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.
 
AnOminous is a lawyer, so I'll defer to his judgement. Also, there's the whole thing with (you)man trying to push a Russian conspiracy angle in their posts that lines up with the glowterati.

That's just like, my opinion, man. My only "legal" opinion there is it would have been deceptive for them to use something from a CI that they claimed as personal observation, which is arguable. The real issue is a factual one, and I (perhaps at my peril) am taking the agent at his word and the exhibit as a confirmation that feds were, in fact, posting on 8chan as part of their surveillance.

If you look at the contents of what they tweeted, as well, they include things casting shade on Russia and other things that could be expected to be FBI viewpoints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dork Of Ages
We really need to push the FCC and Congress to make the backbone providers common carriers.
I agree, but in this particular case there were no backbone providers involved. There's a lot of moving parts that go into internet infrastructure, so whoever wanted to craft regulation to address this kind of problem would need to decide which of them need to be regulated, and in what way. Off the top of my head:
  • Backbone providers
  • ISPs
  • CDNs
  • Webhosts
  • SSL root authorities
  • DNS hosts
  • Social networks
  • Domain name registries
  • IP registries
With a lot of obnoxiously tricky questions involved. Like, at what point is a community so large that they become a "social network" and need to be politically neutral? At what point does a website lose the ability to curate their own content however they like? Should Facebook have to be politically nondiscriminatory? Should we?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I can get to the index but I'm having trouble loading boards. I should probably flush my dns cache.

Links are broken so it's still linking to the domain name that is currently broken.
 
I haven't seen anyone on twitter talking about the zeronet place. Any chance it goes unnoticed?
 
I agree, but in this particular case there were no backbone providers involved. There's a lot of moving parts that go into internet infrastructure, so whoever wanted to craft regulation to address this kind of problem would need to decide which of them need to be regulated, and in what way. Off the top of my head:
  • Backbone providers
  • ISPs
  • CDNs
  • Webhosts
  • SSL root authorities
  • DNS hosts
  • Social networks
  • Domain name registries
  • IP registries
With a lot of obnoxiously tricky questions involved. Like, at what point is a community so large that they become a "social network" and need to be politically neutral? At what point does a website lose the ability to curate their own content however they like? Should Facebook have to be politically nondiscriminatory? Should we?
Many of them like ICANN and IANA are government bodies. (Obama gave them to the UN, so the US should start their own zone file and have Linux distros ship with them.)

The ones that are government haven't gotten involved. Yet. (Fuck you Obummer!) The problem here was the IAAS. However, how long until backbone providers start doing this? Unlike the others, there is grounds to have them considered common carriers. I think we should pre-emptively do that before the left starts either refusing service or worse, BGP blackholing.
 
Well, the real question is if 8chan went away completely, where would Q go to post about some vague thing that happened but not really?
 
4chan has jannies, 8chan doesn't.

Remember he does it for free to keep shitposting free.
The jannies on 4chan tend to be pussies that will delete shit that doesn't go along with their agenda. Least that was the case during 2014 Moot's little staff seemed to be a bunch of faggots, even one was a ponyfag. That's the reason some left 4chan /v/ for 8chan /v/ during gamergate, I like Nishimura's stance on the issue that gaming journalism is gaming related discussion but he doesn't seem to have a strong enough hold on the janitors to really enforce his own beliefs on moderation. The site overall is better off with Moot, though Nishimura isn't much better. I don't know if janitors are better now or worse over at 4chan right now but I have no reason to post there anymore.
 
With a lot of obnoxiously tricky questions involved. Like, at what point is a community so large that they become a "social network" and need to be politically neutral? At what point does a website lose the ability to curate their own content however they like? Should Facebook have to be politically nondiscriminatory? Should we?
IIRC, the recent legislation that was proposed in Congress put a user cap at something like 50mil unique US users or 260mil unique global users per year before you would have to worry about staying neutral wrt rules enforcement.
 
BASED WHEELCHAIR MAN
THE FUCKING MADMAN
1565057832277.png
 
Back