US Cloudflare: "Terminating Service for 8Chan"

  • 🔧 Actively working on site again.

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.
 
Looks like 8kun.net has some new hosting for now, so Fredrick's back at it!
View attachment 993073
(https://archive.li/hfYNr)

He seems to be right about the round robin. I tried it for myself, though in my case the DigitalOcean IP seemed much more reliable than the Tencent one at the moment:
View attachment 993078

View attachment 993079

EDIT: That last IP belongs to IBM R&D at Research Triangle Park... 🤔
View attachment 993082

Geez, it's the same old game of cat-and-mouse, huh? What's the point? It's all so tiresome...
...is the sane, sober reflection that Fredrick almost has. Alas:
View attachment 993076
(https://archive.li/y7HMR)
It must be fucking tiring to keep going after the guy who grabbed your website. You would think he would try and do some other things like learning how to walk instead of continuing with his crusade out of spite. I would be exhausted doing what he does, but that's probably because I have so few fucks to give.
 
It must be fucking tiring to keep going after the guy who grabbed your website. You would think he would try and do some other things like learning how to walk instead of continuing with his crusade out of spite. I would be exhausted doing what he does, but that's probably because I have so few fucks to give.
8chan only became a thing after the /v/ exodus (it was stupid for 4chan to censor it as it spilled onto other boards ie the Streisand effect) and Frederick was always inept; he lost 8chan and had to resort to using 8ch until he lost it all. He's also not ddosing 8kun or whatever Jim calls it, he's paying someone else to do it. Those are resources the cripple could put to better use, such as medical treatment or making his life easier. He's pathetic, in a sad sort of way (but no less of a lolcow).
 
8chan only became a thing after the /v/ exodus (it was stupid for 4chan to censor it as it spilled onto other boards ie the Streisand effect) and Frederick was always inept; he lost 8chan and had to resort to using 8ch until he lost it all. He's also not ddosing 8kun or whatever Jim calls it, he's paying someone else to do it. Those are resources the cripple could put to better use, such as medical treatment or making his life easier. He's pathetic, in a sad sort of way (but no less of a lolcow).
It makes me puzzle greatly whether or not he does want to improve his physical state. Maybe he thinks God made him a parapalegic on purpose or some bs like that.
 
It makes me puzzle greatly whether or not he does want to improve his physical state. Maybe he thinks God made him a parapalegic on purpose or some bs like that.
It's possible he's deteriorating physically and mentally, either due to his condition and/or drugs (legal or otherwise). It can't help realizing he brought all the 8chan nonsense on himself.
 
It must be fucking tiring to keep going after the guy who grabbed your website. You would think he would try and do some other things like learning how to walk instead of continuing with his crusade out of spite. I would be exhausted doing what he does, but that's probably because I have so few fucks to give.
Skydaddy hates Fredrick no matter what he does, or doesn't do.
One (unconstitutional) lawsuit from an un-informed Texas lawyer and his idiot client caused HW to shit himself all over Twitter.
Fucking embarrassing. HW is nowhere near threatening now. His potato-loving mob are scattering as soon as that lawsuit hit.

He is nothing but a deflating balloon.
 
And now Fredrick's going after the Q followers on Twitter for using their 'kill brackets' or something. I thought he just hated Jim Watkins? What the hell is he doing?
killbrackets1.png

(https://archive.li/N4B4S)

killbrackets2.png

(https://archive.li/ByFWy)

Geez, settle down [Brennan].


Also, Fredrick got into a Twitter spat with Nick Lim about why Nick is trying to help get 8kun online (I quoted @L33TGUY's tweet about it since Twitter is weird and it was the most straightforward way to get all of the tweets in that thread archived)
fredvslim.png
(https://archive.li/tLi3w)

Well said @L33TGUY! Isn't it just awesome how people remember things?
hw.jpg
 
I feel like at this point Frederick has been replaced by the [CIA].

