Cloudflare Accused of Serving up Hate on the Web

[Megalith]

Do service providers have an obligation to monitor and police the content of sites on their network? Nope, says Cloudflare. The company is being blamed for supporting white supremacy sites by this writer, who notes that Cloudflare goes as far as to provide clients the personal information of anyone who criticizes their content. I guess they shouldn’t be blamed just for doing business, but is this “snitching” going too far?

The widespread use of Cloudflare’s services by racist groups is not an accident. Cloudflare has said it is not in the business of censoring websites and will not deny its services to even the most offensive purveyors of hate. “A website is speech. It is not a bomb,” Cloudflare’s CEO Matthew Prince wrote in a 2013 blog post defending his company’s stance. “There is no imminent danger it creates and no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of speech a site may contain.” Cloudflare also has an added appeal to sites such as The Daily Stormer. It turns over to the hate sites the personal information of people who criticize their content.

 

[Gigus Fire]

No. It's their own business model and it costs money. Why would they even want to?
As for forwarding the complaints to the website owners, why not? Their policy on non-policing free speech is fairly clear. People that complain are probably the ones also attacking the site.
Is there a presumed privacy for submitting complaints or don't you think the complaints normally go through a chain of people in the corporate world?

 

[Agromahdi123]

they kept lulzsec up while they were DDOS'ing everybody.

 

[Spidey329]

It turns over to the hate sites the personal information of people who criticize their content.

Is there proof of that? It seems like a lot of unnecessary work on Cloudflare's side - like they'd have to go out of their way to do this. That's why I'm guessing it's an exaggeration l.

 

[Jagger100]

Is there proof of that? It seems like a lot of unnecessary work on Cloudflare's side - like they'd have to go out of their way to do this. That's why I'm guessing it's an exaggeration l.

More likely they reveal the identity of some one making a claim to remove a person's content so they can respond. Things like copyright claims and other violations which cloudfare may act on at some point.

Removing the idea of anonymous accusations from serious consideration in court was an achievement of civilization. How nice is it that people want to take us back into the muck.

 

[crashbox]

Free speech is a two way road, just because you dont like what the other person is saying doesn't mean you can take their rights away. I for one am happy cloudflare is standing their ground, if the reporter really wanted to do something go after the biggots and hate mongers website not cloidflare

 

[ChoGGi]

People are upset that they didn't pay attention to the form they filled out?
https://www.cloudflare.com/abuse/form

By submitting this report, you consent to the above information potentially being released by CloudFlare to third parties such as the website owner, the responsible hosting provider, law enforcement, and/or entities like Chilling Effects.

^ that's right above the submit button as well...


'sides I thought it was fairly well known Cloudflare only takes down stuff that's illegal.

 

[toast0]

These sites have deplorable content (I assume), but I applaud Cloudflare for not being a gatekeeper -- there are too many people / companies that want to enforce their vision of what's appropriate and what's not.

If there's an allegation of illegal behavior, take it to law enforcement; if ther's an allegation of other harms, take it to the courts. If there's an allegation of douchebaggery, don't take it to cloudflare, they don't care. If that upsets you, don't use Cloudflare for your own website.

 

[nilepez]

These sites have deplorable content (I assume), but I applaud Cloudflare for not being a gatekeeper -- there are too many people / companies that want to enforce their vision of what's appropriate and what's not.

If there's an allegation of illegal behavior, take it to law enforcement; if ther's an allegation of other harms, take it to the courts. If there's an allegation of douchebaggery, don't take it to cloudflare, they don't care. If that upsets you, don't use Cloudflare for your own website.

Agree, but I also agree that they should not release personal info to the website operator. If their goal is to facilitate dialog, then they should implement an semi-anonymous mail/board system. For most of their clients (and cloudflare has plenty of clients that aren't operating racist websites), its probably not a big deal, but for hate sites, I'd be worried if I lodged a complaint and they gave my personal info over to them.

 

[DKS]

Free speech is a two way road, just because you dont like what the other person is saying doesn't mean you can take their rights away. I for one am happy cloudflare is standing their ground, if the reporter really wanted to do something go after the biggots and hate mongers website not cloidflare

In many jurisdictions globally, free speech is not an absolute. Conveying hate speech is a crime in Canada. Free speech also has responsibility.

