US Cloudflare: "Terminating Service for 8Chan"

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Terminating Service for 8Chan

Tweet
August 05, 2019 1:44AM


The mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio are horrific tragedies. In the case of the El Paso shooting, the suspected terrorist gunman appears to have been inspired by the forum website known as 8chan. Based on evidence we've seen, it appears that he posted a screed to the site immediately before beginning his terrifying attack on the El Paso Walmart killing 20 people.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Nearly the same thing happened on 8chan before the terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. The El Paso shooter specifically referenced the Christchurch incident and appears to have been inspired by the largely unmoderated discussions on 8chan which glorified the previous massacre. In a separate tragedy, the suspected killer in the Poway, California synagogue shooting also posted a hate-filled “open letter” on 8chan. 8chan has repeatedly proven itself to be a cesspool of hate.

8chan is among the more than 19 million Internet properties that use Cloudflare's service. We just sent notice that we are terminating 8chan as a customer effective at midnight tonight Pacific Time. The rationale is simple: they have proven themselves to be lawless and that lawlessness has caused multiple tragic deaths. Even if 8chan may not have violated the letter of the law in refusing to moderate their hate-filled community, they have created an environment that revels in violating its spirit.

We do not take this decision lightly. Cloudflare is a network provider. In pursuit of our goal of helping build a better internet, we’ve considered it important to provide our security services broadly to make sure as many users as possible are secure, and thereby making cyberattacks less attractive — regardless of the content of those websites. Many of our customers run platforms of their own on top of our network. If our policies are more conservative than theirs it effectively undercuts their ability to run their services and set their own policies. We reluctantly tolerate content that we find reprehensible, but we draw the line at platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design. 8chan has crossed that line. It will therefore no longer be allowed to use our services.

What Will Happen Next

Unfortunately, we have seen this situation before and so we have a good sense of what will play out. Almost exactly two years ago we made the determination to kick another disgusting site off Cloudflare's network: the Daily Stormer. That caused a brief interruption in the site's operations but they quickly came back online using a Cloudflare competitor. That competitor at the time promoted as a feature the fact that they didn't respond to legal process. Today, the Daily Stormer is still available and still disgusting. They have bragged that they have more readers than ever. They are no longer Cloudflare's problem, but they remain the Internet's problem.

I have little doubt we'll see the same happen with 8chan. While removing 8chan from our network takes heat off of us, it does nothing to address why hateful sites fester online. It does nothing to address why mass shootings occur. It does nothing to address why portions of the population feel so disenchanted they turn to hate. In taking this action we've solved our own problem, but we haven't solved the Internet's.

In the two years since the Daily Stormer what we have done to try and solve the Internet’s deeper problem is engage with law enforcement and civil society organizations to try and find solutions. Among other things, that resulted in us cooperating around monitoring potential hate sites on our network and notifying law enforcement when there was content that contained an indication of potential violence. We will continue to work within the legal process to share information when we can to hopefully prevent horrific acts of violence. We believe this is our responsibility and, given Cloudflare's scale and reach, we are hopeful we will continue to make progress toward solving the deeper problem.

Rule of Law

We continue to feel incredibly uncomfortable about playing the role of content arbiter and do not plan to exercise it often. Some have wrongly speculated this is due to some conception of the United States' First Amendment. That is incorrect. First, we are a private company and not bound by the First Amendment. Second, the vast majority of our customers, and more than 50% of our revenue, comes from outside the United States where the First Amendment and similarly libertarian freedom of speech protections do not apply. The only relevance of the First Amendment in this case and others is that it allows us to choose who we do and do not do business with; it does not obligate us to do business with everyone.

Instead our concern has centered around another much more universal idea: the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law requires policies be transparent and consistent. While it has been articulated as a framework for how governments ensure their legitimacy, we have used it as a touchstone when we think about our own policies.

We have been successful because we have a very effective technological solution that provides security, performance, and reliability in an affordable and easy-to-use way. As a result of that, a huge portion of the Internet now sits behind our network. 10% of the top million, 17% of the top 100,000, and 19% of the top 10,000 Internet properties use us today. 10% of the Fortune 1,000 are paying Cloudflare customers.

Cloudflare is not a government. While we've been successful as a company, that does not give us the political legitimacy to make determinations on what content is good and bad. Nor should it. Questions around content are real societal issues that need politically legitimate solutions. We will continue to engage with lawmakers around the world as they set the boundaries of what is acceptable in their countries through due process of law. And we will comply with those boundaries when and where they are set.

Europe, for example, has taken a lead in this area. As we've seen governments there attempt to address hate and terror content online, there is recognition that different obligations should be placed on companies that organize and promote content — like Facebook and YouTube — rather than those that are mere conduits for that content. Conduits, like Cloudflare, are not visible to users and therefore cannot be transparent and consistent about their policies.
The unresolved question is how should the law deal with platforms that ignore or actively thwart the Rule of Law? That's closer to the situation we have seen with the Daily Stormer and 8chan. They are lawless platforms. In cases like these, where platforms have been designed to be lawless and unmoderated, and where the platforms have demonstrated their ability to cause real harm, the law may need additional remedies. We and other technology companies need to work with policy makers in order to help them understand the problem and define these remedies. And, in some cases, it may mean moving enforcement mechanisms further down the technical stack.

Our Obligation

Cloudflare's mission is to help build a better Internet. At some level firing 8chan as a customer is easy. They are uniquely lawless and that lawlessness has contributed to multiple horrific tragedies. Enough is enough.

