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.
 
It's cheaper for Cloudflare to move for dismissal under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Any legal theory of liability that the plaintiffs have for Cloudflare will involve matters that clearly fall under it.

They can't, can they? They violated 230 of the CDA when they arbitrarily decided to kick The Daily Stormer off, so lost the protections under it?

I do find it funny that for all his come to jesus moments, Fredrick Brennan is still getting sued.
 
>Man shoot up a Wammaht.
>Parents of a victim sues murderer's parents and grandparents.


View attachment 991134
When it comes to Wal-Mart, logic just goes out the window entirely. Might be they're suing the grandparents because they spawned whichever parent that birthed the shooter? I mean it's already that much of a stretch they're suing the rest of the family, Cloudflare in its entirety and TardWheels all at the same time as well but not even considering going after Wal-Mart or the cops.*

*unless they tried that, but the idea fell through or they'd get the case dropped instantly so they decided not to.
 
They can't, can they? They violated 230 of the CDA when they arbitrarily decided to kick The Daily Stormer off, so lost the protections under it?

I do find it funny that for all his come to jesus moments, Fredrick Brennan is still getting sued.

Re-read section 230, you don't lose protections by removing specific content or anything. The entire point of section 230 was to protect service providers from this kind of liability, otherwise folks would refuse to moderate online services due to the liability. All it says is that the provider of an online service isn't to be held liable for the speech of users on the service.
 
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

If only there were a huge group of people who would have willingly thrown tens of thousands at him much like they did over a quarter million for Vic Mignogna, just to push back at SJWs.

Oh, yeah, he took a giant steaming shit in all their faces.

Tough luck I guess. I'm sure some woke motherfuckers will help him out though.

Just kidding.
 
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
Hahahahahaha
So he's gone from "Guys I'll be your witness against Jim even if you are suing me" to "well I don't have any money to hire a lawyer, so I'll argue it pro se". Any attempt to crowdfund a defence is going to get him fucked with a single tweet. Not one of these people he tried to get on his side will back him up. All it would require is 1 tweet about how the 8chan founder is crowdfunding a defence and a cancel culture mob will be all over his ass.

Anyone want to fill me in on his supposed master debating tactics with lawyers "in and out of court", because I call bullshit on that. You don't get to debate with a lawyer in court, you get lead around by your nose as they cross examine you as a hostile witness. The idea of this nasally sounding cripple being able to outwit a competent lawyer is laughable to me.

What was this case he won in the US? Is it like the Mountain Jew cases which Null has won 5-6 times without having to do anything, because if it was a case like that, then he's massively overestimating his ability. As shit as this case seems, scumbag lawyers have a way of making peoples lives miserable. Suit might end up getting tossed, but may expose a lot of dirt on record, like how lax he was with CP back in the day. Look at the state of the Mignogna case and all the dirty laundry that has come out as a result, except in his case, no one is going to be in his corner.
 
Re-read section 230, you don't lose protections by removing specific content or anything. The entire point of section 230 was to protect service providers from this kind of liability, otherwise folks would refuse to moderate online services due to the liability. All it says is that the provider of an online service isn't to be held liable for the speech of users on the service.

Most of what § 230 means currently isn't in the actual statute but the case law since, and means ISPs just flat out aren't liable for anything at all their users say. Copyrighted material and CP are about the only exceptions as they are covered by other laws. It doesn't just protect ISPs, either. It probably also protects things like retweeting and otherwise reposting other people's materials, at least in California and maybe elsewhere.

Look at the state of the Mignogna case and all the dirty laundry that has come out as a result, except in his case, no one is going to be in his corner.

He fucked over the only people who might have been on his side.
 
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
"US assets". That's a weird thing to say. Is he hiding assets or income in flipland from the US social security administration?

Does he think he can argue this case via Email? He is going to need to go there himself or hire a lawyer to go to the court house.

Look at all his supporters who where egging him on twitter. Furfreaks, trannys, and pedos. None of those people are going stick their neck out IRL and risk getting doxed to help him. And I would be super surprised if any lawyer or civil rights group takes the case on pro-bono. They would be defending 8chan. Literally hitler Vs a mass shooting victom.

If you google 8chan you get Fredrick's name connected to all the top hits. He is 8chan thanks to all his interviews. He is the 1st defendant listed. Fred dug his own grave,now he gets to lie in it. :slayer:
 
Last edited:
"US assets". That's a weird thing to say. Is he hiding assets or income in flipland from the US social security administration?

Does he think he can argue this case via Email? He is going to need to go there himself or hire a lawyer to go to the court house.

Or the postal service. First they have to serve him anyway. Then they have to win a jurisdiction argument. That can usually be done remotely. Then they have to beat the TCPA and if he files one of those, discovery stops so they have no real reason to demand he show up for anything.

The other side will have a huge advantage just being physically present in the forum state, though, and if they ever get the case to discovery it will be a real issue for some smashed up meatloaf to have to deal with it.
 
Hotwheels is turning into a pretty entertaining lolcow. Soon enough he's going to need a thread of his own as long as he doesn't have any sudden "accidents" over there in the Philippines that stop him from further spergery.
I hope a Bichon Frise hops into his lap and pulverizes his midsection as a result. I'm starting to dislike Fredrick almost as much as Zoe Quinn, and she actually killed a guy. What a mealy-mouthed little shit-flinging piece of beef jerky.
 
Or the postal service. First they have to serve him anyway. Then they have to win a jurisdiction argument. That can usually be done remotely. Then they have to beat the TCPA and if he files one of those, discovery stops so they have no real reason to demand he show up for anything.
If he is claiming he lives in Atlantic City and still a US citizen then wouldn't a US court have jurisdiction?
I am not a lawyer and don't know much about the law but I see this as a lose/lose scenario for him.
If he claims he is a Flip to beat the case then I would think that puts his SSI gibs at great risk.

He was busting Jims balls about "shell" companies. I'll bet he wishes he founded 8chan under a shell right about now :story:
 
Last edited:
"US assets". That's a weird thing to say. Is he hiding assets or income in flipland from the US social security administration?
Probably has stuff officially with his wife, if he trusts her and wants to hide it.

The Philippines have some very sensible laws prohibiting foreigners from owning land. You can own a condo, I think, or even a house on land leased from a Philippino, but even that might make sense for Brennan to put in his wife's name if he wants to stay on the downlow.

I don't think Brennan can be a citizen either, you have to have been there for ten years. There are also certain requirements around having been of good moral character that might be called into question.
 
If he is claiming he lives in Atlantic City and still a US citizen then wouldn't a US court have jurisdiction?
I am not a lawyer and don't know much about the law but I see this as a lose/lose scenario for him.
If he claims he is a Flip to beat the case then I would think that puts his SSI gibs at great risk.

He was busting Jims balls about "shell" companies. I'll bet he wishes he founded 8chan under a shell right about now :story:

It's a Texas court. It has to have some basis for personal jurisdiction. I'm not seeing it.
 
Hey @copypaste

You tried so hard to distance yourself from 8chan, and have been running a constant crusade and gay ops against 8chan and gang. It still wasn't enough. No ammount of disavows or apperences on Vice is going to untie you from 8chan, and all your efforts to bring down 8chan has done is allienate anyone who would have legitimatly supported you. You will ALWAYS and FOREVER BE known as the weird cripple that started that incel Nazi site, which inspired multiple mass shootings.
 
Back