 

[Gigus Fire]

In many jurisdictions globally, free speech is not an absolute. Conveying hate speech is a crime in Canada. Free speech also has responsibility.

there is no clear definition of what constitutes hate speech as it's a made up term.
Cloudwatch's headquarters is in amsterdam. Why would they care about Canada's hate speech crime laws?

 

[N4CR]

In many jurisdictions globally, free speech is not an absolute. Conveying hate speech is a crime in Canada. Free speech also has responsibility.

'They' like protecting their population destroying 'refugees' and political ideologies like Islam.
The real problem is hate speech only counts if you're white. It's a racist term and legislation, hate speech. It is never applied the other way.
Black pride, Latino pride, Asian pride, gay pride, all ok. White pride - how dare you, rayciss white nazi devils.
Whites are a minority world wide though, you never hear that mentioned by these sjw types for some strange reason.

 

[ChoGGi]

there is no clear definition of what constitutes hate speech as it's a made up term.
Cloudwatch's headquarters is in amsterdam. Why would they care about Canada's hate speech crime laws?

That and hate speech is okay in Canada. You just can't incite/promote hatred against any identifiable group.
Saying you hate Green people is fine, but you can't tell other people to hate Greens because of *reason*. Edit: If it's in private then you can say whatever you want.
That's all paraphrasing of course (not a lawyer etc etc).
The relevant part of the CCC

 

[Deleted member 126051]

That and hate speech is okay in Canada. You just can't incite/promote hatred against any identifiable group.
Saying you hate Green people is fine, but you can't tell other people to hate Greens because of *reason*. Edit: If it's in private then you can say whatever you want.
That's all paraphrasing of course (not a lawyer etc etc).
The relevant part of the CCC

The main problem is that "hate speech" is still a nebulous term that can mean whatever the accuser wants it to mean. And there's no way to really prove or disprove.

As such, it gets used as a "shut up" far more often. So, in practice, it's a blasphemy law.

 

[ChoGGi]

Not gonna disagree with you on that one

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

While I don't support "hate speech" I accept that as long as it doesn't encourage or promote violence against others it's protected by the Constitution, at least in the US.

The idea of "hate speech" has become a weapon used by the left to silence all who oppose them. How this does not let the right off the hook, they've tried to do the same, but were soundly knocked down when they tried.

I hate to turn a thread here into a political debate, BUT as things currently sit you can not discuss hate speech without involving politics, as it's become a weapon used to push political agendas.

Consider if you will, that to the left, and up until recently most of our government a picture of a crucifix in a jar of urine was considered art, but a drawing of Mohammad was considered hate speech.

Think I'm wrong? I ask you to stop for a couple minute and consider this: what would the reaction be to the following, a person burns a bible on the steps of Capital Hill. Go beyond the immediate response of the people, how would the media, politicians and "social groups" react to this?

I can see Christians being very upset, and maybe even staging a small protest or two, a few politicians would speak out against it and the mainstream media would, at best, discount it or try and/or try and make it seem like a joke that this would upset anyone. Would you agree with this assessment?

Okay now reset and think, what would happen if that book the person burned was a Quran instead of a bible? For now ignore the reaction over seas and just look at the reaction in the US. I wont give my impression of what I think would happen in this case, as I think we've all seem many similar examples and know just how media, politicians and people would react.

In many jurisdictions globally, free speech is not an absolute. Conveying hate speech is a crime in Canada. Free speech also has responsibility.

The problem becomes what is "hate speech" and who defines it?" Canada's civil right commissions enforcement of this law is basically a weapon that is used and dissenting opinions.

 

[Gorankar]

Agree, but I also agree that they should not release personal info to the website operator. If their goal is to facilitate dialog, then they should implement an semi-anonymous mail/board system. For most of their clients (and cloudflare has plenty of clients that aren't operating racist websites), its probably not a big deal, but for hate sites, I'd be worried if I lodged a complaint and they gave my personal info over to them.

You want action against the law abiding without giving them the right to face their accuser?

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

You want action against the law abiding without giving them the right to face their accuser?

Wow, that is a total over reaction, unless you assume that any company would remove a site, based on a complaint like this, without first looking at the site themselves.

