Name one person harmed by the site?
If you have ever seen a page of DailyStormer, you'd either laugh or go away.
No one has ever killed anyone after reading a few paragraphs on that site.
Putting in the argument of "Is loss of human life an acceptable cost for free speech" is not an honest way of describing censorship of content that is silly at its worst and dumb at its best.
Clearly it’s the nazis who are out of control and we need to take down their websites. Freedom of speech be damned!
Seriously. This was a harmless, stupid, non-violent demo for nazis to out themselves in, before the antifa turned up and got people killed.
Are their websites being taken down? No? How come?
Disclaimer: think nazis are about as stupid as it gets.
Edit: not exactly expecting upvotes for this post, but this thread clearly needs some balance.
These are the guys who rushed a non-violent demo. These are the people you are defending: https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticalShort/status/90191505521...
It doesn't. Seriously, you're making excuses for a murderous white supremacist asshole.
We just witnessed something very significant, when Russia interfered. They had an express goal and they carried it out with technologies we know.
A medium that is absolutely free of censorship is not in your best interest, because it can and will be used to compromise you.
The solutions are difficult, but what is clear (especially to folks who have had to moderate even a small channel or forum) is that a policy of no-censorship never scales in the real world, the question is how you do it, where to draw the line, etc..
Yes, this decision has already been made. Freedom (of speech and more) is fought for and won through struggle and sacrifice. We have already lost much human life to defend these rights and continue to do so.
Bad actions will be dealt with the appropriate consequences, as they always have, but that does not mean we should start limiting rights. This is the foundation of the justice system and society itself.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/anti-terrorist-hacker-group-re...
Cloudflare was quite clear on the criteria they used.
> The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
You can disagree with that criteria, and you can question whether this is the true criteria Cloudflare used. For the later, you need to provide evidence in opposition to this case.
“Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision.“
https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to...
Just because one has freedom of speech does not mean one is free of consequence. So actual murderers should be punished. People believe what they choose to believe, and if it's not the DailyStormer it's some other hate mongering source (that's not exclusive to the internet).
Is loss of human life an acceptable cost for free speech?
Tech companies didn't choose to be the society police, yet here we are.