Comment on Cloudflare defies Italy’s Piracy Shield, won’t block websites on 1.1.1.1 DNS

• FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  To the people that don’t get it. Censorship is when the government oppresses or modifies speech.

  What the user above is talking about is when social media companies like Twitter banned Donald Trump and neo-nazi accounts.

  Social media companies are private entities that you have a contract with where they provide you with service and you agree to abide by specific terms of that service. Hate speech and promotion of violence are things that you have agreed to not do on their services. If you do those things, then you agreed that your account could be terminated. That is what happened to Trump and the neo-nazi accounts (but I repeat myself).

  I can agree that social media companies have too much power over public interaction and media consumption but I also agree that a person or organization should not be forced to host and broadcast messages that they disagree with.

  Ironically, this standing legal interpretation is due to a right-wing lawsuit widely celebrated on the religious right about a cake baker who didn’t want to make wedding cakes for a gay wedding. The ruling is what affirmed the ability of private entities to regulate speech on their platforms.

  Complaining about being banned from a public platform and also celebrating the victory of the cake baker is a situation where their side wants to have their cake and eat it too.

  source
• nialv7@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  People seems to be fine with corporate censorship, but government censorship is somehow a no-no. I don’t get it. Corporate censorship is still censorship, but it’s now worse. Because you have now given up democratic control of what to censor, and let the tech billionaires have free reign over it. Twitter could ban Trump today, and promote fascism tomorrow and you’d have no say. (oh waiiit, that actually happened?!?!). If you think twitter banning Trump in 2021 is a good thing, why won’t you want the power to vote to ban Trump?

  I could be wrong, I am open to change my mind, but please give me a good counter-argument.

  source

  • deliriousdreams@fedia.io ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Corporate censorship is not illegal. If you come to my house spouting Nazi rhetoric I have ever right to call you out on it and kick you out of my house.

    There are laws deliberately protecting the people's right to free speech that is not infringed by the government.

    Now if you want to talk about how we should remove companies/corps rights as entities, we can have the conversation.

    Trump was banned from Twitter and it was a good thing because it was them enforcing their TOS/EULA rules in a reasonable manner that doesn't play favorites. Because the average person like you or me couldn't say a lot of what Trump said on the platform and not get banned.

    That doesn't mean Twitter is a good company. There are no good companies. Corporations are not your friend. But they also aren't government entities and they shouldn't be. So if the state wants to sponsor the internet as a utility it can create its own cloudflare-like service for the purpose of DNS blocking and block whatever it wants. But cloudflare isn't a state sponsored utility. It's a corp. It has every right (whether you agree it should have rights or not) to not operate in countries it doesn't want to operate in.

    source

    • nialv7@lemmy.world ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Your thinking is so calcified by the specific laws of the united states of America it is frustrating. Laws are written by mere mortals like you and me. When those bunch of dudes wrote the Constitution more than two hundred years ago, they couldn’t have imagined the internet in theirs wildest dreams. And that’s without pointing out that the reason they valued absolute freedom of speech so much can be largely attributed to the historical backdrop at the time.

      A long time has passed, something better is possible. It’s time to think again from first principles.

      source

      • bbboi@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        If platforms aren’t allowed self determination to moderate their platforms discussion will devolve into the same shit-tier content that Lemmy is so famous for.

        source
      • FarceOfWill@infosec.pub ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Amazing this is so downvoted.

        It is literally impossible to discuss free speech online, and has been for decades, due to a tsunami of americans thinking their specific law is the only position possible and flooding all debate with smug explanations of how it actually works, actually.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • deliriousdreams@fedia.io ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Corporations have rights. Quite literally. They are legal entities. We aren't required to use their services. They aren't required to provide said services.

        "In the UK, Article 10 of the 1998 Human Rights Act protects our right to freedom of expression:
        Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

        In this case public authority is the government.

        Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. These are dangerous. Restrictions can also be justified if they protect specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others.
        People imposing the restrictions (whether they are governments, employers or anyone else) must be able to demonstrate the need for them, and they must be proportionate.

        The choice for Cloudflare or any company that operates in the jurisdiction of the government enacting the law is to obey the law or not do business in that governments jurisdiction. It seems like that's exactly what Cloudflare is suggesting they will do if the government tries to force them to adhere to said law. That's their right as a company.

        I'm not saying cloudflare is a good company. My argument isn't that pulling out of the country is a good idea.

        My main concern and the reason that I responded to your comment in the first place was because you tried to make this about freedom of speech, and as it pertains to this discussion I'm not really sure what your argument is except that your idea of free speech is predicated on the idea that the freedom of the people and their speech should in some way negate the freedom of the company.

        The threat of legal action on Cloudflare's part seems to be to do with the fine that the government is trying to force on them for refusing to agree to obey the newly enacted law. It's normal for corporations to fight civil penalties like this.

        Your argument doesn't seem to be that it costs tax dollars (it does), or that it's unfair because you or I wouldn't have the same opportunity due to monetary limitations to legally fight the government. Or even that if you or I didn't agree with the law we couldn't just up sticks and leave the country. Your argument seems to be that somehow, by standing up for the rights they do have, this company is somehow blocking free speech? I'm asking because I still am not sure I understand.

        source
  • iopq@lemmy.world ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    It’s not somehow a no-no. It’s literally banned by the Constitution

    source