The question becomes, is a complaint emailed in against a site a charge, or a notification to the provider of a possible problem.

If you live next to me, and I hear you beating your wife and call the police, do the police need to say "your neighbor so and so, at such and such address called in and said you were beating your wife?"

 

[Gorankar]

Who is the one over reacting here? I am talking about content complaints, and having the option to directly respond to the complainer, and you are talking about assault. We are on a very different wavelength.

From a completely different angle, if their free speech is not without consequence, why should yours be?

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

Who is the one over reacting here? I am talking about content complaints, and having the option to directly respond to the complainer, and you are talking about assault. We are on a very different wavelength.

From a completely different angle, if their free speech is not without consequence, why should yours be?

The point is the same, the "complaint" be it a call to the police or a letter to the service provider, is nothing more than a heads up for that group, be it police or web site provider, to check into what has been alleged, which in this case is as simple as someone from the provider browsing the website hosted on their servers.

Sorry but that doesn't rise to the level of it violating the site's rights if they aren't given the accusers info.

Also, it's worth pointing out that there is no obligation for a private company to allow you to face your accuser, that Constitutional requirement is on the government, not private companies or individuals, just as freedom of speech is to protect you against government censorship, it does not mean anyone needs to provide you with a platform for said speech.

 

[Gorankar]

Neither is there an obligation for them to hide the identity of accusers or rather complainers. So, we are left with don't use them if you don't like the policy.

 

[DKS]

The main problem is that "hate speech" is still a nebulous term that can mean whatever the accuser wants it to mean. And there's no way to really prove or disprove.

As such, it gets used as a "shut up" far more often. So, in practice, it's a blasphemy law.

No. Hate speech has been tested and defined by the courts in Canada. It is both proveable and testable. Here are seven significant cases. And no, it's not a blasphemy law, at all.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-significant-canadian-cases-1.1036731

 

[Jamison Collins]

There are a couple of things people should be considering IMO

1) Even if hate speech couldn't be specifically defined (a claim which I doubt) consider the fact that the Supreme Court couldn't define pornography but "I know it when I see it." And just because we can't define the edge cases doesn't mean there aren't obvious cases which deserve scrutiny

2) Speech directed towards different groups matters differently. Groups which are more vulnerable or which have been historically discriminated against should have more safeguards. As far as I can tell, the only reason people beat up on Jews still is because historically they have been a target. Whites, in the United States, have not been targeted as a group. So a white person saying that "all Jews should be killed" simply carries more weight and means something different than a Jew saying "all whites should be killed."

The example was given earlier in the thread about burning a bible vs burning a Quran. It simply *means* something different to burn one vs burn another because of the religious beliefs attached to each and because I know that someone burning the bible is almost certainly saying something different from someone burning the Quran. Claiming "No, I don't mean anything by this" is just dog whistling.

Same thing with white pride vs black pride vs gay pride vs whatever. Actually, I don't have any comprehension of what white pride even means. When I look at the moon landing I am so proud of our species and the hard work and sacrifices made to achieve that. That 99.9% of the work was done by white males doesn't even register. Again, insisting that it's just not fair I can't have white pride just looks like more dog whistling to me.

I try to see this from the other perspective but other than the argument that free speech is an absolute (and that isn't even true anyway) I don't see the redeeming value to this viewpoint.

 

[Gorankar]

2) is absolutely stupid. It is what has lead us to the idiocy we at are today. Special protections breed the discord that results in discriminatory behavior it is supposedly meant to protect against.

 

[DooKey]

Wow, that is a total over reaction, unless you assume that any company would remove a site, based on a complaint like this, without first looking at the site themselves.

The question becomes, is a complaint emailed in against a site a charge, or a notification to the provider of a possible problem.

If you live next to me, and I hear you beating your wife and call the police, do the police need to say "your neighbor so and so, at such and such address called in and said you were beating your wife?"

Yep, the police certainly should say that. What if I was fucking my wife and calling her dirty names because she gets off on it and we both are very vocal when fucking. If I'm interrupted because of you I want to know it.

 

[Jamison Collins]

2) is absolutely stupid. It is what has lead us to the idiocy we at are today. Special protections breed the discord that results in discriminatory behavior it is supposed to protect against.

Citation absolutely needed. What is the bad situation we are even in today?

 

[Gorankar]

Your opinion, an erroneous one in my opinion, seemed to require no citation, why would mine?

If you don't get that special treatment pisses off everyone not receiving that special treatment, or how those not recieving the special treatment express their anger over it, then I am not sure how to make you see it.

 

[Jamison Collins]

Your opinion, an erroneous one in my opinion, seemed to require no citation, why would mine?

Which aspect are you going to go on record and say isn't obviously supported by history? Let me know and I'll support it as long as you are willing to go on record.

 

[Gorankar]

Which aspect are you going to go on record and say isn't obviously supported by history? Let me know and I'll support it as long as you are willing to go on record.

Support what? That discrimination today, to make up for discrimination in the past is a good thing? Go ahead and waste your time trying to support that rationally. It leads us in a constant circle of discrimination.

To be clear, I am talking about this.

2) Speech directed towards different groups matters differently. Groups which are more vulnerable or which have been historically discriminated against should have more safeguards. As far as I can tell, the only reason people beat up on Jews still is because historically they have been a target. Whites, in the United States, have not been targeted as a group. So a white person saying that "all Jews should be killed" simply carries more weight and means something different than a Jew saying "all whites should be killed."

Added protections for one group over another is discrimination.

 

[Jamison Collins]

Support what? That discrimination today, to make up for discrimination in the past is a good thing? Go ahead and waste your time trying to support that rationally. It leads us in a constant circle of discrimination.

To be clear, I am talking about this.



Added protections for one group over another is discrimination.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that

1) Group NW has historically been discriminated against by group W
2) Group W has not historically been discriminated against by group NW
3) It is wrong to tell group W they can no longer discriminate against NW because
3a) telling them that is "discrimination" even though it is discrimination of a totally different sort and despite
3b) telling them that only serves to level the playing field since NW has no capacity to discriminate against W in the first place.

Do I have that correct?

 

[nilepez]

You want action against the law abiding without giving them the right to face their accuser?

No I don't want personal info given out to the website operator. Many of these sites, if not most, hide behind anonymous registrations. Besides, Cloudflare isn't going to do anything about it, so how does sending personal info the the to an anonymous operator solve anything?

 

[dgz]

there is no clear definition of what constitutes hate speech as it's a made up term.

Every single term was made up and you fucking know it

 

[Gorankar]

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that

1) Group NW has historically been discriminated against by group W
2) Group W has not historically been discriminated against by group NW
3) It is wrong to tell group W they can no longer discriminate against NW because
3a) telling them that is "discrimination" even though it is discrimination of a totally different sort and despite
3b) telling them that only serves to level the playing field since NW has no capacity to discriminate against W in the first place.

Do I have that correct?

No, discrimination is discrimination. Precluding one racial/sex/gender/religious group from something and expressly allowing another group the same thing is discrimination. This does not change regardless of whether the group has been discriminated against b4 or when that group was last discriminated against, or by whom. Discrimination does not level the playing field regardless of which group it benefits. It merely begets more. Are you being obtuse intentionally just to troll?

 

[yourgrandma]

Dumbest article i've read in a while. It's hardly snitching if it literally says on the reporting form that they “will notify the site owner.”

Its bad enough when governments (Canada/Europe) are eroding free speech laws but also forcing them on corporations that have control of every social interaction outside of face to face communication on the entire planet leading to controlling what opinions we see and what doesn't get to be said.

 

[Jamison Collins]

No, discrimination is discrimination.

That simply isn't true. Saying you can't incite racial violence is not the same type of discrimination as being subject to racial violence. If you insist they are the same then we simply won't see eye-to-eye on this.

Precluding one racial/sex/gender/religious group from something and expressly allowing another group the same thing is discrimination.

Where did I suggest such a thing? Quote me.

This does not change regardless of whether the group has been discriminated against b4 or when that group was last discriminated against, or by whom. Discrimination does not level the playing field regardless of which group it benefits. It merely begets more. Are you being obtuse intentionally just to troll?

Since you think I said something I didn't you're already off the rails here.



HAHAHAHA in your face https://blog.cloudflare.com/anonymity-and-abuse-reports/

 

[PaulP]

Wow, that is a total over reaction, unless you assume that any company would remove a site, based on a complaint like this, without first looking at the site themselves.