None of this adds up.
His sperging is so irrational. Trying way too hard.
It's like he received an ultimatum and is trying to comply with all his social media-fu.
His glowing handler must be using a cattle-prod.
 
Tomorrow morning, apparently.
8ch.png

(https://archive.li/71jxP)

EDIT: PA-wheels is on it!
8ch2.png

(https://archive.li/BBafb)
 
Last edited:
Fred should be careful, those Q boomers are fucking nuts. If the LARP king Q writes "[Hotwheels]" then it's all erver for him.
They've been making over-elaborate and totally-for-realzies death fantasies about Fredrick, and he's upset about it! Quick, better cc in Jess from the Huffington Post:
fred1.png

fred2.png

(https://archive.li/OGM27)
 
They've been making over-elaborate and totally-for-realzies death fantasies about Fredrick, and he's upset about it! Quick, better cc in Jess from the Huffington Post:

Pretty sure people are having mean thoughts about him pretty much everywhere he's betrayed someone, which would be anywhere he's ever been in his evil life.
 
[S‌]ped wheels is getting sued and he cant shut up about it. He's dumber then waide. I mean for gods sake he cold called the lawyer suing him. What sort of fucking moron does that?

Let me try to explain it to you.

Believe it or not anyone can file a lawsuit. It's even possible to ask the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari as a pro se litigant, and sometimes they even accept it, such as in Law v. Seigel (2014); the most famous case of this is Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). All citizens have a right to file suit against anyone, with or without a lawyer.

What this means is that lawsuits are often used as a trolling or revenge tactic. There is pretty much no risk to doing this, you have to really screw up to get a court to recognize you as a "vexatious litigant".

Sometimes petitioners may not really care about winning in court, their real goal is to cause:
  • the defendant to panic; and
  • in his panic, hire a lawyer;
  • which puts direct monetary cost on the defendant regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit;
  • which might cause the defendant to change their behavior in ways the plaintiff desires.
(Lawyers call this a SLAPP, strategic lawsuit against public participation.)

Whether or not the plaintiffs or their council in the Englisbee case intend this I do not know.

The owner of this esteemed website can tell you that this happens a lot. So, what should you do when faced with a blatant SLAPP or other obviously unwinnable lawsuit? I can't give general advice, but will give some observations. If you change how you behave online, this can show other potential plaintiffs that you're easily intimidated. If you hire an attorney, this can show other possible plaintiffs that they can at least get you to spend money, which some might consider a small victory in and of itself.

So, I choose to do neither. I won't change anything about how I behave and I won't spend a dime. The most I'm willing to do is, way down the road, ask an attorney for help on questions of law on an advisory basis, if I end up having such questions. But these suits tend to mostly be about the facts and not the law, which makes them much easier for a pro se litigant to win.

As such, you are your own lawyer. Which means the first step is always to call the opposing council and see if he'll drop the suit, especially with such a muddled petition as the one in this case. Almost all lawsuits are settled out of court anyway, and in pretty much no lawsuit do the parties only communicate in court or via motions, especially initially.

Record all your calls with the opposing council (I have one but won't be releasing it), and don't allow him to intimidate you, his suit is bogus after all. In my case, since the defendants are so varied, it's not even clear that all the defendants even represent the same interests.

I haven't even been served yet, but if I do get served (seems unlikely to be honest), I'll file all my own motions and, if it comes to it, argue the case myself. The facts are on my side.

It doesn't have anything to do with what I can afford, it's about showing plaintiffs I will not be goaded into wasting money due to empty legal threats. I also won't be goaded into changing any of my behavior when I am in the right.
 
@copypaste Most people go through a lawyer for this shit though for good reason. I find it funny that you'd trust an opposing lawyer to begin with, but that's another matter.

It doesn't have anything to do with what I can afford, it's about showing plaintiffs I will not be goaded into wasting money due to empty legal threats.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the case Maddox had versus Dick Masterson and a few others, but even frivolous lawsuits can cost a shitload of money. You're not a lawyer dude.

