US Cloudflare: "Terminating Service for 8Chan"


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.
 
lol you don't.

This is some dumb shit though. That livestream of the Kiwi shooter was reportedly pulled down on 8/pol/ after like ten minutes, quicker than FB's reaction. On that subject, FB has a lot of livestreams of horrible things like animal abuse or beatings that don't get pulled down on time, why don't we pull down that site too?
I think people are being a bit obtuse when they make comparisons like this. 8chan’s /pol/ board was the most popular section of the site and its more or less infamously known for it so if your going on 8chan you’re most likely going on pol and it’s only a tiny fraction of internet users. I also don’t think I need to remind anyone about their autistic views on politics the majority of the users share. In contrast, YouTube and Facebook is used by almost everyone on the planet. You can’t pinned a majority of users to a single demographic or political leaning.

The standards are just not the same no matter how much people want it to be.
 
Yeah, except that Kiwi Farms isn't a free speech forum.
Kiwi is a free-speech forum in the sense that I can call Null some nonsensical shit like a, "fat narcissistic autistic closeted tranny alt-right commie neckbeard faggot" and not get banned for it. The only caveat is that others can voice their free speech by calling me an "exceptional boneless Neil Breen-obsessed moralfagging boomer wizard hurtling towards 30" and rate me negatively with an internet sticker.
 
Never forget the Feds were trying to upload the MANIFESTO to 8chan multiple times about 20-30 minutes before the shooting at Elpaso started...

Reminder - Hate speech is covered by the 1st amendment.

 
I think people are being a bit obtuse when they make comparisons like this. 8chan’s /pol/ board was the most popular section of the site and its more or less infamously known for it so if your going on 8chan you’re most likely going on pol and it’s only a tiny fraction of internet users. I also don’t think I need to remind anyone about their autistic views on politics the majority of the users share. In contrast, YouTube and Facebook is used by almost everyone on the planet. You can’t pinned a majority of users to a single demographic or political leaning.

The standards are just not the same no matter how much people want it to be.
I'm very aware that it's an unfair comparison, but FB is a big and influential site that rakes in money by the dozens. It absolutely would not kill them to hire more mods and neither would it kill Google. Even with low expectations, the moderation on both sites manage to disappoint.

Either way, that wasn't really my main point so I'll just leave it at that. 8ch's moderating is not nearly as poor as Ashy makes it out to be.
 
I'm very aware that it's an unfair comparison, but FB is a big and influential site that rakes in money by the dozens. It absolutely would not kill them to hire more mods and neither would it kill Google. Even with low expectations, the moderation on both sites manage to disappoint.

Either way, that wasn't really my main point so I'll just leave it at that. 8ch's moderating is not nearly as poor as Ashy makes it out to be.
The environment and quality of users are extremely different as well. Like when Christchurch shit happened 8chan anons were cheering him on, cracking jokes and whatnot. Now compared to the average Facebook user? People didn’t even know the stream existed. I do agree both sites can use more moderation for sure but Facebook isn’t suffering from a plague autistic user base like 8chan is despite being far larger and more popular.
 
4chan has had people post images of the bodies of their dead victims and it doesn't get clamped down at nearly as much as 8chan has in recent history. What's the difference? Just a few manifestos or is it a bit to far from a certain agenda point certain entities want to enforce? 4chan hasn't been the same for a while, not saying it's mild shit still goes on but 8chan has had quite a few far from politically correct characters posting there, few even have threads on here like S4T and Endomorphosis two that come to mind immediately. I just feel this isn't mainly due to the manifestos this is a bit more than that.

It might end up being a trickle down effect, go after what is considered the most radical and censoring the rest little by little that doesn't fit your world view/agenda. We saw it with Alex Jones, now their going after others that aren't nearly as loony. This is probably going to start happening more with sites to.
4chan has jannies, 8chan doesn't.

Remember he does it for free to keep shitposting free.
 
EBOSXBZXsAAWn9-.jpeg
EBOXsw6VUAAt76H.png



Well that was easy
Just get a couple of blue checks to whine and the site is down instantly
 

The verge just posted an article about this (archive). Doesn't have any new info except for a statement by Voxility:
Voxility said:
“As soon as we were notified of the content that Epik was hosting, we made the decision to totally ban them,” Voxility business development VP Maria Sirbu told The Verge. Sirbu said it was unlikely that Voxility would work with Epik again. “This is the second situation we’ve had with the reseller and this is not tolerable,” she said.
 
Well that was easy
Just get a couple of blue checks to whine and the site is down instantly
That's also the problem when you end up leasing out infrastructure from someone else (or have any "weak point" really). Blue checkmarks with connections will find out who you used and complain to them until you lose your hosting. BitMitigate's huge mistake was leasing services from someone else who could easily cave in, which is the biggest difference between a big tech company that owns everything and someone using their services to emulate big tech's services.
 
However unlikely, I would love to see some ANTIFA thug getting hauled away for a federal felony. I would love to say "I hope you like Federal Fuck-You-In-The-Ass Prison!"
It's not going to happen. Antifa and the FBI are owned by the same tribe which owns Trump.

That's also the problem when you end up leasing out infrastructure from someone else (or have any "weak point" really).
Any weak point? Like- having to peer with a network provider to be on the internet?
 
And when those Cloudflare alternatives take on 8chan as a customer, someone finds out they're just renting most of their hardware and get their supplier to shut them down

bob bihlmeyer 8ch.jpgbob bihlmeyer.jpg
Point of privilege: this autogynephile cat parent sure is salty on that thread, though he claims to have never visited 8ch. It'd be interesting to hear him define 'mass murder content'.
 
Honestly I just want 8chans /agdg/ to survive. The agdg threads on /v/ were very comfy even when the rest of /v/ was absolutely terrible. It was a close nit group, like an oasis of good in an ocean of piss. I couldn't give less of a shit about /pol/ and their ilk I just want to read shitposts about game development and programming. At least I have memories and screenshots saved if 8chan is down for good.
 
how is andrew anglin not banned from twitter lol
He's using Gab, not Twitter.

Any weak point? Like- having to peer with a network provider to be on the internet?
So far domain registrars, webhosts, and DNS providers have been weak points. Payment processors are a huge one with regards to funding as well and they tend to deplatform everyone from Patreon smut creators to political wrongthinkers. Ever since August of 2017 when sites that had been up for years started to get deplatformed, a lot of formerly neutral providers have shown they will ban people when they wake up in a bad mood.
 
So far domain registrars, webhosts, and DNS providers have been weak points.
You've just named a number of important services. The idea that other necessary parts of the network will behave any better- if those that have already committed crimes against the open internet go unpunished- is highly implausible.
 
Back