<some portion of infosec & swe twitter>
"It's not censorship when *I* want it, because I'm one of the *good* people / because *those* people are objectively trolls."
Perhaps they should adopt a convenient hashtag, something like #NotAllCensorship?
Conversation
One more in the series: "everybody deserves good security"
Quote Tweet
All modern debate regarding privacy pivots on "who should not be permitted to have it", and the bogeymen are generally personal.
This sucks, and is not scalable.
*Everybody* deserves good security.
Even your monsters; because you are surely someone else's monster. 3/
Show this thread
2
1
Because some people will not get it:
Quote Tweet
Replying to @kevinriggle
Again, make the choices you want, but don't pretend they are not censorship.
Pick one.
1
2
Just in case we're missing the point, here:
read image description
ALT
5
5
13
Cloudflare already provides a service which blocks a lot of LGBT content:
twitter.com/DanielMicay/st
They already banned many sites associated with sex workers from using their DDoS protection and are still doing it. When it came to Kiwi Farms, they decided not to enforce ToS.
Quote Tweet
I know several people working as software engineers at Cloudflare. According to one of them, this incident (blog.cloudflare.com/the-mistake-th) was hardly a mistake. Cloudflare is including block lists sourced from far right evangelical groups as part of their 'family friendly' DNS service.
Show this thread
2
2
5
"Yes, yes, Cloudflare should have taken a principled stance and broken the illiberal American FOSTA law, because clearly they are in a position to fight for the rights of SWers, rather than American legislators."
2
1
Another disingenuous argument. The law in no way requires them to take down sites like Switter. They weren't requested to take down the site from the government either. There wasn't even anything for them to fight against. According to Cloudflare, they aren't hosting the content.
Both yourself and Cloudflare are arguing they aren't hosting Kiwi Farms and aren't responsible for it. At the same time, you're arguing they are responsible for a site associated with sex workers behind the same service. It's a conspicuously inconsistent way of presenting things.
1
3
> The law in no way requires them to take down sites like Switter.
The Switter people might disagree with you:
vice.com/en/article/8xk
1
Show replies