What's hard is defining the policy that we can enforce transparently and consistently going forward. We, and other technology companies like us that enable the great parts of the Internet, have an obligation to help propose solutions to deal with the parts we're not proud of. That's our obligation and we're committed to it.

Unfortunately the action we take today won’t fix hate online. It will almost certainly not even remove 8chan from the Internet. But it is the right thing to do. Hate online is a real issue. Here are some organizations that have active work to help address it:
Our whole Cloudflare team’s thoughts are with the families grieving in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio this evening.
 
So Copypaste is a closeted pedo or advocates cp?
He cared a lot more about highly suggestive 'child modelling' pictures being taken off the site in an executive decision by Jim, than he does about preserving actual political speech now (in fact, he is attacking actual political speech). I mean, it doesn't mean he actually fucks kids, but it's interesting, isn't it?
 
He cared a lot more about highly suggestive 'child modelling' pictures being taken off the site in an executive decision by Jim, than he does about preserving actual political speech now (in fact, he is attacking actual political speech). I mean, it doesn't mean he actually fucks kids, but it's interesting, isn't it?

Ya I'd say so. Doesn't he live in the Phillipines? Isn't that like the capital of Western sex tourism???
 
I don't know how much money Jim has but Cloudflare will probably settle. I don't imagine they'll bother raking Fred over the coals, he's broke right? I can see him being dropped.

Why the fuck would they do that? It would amount to shutting down their entire business and something like a third of the Internet along with it[*], then giving free money to every angry lolcow in the world.

I'm pretty sure they aren't suicidal.

[*]Looks like it's 10% but it's the interesting 10%.
 
I don't know how much money Jim has but Cloudflare will probably settle. I don't imagine they'll bother raking Fred over the coals, he's broke right? I can see him being dropped.
Does Safe Harbor apply to civil suits? I have a hard time imagining a lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg surviving long if some guy posted a manifesto to one of his shit ass websites before shooting a bunch of people.

But if the lolsuit taught me anything, it’s that companies keep lawyers on call for a reason. Cloudflare could get the suit against them tossed and Hotwheels can argue that he hasn’t had anything to do with 8chan for years before the shooting. I can see Watkins losing a lot of money defending himself but unless they can argue negligence because he didn’t do enough to prevent people from posting their manifestos, I don’t think he’ll lose.
 
Hotwheels? More like Cuckwheels
All of his virtue signaling, trying to fuck with Jim's naturalization process and tweeting in a way which reads like exceptional garbage to any normal person as not helped him one bit. He is and will forever be the mutant goblin who created the alt right site called 8chan.
 
All of his virtue signaling, trying to fuck with Jim's naturalization process and tweeting in a way which reads like exceptional garbage to any normal person as not helped him one bit. He is and will forever be the mutant goblin who created the alt right site called 8chan.

Forever an evolutionary dead end
 
After all the posturing and backstabbing the fat little goblin still ends up being sued along with the rest. The suit is flimsy but he deserves the added stress.

This thread reminded me of his pedo friendly stance; I'm starting to think all this lashing out is just deflection or maybe due to Wheelchair Gollum's born-again christian conscience.
 
>Man shoot up a Wammaht.
>Parents of a victim sues murderer's parents and grandparents.


okay-but-why-though-made-on-mgur-30276727.png
 
This thread reminded me of his pedo friendly stance; I'm starting to think all this lashing out is just deflection or maybe due to Wheelchair Gollum's born-again christian conscience.
He would probably be a child rapist, but his new found god played a joke on him and made him smaller than the kids he wants to rape.
 
http://archive.is/7zmMt
Hotwheels can't afford a lawyer and is looking to represent himself. Despite it seeming like a straightforward case, he will need to lawyer up - he's up against people who do this for a living. A competent lawyer will be able to get this handled quickly, but hotwheels is not a competent lawyer: he isn't trained at it. He might be able to get by, but there's no guarantee of it.
I'm just happy though, he is going to end up with most of his money burnt to the ground
thank_fuck.png
 
You know, I thought FredWheels would be enjoying this, Jim would be getting his just deserts and so would everyone else he hates.

But I guess the wheels of the cucked can handle anyone else but him taking down his mortal enemy. Especially if he's going to be affected by it too (which he's had coming for a while now given his dickish behavior)
 
http://archive.li/7zmMt
Hotwheels can't afford a lawyer and is looking to represent himself. Despite it seeming like a straightforward case, he will need to lawyer up - he's up against people who do this for a living. A competent lawyer will be able to get this handled quickly, but hotwheels is not a competent lawyer: he isn't trained at it. He might be able to get by, but there's no guarantee of it.
I'm just happy though, he is going to end up with most of his money burnt to the ground
View attachment 991150

Hope the courtroom is wheelchair accessible, Fred. Maybe the sperg with the Spider Jerusalem avatar will testify on your behalf, just don't expect any of the people you've been backstabbing to speak up for you.
 
Does Safe Harbor apply to civil suits? I have a hard time imagining a lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg surviving long if some guy posted a manifesto to one of his shit ass websites before shooting a bunch of people.

But if the lolsuit taught me anything, it’s that companies keep lawyers on call for a reason. Cloudflare could get the suit against them tossed and Hotwheels can argue that he hasn’t had anything to do with 8chan for years before the shooting. I can see Watkins losing a lot of money defending himself but unless they can argue negligence because he didn’t do enough to prevent people from posting their manifestos, I don’t think he’ll lose.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act definitely covers this. After fighting over jurisdiction that's the next thing I'd bring up and try to get the case summarily dismissed.
 
Back