Cloudflare is a CDN. 8chan has free choice to pick another. It's not a common carrier or a public service in any way. It's just big, which isn't the same thing.

A CDN isn't necessary for a large website to keep running either.

It's necessary to protect against DDOS attacks. The CDN has privileged positioning in the network -- close to the consumer ISPs -- and can block incoming DDOS attacks directly before the traffic flows deeper.

8chan can build their own if none are willing to host them. though some ISPs might refuse to peer with them.

and then do you suggest 8chan to start making their own ISPs around the nation in areas where there are no ISPs that will peer? As an aside, the owner of 8chan already hosts 8chan with his own ISP.

no, but "high traffic forums" are not a "protected class" when it comes to equality.

Not legally, nor morally.

Morally we can argue that there's virtue (or a lot of global positive utility if we use an utilitarian framework) in making sure that there's an open marketplace for ideas, and every idea has opportunity to be "priced". But there's also virtue in keeping that place healthy, sane and constructive. Hate speech, manifestos, slur memes, and other kinds of low-effort content seems to be rather unhealthy for the place.

While at the same time doing a proper academic study on intelligence, brains, genetics, education, socioeconomic status, social mobility, and group dynamics at large is healthy. Context, style, framing is important. Blurting out that "blacks" have lower IQ in some measure might even be true, but that's not really an idea for that marketplace. Connecting the dots, uncovering the causes, the dynamics (noticing that the main driver is not some inherent genetic/cultural inferiority, but simple socioeconomic status due to historical path dependence) - and raising awareness and offering solutions is healthy.

Yes, of course, it's upon us to make a value judgement about what's a virtue, what's healthy. And no wonder some people think that even adopting the Golden Rule (do only what you want others to do, see also Rawl's reflective equilibrium) just means we have to "purge the weak" and that "civilizations are destined to clash". Of course we can't do much with that, other than trying to persuade them AND trying to minimize these voices so they remain a weak but vocal minority. (Hence our choice of idea policing is not just because we happen to think equality and pacifism are virtuous, but because our survival, way of life and so might depend on it.) [And in that way, yes cultures are destined to clash, and we ought to think a pacifist-equalist is the one that should win - nothing to do about it, another value judgement to make.]

decent peering is neither a right nor a requirement for a website.

A utility is typically a natural monopoly providing some sort of essential service. Cloudflare is neither.

What happens if all other providers refuse you as well on same basis? What if Comcast refuse you to provide any internet service because they don't like your views on net neutrality?

In my personal opinion, the size of "all others" matters.

If you have a monopolistic ISP that refuses to provide service to you because they don't like your content, and they're your only option, then that's a problem.

If you have multiple tens of CDN providers and they all don't want to carry your content, then perhaps you should really take a look at your content and have a hard think about why it isn't wanted.

And regardless, a CDN isn't necessary to host a website. A CDN certainly makes it easier to achieve lower-latency global reach, and is useful in helping you weather certain types of attacks on your infrastructure, but they're by no means required. And there are other ways to achieve those goals.

Exactly, with similarity being a second important thing. For example, maybe you’re lucky enough to have three ISPs to choose from, but they’re all big American companies with nearly identical corporate cultures, and odds are good that if one of them kicks you off, the others will too.

Hosting a site, on the other hand, has a multitude of very different providers to choose from. Even if you manage to get banned from every hosting provider in the US, ship a server to a colo in Kyrgyzstan or whatever, and keep right on going.

Cloudflare isn’t an ISP so “all other providers” doesn’t make sense, and Comcast isn’t a competitor.

I guess then you'd have to reflect on the kind of content you're promoting if the entire internet hates you for it.

A few key decision makers in key roles in IT infrastructure do not represent the entire internet.

If you can't get anyone to host your content that's a big enough sample for me.

You obviously haven't seen group-think in action.

Telecom companies like AT&T aren't providing "essential service". Being able to call/text someone is not a "essential service". Yet they are not supposed to ban people because they are merely the carrier.

> Telecom companies like AT&T aren't providing "essential service".

...according to Title II, yes, they absolutely are.

https://newnetworks.com/titleii/

The FCC just ruled that Internet service is not a Title II service.

It's not Internet service that's essential: it's phone service - the ability to make emergency phone calls.

Being able to call people is pretty essential in the modern world. That’s why these laws exist and why governments have put so much effort into making these services available to everyone.

The phone company is required to serve you even if they disagree with you not because of some high-minded ideas about free speech, but because it’s considered really important for people to have phone service.

> They are practically a utility.

LOL. They are not.

They kinda are. DDoS protection is only viable at massive scale, but is table stakes for any website with content that someone out there might find objectionable.

E-mail isn't even a utility.

Please educate yourself on the law here. Most everyone in tech wants the internet to be a utility, but it's not. An individual internet company's product offering is definitely not a utility.

There are plenty of other companies out there that provide DDoS protection. If they can't find even one that will host them, perhaps they might want to consider the possibility that their content is reprehensible and there's a reason no one wants to do business with them.

If Cloudflare was the only game in town (or close to it), I might be more sympathetic to this argument, but... they're not. Not even close.

Many other providers provide DDoS protection. Just not for free. Let them go to OVH, Azure, etc....

lol.

There are lots of providers with massive DDoS protection capacity specializing in hosting illegal or otherwise questionable content, they just charge more than cloudflare.

Botnet C&Cs, cybercrime forums and card shops all need hosting and face massive attacks. Somehow I never hear the operators of those complaining.

They mainly use cloudflare. There have been a lot of discussions over it and also criticism.

but DDoS protection is not speech - it more lets one shout in a loud room - as people keep reminding us you have a right to your speech, but no right to be heard

Then when would they become one?

I dunno, when you need cloud storage to live. In the same way you need water, power, gas, and these days communication (ISP, etc). But hosting your files is not crucial to your survival I don't believe.

You don't need ISP to be able to live. Also CloudFlare is NOT hosting them. They were the CDN, content delivery network. They are the messenger which carries the message. They shouldn't be deciding whose message they want to carry. They are forgetting the "don't shoot the messenger" saying.

> They shouldn't be deciding whose message they want to carry

Being a messenger doesn't require being amoral.

> They shouldn't be deciding whose message they want to carry.

Why? There is no reason they should be forced to host content they find objectionable.

And all that is addressed in the article. Specifically the paragraph that starts with "We do not take this decision lightly"

The point is that what 8chan is doing is egregious enough for them to step in and cease doing business with them. This isn't a slippery slope kind of thing.

They literally said that they would not kick someone off their platform anymore after they did it to The Daily Storm. Then they did to 8chan because enough people threw a hissy fit

Nope, they said "We've taken measures to ensure that they cannot sign up for Cloudflare's services ever again."

There are two connected but distinct problems this thread touches on, freedom of speech and the actual utility nature of modern internet companies. Both are problems here and of course, the internet companies don't want to face either. Although the Cloudfare case is a bit different since it isn't quite a monopoly, yet.

So because net neutrality lost, we should move on and not continue the fight?