I also won't be goaded into changing any of my behavior when I am in the right.

You do you. When this shit comes back to bite you in the ass you have nobody but yourself to blame, man.

Edit: I appreciate that you came to the Farms instead of bleating on twitter, for what it's worth.
 
Last edited:
@copypaste Most people go through a lawyer for this shit though for good reason. I find it funny that you'd trust an opposing lawyer to begin with, but that's another matter.



I'm not sure if you're familiar with the case Maddox had versus Dick Masterson and a few others, but even frivolous lawsuits can cost a shitload of money. You're not a lawyer dude.

I'm aware of the lolsuit, yes (Ouzounian v. Herrera). You're right, if the defendant hires an attorney, the defendant is on the hook for attorney's fees.

I believe that had any of the defendants taken the time to learn the law and the procedures of the court they could have gotten the suit dismissed, at least as regards them.

Their suit is a lot different than this one though: the parties all knew each other, the parties had valid contracts with one another, et cetera.

Lawsuits take a long time and are mostly all about filing paperwork. I'm not a lawyer but even I can recognize that this suit is written somehow even worse than the Herrera suit. It's much shorter but much more nonsensical. It conflates parties together that don't know each other, and says we were in conspiracy; even an allegation of communication would be hard to prove as regards some of the parties, much less conspiracy. The council for the plaintiffs told me in a recorded call he did next to no research into my person, just saw I started 8chan.

I'm not going to dignify this lawsuit by spending a penny of anyone's money on it, not mine or anyone else's. If I get served I'll file the right papers and motions and get it dismissed.

You do you. When this shit comes back to bite you in the ass you have nobody but yourself to blame, man.

If I somehow lose the easiest case ever put before a defendant, there will indeed be no one to blame.
 
I'm aware of the lolsuit, yes (Ouzounian v. Herrera). You're right, if the defendant hires an attorney, the defendant is on the hook for attorney's fees.

I believe that had any of the defendants taken the time to learn the law and the procedures of the court they could have gotten the suit dismissed, at least as regards them.

Their suit is a lot different than this one though: the parties all knew each other, the parties had valid contracts with one another, et cetera.

Lawsuits take a long time and are mostly all about filing paperwork. I'm not a lawyer but even I can recognize that this suit is written somehow even worse than the Herrera suit. It's much shorter but much more nonsensical. It conflates parties together that don't know each other, and says we were in conspiracy; even an allegation of communication would be hard to prove as regards some of the parties, much less conspiracy. The council for the plaintiffs told me in a recorded call he did next to no research into my person, just saw I started 8chan.

I'm not going to dignify this lawsuit by spending a penny of anyone's money on it, not mine or anyone else's. If I get served I'll file the right papers and motions and get it dismissed.

Fair enough, I suppose. It'll be interesting to see if they continue with the case against you or not. I don't want that to happen, because I don't think you should be fucked over for speech as ironic as that may be.

If I somehow lose the easiest case ever put before a defendant, there will indeed be no one to blame.

You have apparently claimed to be a man of god. I wasn't talking about a court of law when I said that.

Again though, I do thank you for actually coming to the farms unlike many others would.
 
So I listened through that On the Media Interview Fredrick did. Uploaded a copy + timestamps below. Nothing too new though, a couple of interesting sound-bites maybe.


