How? It does nothing to solve the problem. It simply kicks the can down the road.
I don't get how it's desirable that this shouldn't be called out. Even if cloudflare is clearly looking at its bank balance when doing so.
> I don't get how it's desirable that this shouldn't be called out.
That's not being suggested. It's possible to address the issue without outright cutting off 8chan. This approach is common of more extreme perspectives and does more to breed animosity than solve the problem. There are better ways to approach it, and cutting someone or a group off should be on the end list of possibilities.
> Even if cloudflare is clearly looking at its bank balance when doing so.
It's entirely possible they have two goals in mind, and that would be fine. I simply think it's unlikely because of how they've reacted in this case and the one with Daily Stormer.
I also detect a subtle hint of consequentialism here, but that could be my own reading into your post. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I simply can't get on border with the idea that the ends justifies the means. While the ends shouldn't be ignore, I don't think it should be seen as the sole arbitrator what determines ethical behavior.
That's more or less it. Silence can be as telling as its absence in cases like these, I think.
> That's not being suggested.
Fair enough, apologies for creating the impression if that happened. How should we address this problem without cutting off things like 8chan, though? I think that once people start advocating against the right of others to exist it's time for society to act. It makes sense that we should focus on the individuals actually contributing to these boards and de-radicalise them where possible. So doing, that reduces demand for things like 8chan. But that doesn't mean that 8chan itself isn't inherently problematic.
To be clear, this is not to say that message boards are all inherently problematic and we need to think before acting. Insofar as you urge caution on this in general, I agree. 8Chan has gone out of its way to eliminate any grey area on this subject, though. The behaviour of its administrators towards law enforcement in the aftermath of the Christchurch attack isn't even that unusual for them.
> I simply think it's unlikely
Totally, lol. I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. I just don't want it to overshadow what I think is a positive action.
> consequentialism
All I'm saying is that if violent radicalism is the enemy of a coherent society that respects everyone's right to exist (which these guys pretty clearly say), society should be prepared to do something to protect itself. And that means shutting down the services that recruit new gunmen, because they're a part of this. The ends don't justify the means, the actions of 8chan participants do.
Edit: Thanks so much for taking the time to write all that, by the way. One of the main reasons I come to this place is for people willing to walk through their arguments like this.
