Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: CloudFlare protect ISIS' websites

  1. #1

    CloudFlare protect ISIS' websites

    I just read (on The Guardian) that CloudFlare protect ISIS' websites. I'm absolutely astonished that a company, especially one based in San Francisco, would actually support ISIS by having them as a client.

  2. #2
    In 2013 the CEO (who presumably has no morals whatsoever) Matthew Prince, said "A website is speech. It is not a bomb" "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" (interview with a website called The Kernel).

  3. #3
    Sorry but to me that's unacceptable approach to take. A part of ISIS' success is how they use the internet and social media to their advantage - for propaganda, influencing weak-minded people into joining their ranks, etc, etc. To say "a website is speech. It is not a bomb" is to completely underestimate the power of words. Has he never heard the expression "the pen is mightier than the sword"? Does he think people are radicalised because someone puts a knife to their throat? And not because they are influenced by the words and deeds of other people?

  4. #4
    To actually take money from these people, in order to provide a service protecting their websites.. I don't know how Matthew Prince sleeps at night.
    What do other people think about this? I would love to see The Verge write an article about this as it's largely based around technology.
    Edit - I hope "The Firm" is the right place. Wasn't sure where to put it, and I assume "The Firm" is for posts about tech companies.

  5. #5
    Freedom of speech, on the part of individuals and of corporations who are protected as individuals, will not be infringed unless it is shown to threaten others’ safety. The problem is how do you show that an act of speech has threatened another? Simply saying in a public forum, "go blow up Americans" or for that matter "kill all muslims" does not threaten anything and that speech is in fact protected. No mass shooting has been shown to be implicitly and irrevocably instigated by a video game, so depictions of violence in video games are protected. Can you show that any one bombing or attack can be directly traced to a certain specific website "recruiting" a specific person? Those websites, while abhorrent, are protected.
    None of that is to say that corporations should fail to police the use of their products as platforms for peddling of hate and violence. Ideally, they should. But the government cannot force them to take responsibility, when they do it on their own, it’s imperfect and motivated primarily by market forces—the need to stay profitable. Video games self police for the most part with the ESRB rating system to avoid lawsuits. Reddit banned some flagrantly racist and pervy subs because they want broader advertising clients. Etc etc. The point is that this guy has no lawyers ganging up on him or a board breathing down his neck for profits (because venture capital), and short of that he will continue to sell his company’s services to whoever. Profit > morals in almost all cases.

  6. #6
    content from reference site

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts