Cloudflare only got its revenge on Daily Stormer because it had the power to do so, and abused that power instead of using the legal system like everyone else has to.
I used to be a schoolteacher, and no matter what bad or false thing a student said about me, I wouldn't fail them as retribution or to prove them wrong or anything. That would be abuse of power.
These are not analogous. You have a moral (and possibly a legal) obligation to grade a student fairly. Unless you are a school administrator, you can not unilaterally expel a student.
A business has no such constraints. If I go to a bar and start telling people that the owner is actually a racist, I’m going to get kicked out even if I want to buy more drinks. That’s not “might is right”; it’s the owner not wanting to do business with an asshole.
I'm talking about morals, not the law. The issue is that there was an imbalance of power which means one party can push the other one around but not the reverse.
If The Daily Stormer had made that claim about some unrelated business, it wouldn't suffer any such consequences because that other business wouldn't have any power over it. If only powerful players can punish weak players and people call that "fair", then that's kind of the definition of "might is right".
The bar analogy isn't quite the same because there are many other bars so the kicked out customer doesn't suffer much loss. If it's the only bar in town and people really need that service, then it would be morally wrong for the owner to use his power to settle personal disputes. Everybody would be living in fear of being banned and would conform their behavior to his demands. That's why monopolies are often regulated to prevent such abuses of power.
> If The Daily Stormer had made that claim about some unrelated business, it wouldn't suffer any such consequences because that other business wouldn't have any power over it.
Even if cloudflare was equally sized, they probably would have shut down services over that. Don't misrepresent your business partners if you want them to stay business partners.
> If it's the only bar in town and people really need that service
It's not the only DDoS protection, and most sites don't need significant DDoS protection.
I don't think there is any moral conflict in believing that the government shouldn't regulate speech while also not helping people whose speech you disagree with. "Let me help you hand out copies of your newsletter" does not follow from "I don't think you should go to prison for writing that newsletter".
I used to be a schoolteacher, and no matter what bad or false thing a student said about me, I wouldn't fail them as retribution or to prove them wrong or anything. That would be abuse of power.
Might is right?