00:00 WNYC Studios: On the Media discusses 8chan/8kun. (Actual interview stuff starts at 02:30.)
00:10 "8chan has been offline since August; you probably haven't noticed."
00:20 *ominous music intensifies* "It's a dark hellscape of a website."
00:55 Hitting all the buzzwords in one sentence! Gamergate, Alt-right, conspiracy theorists, Pizzagate...
01:15 the "cybersecurity firm servicing 8chan" backed away when all the shooters posted their manifestos there
01:55 The 8chan administrators have been trying to raise a new site with a different name: "Can 8chan stay dead?"
02:30 Interview between Micah Loewinger and Fredrick Brennan
02:40 "If 8chan comes back, it's only a matter of time before there is another 8chan-connected shooting"
02:55 Fredrick's attracted an "onslaught" of attacks from 8channers
03:05 e.g. "You're a pathetic, fat, disgusting little misshaped afterbirth that should've been slammed against a wall"
03:30 They even drew a picture of Fredrick being thrown down the stairs!
03:45 "I know that these people are living pathetic, sad lives"
04:00 Fredrick was 19 when he started 8chan while coming down from a mushroom trip
04:35 8chan's "potent brand of toxicity" started with Gamergate and 4chan
04:55 Fredrick gave those toxic male gamers a safe space. "I used them basically: we forged this unholy alliance"
05:15 "As 8chan's admin... I just saw each community getting more and more extreme in their rhetoric"
05:25 "Brennan incubated a cesspool of racist rhetoric and harassment campaigns"
05:40 Fredrick believed "all the liability fell on 8chan's eccentric, middle-aged owner and financier, Jim Watkins"
05:50 Fredrick and Jim were really close, lived as neighbors in the Philippines together
06:00 "[Jim] admitted that he didn't care if [8chan] made money or not, he just likes the infamy"
06:20 "So I resigned in 2018 and, lo and behold, the Christchurch shooting happened 3 months later."
06:40 "I figured 'Let's see if they'll clean up their act', and they didn't."
06:50 The Poway shooter praised 8chan, and the El Paso shooter posted his manifesto on 8chan
07:15 On the Englisbee lawsuit, and its main hurdle: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
07:50 Fredrick is sorry that he made a website that radicalized people
08:05 Is Fredrick disturbed by what 8chan has become, or is he just upset at Watkins? "Why can't it be both?"
08:35 Micah dramatically describes the 8kun genesis video
08:55 Fredrick believes that 8kun is just another 8chan. "I don't believe they've changed."
09:10 "It just made me really angry, and I decided I'm going to do whatever I can to get it shut down"
09:15 Watkins promised that the new site would be more secure and have less points of failure
09:25 Watkins went to Zare: "They tried to get on it like 4 or 5 times and I got them kicked off each time" (smug.jpg)
09:45 Watkins tried Tencent and Alibaba: "Tweeted, tweeted, tweeted tweeted"
09:55 Watkins tried Selectel: "Tweeted, tweeted, tweeted tweeted"
10:10 But there's "another dark wrinkle to the 8chan/8kun story": QAnon.
10:25 Mike Rothschild breaks down Q and the QAnon following
11:10 The QAnon Bible shot up to top 20 on the Amazon Best Sellers list
11:35 "Oh, there was also that one murder in the name of QAnon."
11:50 On the QAnon 'Storm'/'Great Awakening' event
12:40 Q has been oddly silent about the impeachment inquiry, huh?
12:55 Q tied himself to 8chan only to curb the impostors
13:20 Fredrick finds what happened with Q "absolutely hilarious"
13:50 "If 8chan comes back for even a few hours, Q can move, Q can post a cryptographic key"
14:10 Jim Watkins struck a deal with Nick Lim to host 8kun on VanwaTech
14:20 Nick Lim has been "doing this stuff for over a decade", and has "run businesses since [he] was 8 years old"
14:40 Nick Lim didn't know about 8chan's history before taking them as a client. "I try to stay away from drama."
15:20 Several days after Micah and Nick's conversation, Nick tweeted "8kun will be back, and stronger than ever"
15:35 So will Q be back? Will deplatforming Q kill the conspiracy theory?
16:00 Fredrick is solemn. "Everything is a short-term solution...they have a lot of legal protection in the US"
16:25 Deplatforming works! Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones are gone forever, right?
17:00 End of piece.

@copypaste I think we're all in agreement that the lawsuit is kind of a joke, and that you being included in it is ludicrous (here's the Legal thread for it, by the way). I think where you lost a lot of people here was with that bit where you were suggesting you'd help the plaintiffs sue Jim Watkins.
 
Last edited:
Back