> UPDATE: I love how I get downvotes and literally NO ONE has engaged with my core argument, that censorship is a bit like antibiotics: short-term positive impact but long-term negative impact.
Because it's absolutely insane to suggest that zero people/websites should use antibiotics.
The problem with antibiotics is when they're given out in huge amounts with barely any reason. And the only reason that's bad is because it makes antibiotics ineffective. There's no possible way to turn that into an argument that we should never use antibiotics.
Your own analogy argues strongly against your point. Cloudflare's shutdown count is very small.
> Your own analogy argues strongly against your point. Cloudflare's shutdown count is very small.
The Daily Stormer went on to be banned by Google Domains, and a number of other registrars (all of whom had previously not banned customers for political speech). So yes, the "anti-biotic" had to be repeatedly prescribed—just not by CloudFlare. In the end, it was all for not: The Daily Stormer is still up and running today.[0]
It gets worse. After CloudFlare's actions on The Daily Stormer, they were pressured to follow it up with another political speech ban, this time on 8chan. It ABSOLUTELY had a follow on effect, and not just for CloudFlare. 8chan (of course) is still running.[1]
CloudFlare's censorship actions were then followed up by censorship of political speech across huge platforms including Facebook, Google/YouTube, Apple, and Twitter (supposedly "the free speech wing of the free speech party"[2]). For instance, Alex Jones was banned by all of them almost one year after the failed attempt to erase The Daily Stormer off of the Internet. At the time, he had an audience estimated at 20 million and had been on the air since the 90s.
Internet censorship is at all time highs and CloudFlare was at the forefront of making that happen.
Are you saying the Daily Stormer ban is worse because it didn't knock them offline, but the Alex Jones ban is bad because it did knock his audience way down?
I can't figure out what your argument is.
And nobody expects antibiotics to eradicate a disease either.
Also Alex Jones was using that platform to strongly harm the lives of a big group of people by aiming constant harassment at them. Does that factor in anywhere? Are you demanding hosting platforms to be complicit in that?
My dude, if you want to censor people, or get corporations to do it for you—knock yourself out. Some random HN commenter isn't going to change your mind, or stop you.
I think it's bad strategy, and antithetical to the stated goals of those doing the censoring. Let's leave it at that.
I'm mostly just trying to understand you because you keep using self-contradicting arguments. If you would rather keep making new arguments instead of explaining anything, then sure it's better to leave it at that.
Because it's absolutely insane to suggest that zero people/websites should use antibiotics.
The problem with antibiotics is when they're given out in huge amounts with barely any reason. And the only reason that's bad is because it makes antibiotics ineffective. There's no possible way to turn that into an argument that we should never use antibiotics.
Your own analogy argues strongly against your point. Cloudflare's shutdown count is very small.