/linked/2017/08/17/cloudflare

Comments

anonymous:
If Nazi motherfuckers don't have a right to Cloudflare services, does a gay couple have a right to a wedding cake baked by anti-same-sex marriage bakers?
8:08 pm — Thursday, 17 August 2017
anonymous:
Shut the fuck up, nazicuck.
8:50 pm — Thursday, 17 August 2017
anonymous:
There's that trademark progressive wit.
9:33 pm — Thursday, 17 August 2017
grubes:
are Nazi motherfuckers worse than regular Nazis?
11:58 pm — Thursday, 17 August 2017
Gruber the Booger:
>If Nazi motherfuckers don't have a right to Cloudflare services, does a gay couple have a right to a wedding cake baked by anti-same-sex marriage bakers?

This has always been an interesting question to me.

A place of business has the right to post a sign that says "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" or something to that effect.

If you are going to court, you are expected to wear appropriate attire and the judge has a fair amount of leeway as to what is appropriate.

In the case of Cloudflare you agree to their Terms of Service.

Regarding the baking of a cake it would appear on the surface that the baker has right to refuse a customer at their discretion much like Cloudflare did.

Where it can get complicated is what is the goal and message of the cake or website.

If someone wants a cake shaped in a certain way, lets say the shape of a swastika and have a message that says "White Power" you may have a hard time finding a baker.

Likewise for finding a web hosting company.

But where do we draw the line? Who is the arbiter? What offends one may not offend another. Freedom of speech, expression and association is very important. People have the right to offend as much as people have the right to be offended.

Rather than having the government get involved I prefer to let the market decide. But that is far from a perfect solution as the mob can very easily form and run a business out of town for something so minor as baking a cake.

Another example. Let's say you own a laundry mat. Are the quarters running the machines not all the same? It would appear to a jury of your peers to be very hard to justify denying service to someone because of their sex, skin color, sexual persuasion, political beliefs etc.

Now lets say you own a Kosher bakery, and someone wants you to bake a cake with bacon in it. Should you be forced to do that?

These are complicated questions and there are no perfect answers.

Which is why, in my opinion we need to continue to be open and frank with discussions, dialog and debate.

Name calling, smearing, violence, harassment, etc. get us no where and only provide more vitriol and friction.

Thoughts?
12:00 am — Friday, 18 August 2017
Not Anonymous:
Gruber the Booger, this is a very thoughtful response.

I think you are right in letting the market decide. Freedom of association is enshrined in the First Amendment. Businesses cannot be compelled to take customers they do not want – for whatever reason, no matter how hateful.

Google should not have fired Damore, but they are free to. Cloudflare should not have unplugged Daily Stormer, but they are free to. A devoutly Christian baker should make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, but they are free to.

I am worried of the accelerating progressive war on liberty, increasingly enforced by corporate allies.

Power moved from the church to the state, and both times was countered by revolutionary movements that brought great individual freedom. For all their wisdom, the Founding Fathers did not foresee and equip our Constitution with the ability to fend off authoritarian corporatism.
12:57 am — Friday, 18 August 2017
grubes:
where do we draw the line?

no, it's two crossing lines, then four lines perpendicular at the ends of those two lines.
2:32 am — Friday, 18 August 2017
Gruber the Booger:
@Not Anonymous

Thank you for the kind words and thoughtful response. Appreciated. 100%.

Now if I may, in the kindest way may I dispute:

>the Founding Fathers did not foresee and equip our Constitution with the ability to fend off authoritarian corporatism.

But didn't they?

One of the Founding Fathers goals was to escape the authority and corporate control (taxes for example) of the British Empire at that specific time and place.

They did not want to be held to the "old word" standards and beliefs enough to fight for their "new land".

Now lets not dismiss the fact that there were already people living here, living in peace and war among themselves. Native Americans.

Who were mostly wiped out in the process.

I don't know where I am going with this. Forgive me. I am arguing with myself here.

Look at the the big 5:

Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google.

There is hardly a person on earth who uses a device or the internet that isn't touched by one of them.

In that sense you are absolutely correct that the Founders could not have imagined such a reality.

I could not have imagined it in 1980.
3:14 am — Friday, 18 August 2017
Not Anonymous:
@Gruber the Booger

They certainly were no fan of corporations, but had they been able to imagine the power someone would attain, I imagine our Constitution would be somewhat different. Corporate power is exercised without explicit force or coercion. How do we mitigate that and remain both free and prosperous?

And that aside, many of limits placed on state power have been eroded over time, particularly in the last century.

That we now are a society ignorant of history and civics, and increasingly dependent on the state (this is why I oppose state-run healthcare schemes) is only accelerating this.

Maybe any attempt to live without chains is futile, and be it the church, the state or the corporation, we will always have a master.
3:31 am — Friday, 18 August 2017
Gruber the Booger:
@Not Anonymous

So cogent.

>Corporate power is exercised without explicit force or coercion. How do we mitigate that and remain both free and prosperous?

Well said. It's a tight rope balancing act to keep the masses pleased and at the same time keep the powers that be in control.

I was rambling. Still am. But You nailed it:

>Maybe any attempt to live without chains is futile, and be it the church, the state or the corporation, we will always have a master.

As the pendulum swings.

There is a fine line between control and revolution.

This is a fantastic exchange.
3:59 am — Friday, 18 August 2017
ohm:
@Booger:

Thoughtful and right on. Thanks.
12:26 pm — Friday, 18 August 2017
jimbo:
I believe that black people have a right to eat lunch. But they don't have a right to eat it at my lunch counter.

3:27 pm — Friday, 18 August 2017
anonymous:
No one has a "right" to eat lunch at any lunch counter, regardless of skin color.

Only an asshole would deny someone service based on their skin color, but they absolutely have the right to do so.

There's a moral chasm between "right to eat lunch" and "right to eat lunch at a cafe's lunch counter" that progressives seem unable to understand.
4:53 pm — Friday, 18 August 2017
catfood:
thoughtful and reasoned debate?

who are you motherfuckers and what have you done with my dfwc?
7:00 pm — Friday, 18 August 2017
To Be Fair:
>No one has a "right" to eat lunch at any lunch counter, regardless of skin color.

Ah, the old pro-starvation argument. Fuck human rights!

Great job, DFwC!
1:08 pm — Saturday, 19 August 2017
To Be Fair:
>No one has a "right" to eat lunch at any lunch counter, regardless of skin color.

Ah, the old pro-starvation argument. Fuck human rights!

Great job, DFwC!
1:08 pm — Saturday, 19 August 2017
anonymous:
Are you really that stupid, TBF? Probably.
6:10 pm — Saturday, 19 August 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!