright laws even if I think our current system is bad.

From an internet freedom standpoint I think this signals we have an over dependence on cloudflare, not that we have a free speech problem.




> I think this signals we have an over dependence on cloudflare, not that we have a free speech problem.

I agree. I dislike the idea of large systems. Being able to throw their weight around is a symptom of the problem.


> I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause (yelling fire in a crowded theater)

I would argue this isn't speech any more than saying a phrase to Alexa that causes an API to be called which then detonates a bomb is speech.

I define speech as expression of ideas. Basically, say I maintain a blog. Should there be limits on which ideas I'm allowed to express on that blog? Should I be thrown in jail if I express a "bad" idea?


>Basically, say I maintain a blog. Should there be limits on which ideas I'm allowed to express on that blog? Should I be thrown in jail if I express a "bad" idea?

Aren't Al Quaeda and ISIS websites shutdown all the time? If ISIS was using 8chan to spread Jihadi propaganda that ended up leading to killing on US soil, they'd be shut down quick. But since the extremists belong to a political side, it's called free speech. When Twitter/FB/YT/Reddit remove such speech, it's spun as political bias.


> Aren't Al Quaeda and ISIS websites shutdown all the time

Ironically for your argument, Cloudflare hasn't really shutdown any alleged ISIS sites. This was even noted in their first blog when shutting down the Daily Stormer.


> Should I be thrown in jail if I express a "bad" idea?

If, say, you're aware that your readers have a tendency towards "exuberance" when it comes to dogpiling / harassing / doxing / etc. people you call out on your blog and your "bad" idea expresses a wish that someone has a very bad time of things, yeah, you should definitely be looking at consequences (perhaps not jail-level, mind) for that idea.

(cf people like Gervais on Twitter who have a consequence-free dogpile mob ready to relentlessly harass anyone criticising them. Or POTUS, in the current instance.)


>From an internet freedom standpoint I think this signals we have an over dependence on cloudflare, not that we have a free speech problem.

Both can be true.


I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause[.] I think threats are a crime.

Does that extend to US presidential candidates? The Democrats and Republicans both have quite a history of that. (And I am certain that if I bothered I could dig up hundreds of other examples)

Free speech curtailment never works out well no matter the motivations. It is just another control used by the powerful to advance their own interests.

Yes Cloudflare has the right as a private company to do what they want etc, etc. The argument is not narrowly about staying within legal bounds, but what _ought_ to be.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=902894...




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

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

Search: