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.
 
Yes, he is also being a fucking moron, but that's not my point.
>Cheapening the word pedophile by making it a word for "everyone I don't like" is incredibly reckless and disgusting.
Media publications don't have much of a spine and could call him one based on that quote alone. Most observers who have just heard about 8chan and read that would think badly of Hotwheels.
Now, I don't think he is one and the image is a bit of a joke.
Him stating this just shows a lot about him
 
He advocated for the rights of pedophiles to view legal images of children or pornography of simulated children, based on the idea that pedophiles are a persecuted minority with a disability. So, maybe Pedophile Rights Advocate is the more accurate term?

It's certainly a friendly position.
 
If you enable pedophilia, by making it freely available, is that not the same? Is it not analogous to driving a bank robber to the bank but not personally getting out of the car to help him rob it? Correct me if I'm wrong but most people would instaban it even if they're free speech purists.
>Correct me if I'm wrong but most people would instaban it even if they're free speech purists.
I've looked a bit into 8chan's history and imageboard history, (I am currently writing something about the history of the site) and in the past most 'free speech' imageboard sites like LibreChan and Null's 16chan (/phile/, text only) and 8chan for a while did allow paedophiles to talk freely with little guidelines other than don't post illegal shit. As long as it was legal, people could post what they want there.
8chan had very lax rules (librechan even laxer) about what images could be uploaded which lead to Dan Olslon, the daily beast and a few other publications calling it a place for illegal material due to how grey legally the images were. Then Jim watkins in 2016 after he got full control of 8chan had much harsher rules against this which lead to many pedos from /b/ and /hebe/ leaving as well as the daily pedo thread on /b/ getting removed.
Librechan got shut down by the french authorities and null shut down 16chan as it wasn't getting enough traffic.
If 8chan still had those lax rules it would have been gone years ago.
Most newer 'free speech' sites like the ACA/ACF (alt chan federation) affilieted sites ban this on sight.
>f you enable pedophilia, by making it freely available, is that not the same? Is it not analogous to driving a bank robber to the bank but not personally getting out of the car to help him rob it?
That is a similar argument the media has with the /pol/ and shooters related to the site.
I don't really have a concrete answer with this
He advocated for the rights of pedophiles to view legal images of children or pornography of simulated children, based on the idea that pedophiles are a persecuted minority with a disability. So, maybe Pedophile Rights Advocate is the more accurate term?

It's certainly a friendly position.
Are you talking about this?
hw defends pedophile boards.jpg
 
>f you enable pedophilia, by making it freely available, is that not the same? Is it not analogous to driving a bank robber to the bank but not personally getting out of the car to help him rob it?
That is a similar argument the media has with the /pol/ and shooters related to the site.
I don't really have a concrete answer with this

No, it's a tad different since political speech is absolutely and specifically legal, SCOTUS has consistently made a point to reinforce the First Amendment. As far as shooters go, murder has always been illegal in the USA and elsewhere.

My point is posting the manifestos is legal and always has been; killing people afterward is not. I suppose you could make a case for treason but it would have to meet a very narrow and specific set of conditions which are very rarely met. Making a thread or board to plan and kill people is totally illegal (not to mention insane) but posting a statement of political intent or action is not.
 
My point is posting the manifestos is legal and always has been; killing people afterward is not. I suppose you could make a case for treason but it would have to meet a very narrow and specific set of conditions which are very rarely met. Making a thread or board to plan and kill people is totally illegal (not to mention insane) but posting a statement of political intent or action is not.

It's probably at least sometimes illegal for the shooter to post a manifesto announcing a massacre, as part of actually committing the massacre, but it is entirely legal for anyone else to repost it as a record of an event that happened later. The intent is what matters, not the content itself.

A different example would be the Unabomber manifesto. It was entirely legal for Ted Kaczynski to write "Industrial Society and Its Future." It would have been legal for him to distribute it or seek publication for it. It was illegal for him to send bombs to people. It was illegal for him to threaten to continue sending bombs to people unless it was published. So its original coerced publication was illegal on his part, though probably legal for the newspapers who published it. Even if it might have been illegal on some kind of accessory basis, they had permission from law enforcement to do it.

However, it's entirely legal to continue to publish Kaczynski's essay to this day, and it would be considered ridiculous to forbid it in any free society.

Banning others of these manifestoes is just as ridiculous, even though so far, none of them have had remotely the literary or philosophical value of Kaczynski's. However, that doesn't make any of them any less historical. Complaining about where they were posted originally and trying to get those places shut down after the fact is insane, and that's what Freddit's doing.
 
It's probably at least sometimes illegal for the shooter to post a manifesto announcing a massacre, as part of actually committing the massacre, but it is entirely legal for anyone else to repost it as a record of an event that happened later. The intent is what matters, not the content itself.

A different example would be the Unabomber manifesto. It was entirely legal for Ted Kaczynski to write "Industrial Society and Its Future." It would have been legal for him to distribute it or seek publication for it. It was illegal for him to send bombs to people. It was illegal for him to threaten to continue sending bombs to people unless it was published. So its original coerced publication was illegal on his part, though probably legal for the newspapers who published it. Even if it might have been illegal on some kind of accessory basis, they had permission from law enforcement to do it.

However, it's entirely legal to continue to publish Kaczynski's essay to this day, and it would be considered ridiculous to forbid it in any free society.

Banning others of these manifestoes is just as ridiculous, even though so far, none of them have had remotely the literary or philosophical value of Kaczynski's. However, that doesn't make any of them any less historical. Complaining about where they were posted originally and trying to get those places shut down after the fact is insane, and that's what Freddit's doing.

Frederick's not doing it out of any moral or philosophical conviction, he's doing it because he has a hate boner for Jim Watkins. He's merely attempting to justify his jihad on moral grounds because no laws have been broken. Since there's a moral panic right now re: Nazees, alt-righty types, white supremacists, tard wave feminists and wokeness, he's attempting to appeal to anyone who's on board with the moral crusade of the day. It's working so far but who knows for how long? Jim might decide to weaponize his army of Q boomers.

I also don't think the mutant's long for this earth so he's going all out. He's got all kinds of health issues aside from the brittle bones, not to mention the cumulative effect of the long list of drugs he's taken, all of which have serious side effects on the body (especially on the brain).
 
Frederick's not doing it out of any moral or philosophical conviction, he's doing it because he has a hate boner for Jim Watkins. He's merely attempting to justify his jihad on moral grounds because no laws have been broken. Since there's a moral panic right now re: Nazees, alt-righty types, white supremacists, tard wave feminists and wokeness, he's attempting to appeal to anyone who's on board with the moral crusade of the day. It's working so far but who knows for how long? Jim might decide to weaponize his army of Q boomers.

It's contemptible and hypocritical because every single thing he's accusing the pig farmer of, he's done and worse.
 
If you enable pedophilia, by making it freely available, is that not the same? Is it not analogous to driving a bank robber to the bank but not personally getting out of the car to help him rob it? Correct me if I'm wrong but most people would instaban it even if they're free speech purists.
>Correct me if I'm wrong but most people would instaban it even if they're free speech purists.
I've looked a bit into 8chan's history and imageboard history, (I am currently writing something about the history of the site) and in the past most 'free speech' imageboard sites like LibreChan and Null's 16chan (/phile/, text only) and 8chan for a while did allow paedophiles to talk freely with little guidelines other than don't post illegal shit. As long as it was legal, people could post what they want there.
8chan had very lax rules (librechan even laxer) about what images could be uploaded which lead to Dan Olslon, the daily beast and a few other publications calling it a place for illegal material due to how grey legally the images were. Then Jim watkins in 2016 after he got full control of 8chan had much harsher rules against this which lead to many pedos from /b/ and /hebe/ leaving as well as the daily pedo thread on /b/ getting removed.
Librechan got shut down by the french authorities and null shut down 16chan as it wasn't getting enough traffic.
If 8chan still had those lax rules it would have been gone years ago.
Most newer 'free speech' sites like the ACA/ACF (alt chan federation) affilieted sites ban this on sight.
>f you enable pedophilia, by making it freely available, is that not the same? Is it not analogous to driving a bank robber to the bank but not personally getting out of the car to help him rob it?
That is a similar argument the media has with the /pol/ and shooters related to the site.
I don't really have a concrete answer with this

Are you talking about this?
View attachment 1002286
No, it's a tad different since political speech is absolutely and specifically legal, SCOTUS has consistently made a point to reinforce the First Amendment. As far as shooters go, murder has always been illegal in the USA and elsewhere.

My point is posting the manifestos is legal and always has been; killing people afterward is not. I suppose you could make a case for treason but it would have to meet a very narrow and specific set of conditions which are very rarely met. Making a thread or board to plan and kill people is totally illegal (not to mention insane) but posting a statement of political intent or action is not.

the bank robber analogy is a false equivalency. That implies you know the intent of the people accessing your site. if you are just driving someone to the bank because they asked to be there, and then they robbed the bank, you have not committed a crime. if you disagree, lets say someone took he train to a station just outside the bank. is the owner of the train now liable?

the provider of a service is not, or at least shouldn't be, liable for the actions of the person using the service unless they knew that person was going to use the service for a crime and did nothing to prevent it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoshPlz
the bank robber analogy is a false equivalency. That implies you know the intent of the people accessing your site. if you are just driving someone to the bank because they asked to be there, and then they robbed the bank, you have not committed a crime.

If they were wearing ski masks and carrying suspicious "violin cases," your protestations that you had no idea what was going on might be less than credible.

the provider of a service is not, or at least shouldn't be, liable for the actions of the person using the service unless they knew that person was going to use the service for a crime and did nothing to prevent it.

The cripple is claiming the pig farmer deliberately invited that kind of people and encouraged them to do it, in order to make money.

He is silent on why exactly he encouraged the most violent Nazi terrorist group of all time, GamerGate, to the same site when he ran it.
 
If they were wearing ski masks and carrying suspicious "violin cases," your protestations that you had no idea what was going on might be less than credible.
this is true, but what if you claim to be an incompetent, retarded, and physically disabled midget who identifies as a racoon as part of your defense?

would certainly make for an interesting court case.

The cripple is claiming the pig farmer deliberately invited that kind of people and encouraged them to do it, in order to make money.

if he can prove it, then fuck it, lock him up.

He is silent on why exactly he encouraged the most violent Nazi terrorist group of all time, GamerGate, to the same site when he ran it.

something something he who is without sin
 
the provider of a service is not, or at least shouldn't be, liable for the actions of the person using the service unless they knew that person was going to use the service for a crime and did nothing to prevent it.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 says otherwise. Legal liability rests solely on the original author, not the site owner.
 
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 says otherwise. Legal liability rests solely on the original author, not the site owner.
precisely because in most cases, the site owner will not know of the crime being committed and not considered an accessory. it is still possible to prove they knew about the crime and get charged for not reporting it. please correct me if i am wrong.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: JoshPlz
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 says otherwise. Legal liability rests solely on the original author, not the site owner.

That doesn't prevent criminal liability or intellectual property liability. Something like CP is in its own category as well since merely possessing it is a crime and failure to report it can also be.
 
That doesn't prevent criminal liability or intellectual property liability. Something like CP is in its own category as well since merely possessing it is a crime and failure to report it can also be.
I'm referring to the manifestos retards post online. If you conspire with someone to commit a crime that can be prosecuted regardless of online site ownership. CP is a crime in and of itself, as it should be. Disseminating it via the internet in any way, shape or form is illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dork Of Ages
Back