The question becomes, is a complaint emailed in against a site a charge, or a notification to the provider of a possible problem.

If you live next to me, and I hear you beating your wife and call the police, do the police need to say "your neighbor so and so, at such and such address called in and said you were beating your wife?"

Actually, in the US, if the police decide to charge me, they will have to reveal who made the complaint (assuming the responding police officers did not witness said beating). And the statement will be part of the public record if it goes to court, so I would in fact know who "snitched" on me and all the details. That's part and parcel with the right to face your accuser. In the case of cloudflare, if someone is reporting a site for abusing the terms of service, then I think the owner of the site has a right to know the specifics of the complaint and who made it. Because, depending on the nature of the complaint, they could get shut down and potentially face loss of income as a result. Maybe even prosecution for a crime. In that case they have right to defend themselves and face their accuser. If I were clouldflare, I would not report frivolous complaints (site contents offended me, etc) to the site owner, however.

 

[Gorankar]

HAHAHAHA in your face https://blog.cloudflare.com/anonymity-and-abuse-reports/

Is Cloudfare changing their policy supposed to bother me?
In any case, they only changed it in in how it relates to actual threats and child abuse complaints. How they handle, "I am a self entitled prick with a political agenda that is highly offended.", complaints seem to remain unchanged. So I am not sure how that is in my face, but whatever. Hooray for you.

 

[nilepez]

Actually, in the US, if the police decide to charge me, they will have to reveal who made the complaint (assuming the responding police officers did not witness said beating). And the statement will be part of the public record if it goes to court, so I would in fact know who "snitched" on me and all the details. That's part and parcel with the right to face your accuser. In the case of cloudflare, if someone is reporting a site for abusing the terms of service, then I think the owner of the site has a right to know the specifics of the complaint and who made it. Because, depending on the nature of the complaint, they could get shut down and potentially face loss of income as a result. Maybe even prosecution for a crime. In that case they have right to defend themselves and face their accuser. If I were clouldflare, I would not report frivolous complaints (site contents offended me, etc) to the site owner, however.

Clearly Cloudflare disagrees, since they're changing their policy. This isn't a case of an accuser. This is a complaint about a hate site. They dont' need to face their accuser. If something is going to happen, then Cloudflare would go look at the site and decide if they wanted to continue hosting their content. I see no indication that Cloudflare intends to do that and if I go to http:ihateblackpeople.com and complain about their racist material, they're not going to suddenly go, "I see what you means, we're closing the site."

They don't need to know who complained and again, most of these sites are anonymously registered. You and I don't know who runs the site, so why do they get to know who is complaining and possibly sick their minions on the complainer?

 

[Gigus Fire]

Clearly Cloudflare disagrees, since they're changing their policy. This isn't a case of an accuser. This is a complaint about a hate site. They dont' need to face their accuser. If something is going to happen, then Cloudflare would go look at the site and decide if they wanted to continue hosting their content. I see no indication that Cloudflare intends to do that and if I go to http:ihateblackpeople.com and complain about their racist material, they're not going to suddenly go, "I see what you means, we're closing the site."

They don't need to know who complained and again, most of these sites are anonymously registered. You and I don't know who runs the site, so why do they get to know who is complaining and possibly sick their minions on the complainer?

Why should they even care about your complaint? What does your opinion mean to a business?

 

[Gorankar]

Clearly Cloudflare disagrees, since they're changing their policy. This isn't a case of an accuser. This is a complaint about a hate site. They dont' need to face their accuser. If something is going to happen, then Cloudflare would go look at the site and decide if they wanted to continue hosting their content. I see no indication that Cloudflare intends to do that and if I go to http:ihateblackpeople.com and complain about their racist material, they're not going to suddenly go, "I see what you means, we're closing the site."

They don't need to know who complained and again, most of these sites are anonymously registered. You and I don't know who runs the site, so why do they get to know who is complaining and possibly sick their minions on the complainer?

Did you read the proposed changes? The policy change appears to only cover complaints about actual threats, and child abuse. Complaints against racists site like the Black Panthers or Stormfront would not be treated any different than they have been unless they step over those lines.