Huh? What changed then – why even do it? Cloudflare's action today could set a dangerous precedent. Prince now seems to be arguing for a committee of some sort to arbitrate who gets taken down. To me, that's not much better.
IMO the internet should be free. Let filtering be conducted at the edge and driven by users.
"the web blog's administrators suggested Cloudflare was protecting them because it secretly agreed with the site's neo-Nazi articles."
So you need to visit the site to confirm why cloudlfare dropped them and their site is down because Cloudlfare dropped them. Joseph Heller would be proud.
There are many shades of grey between right wing and Nazi, though, and if we decide that Nazi speech is to be banned then we also need to start drawing a very clear line as to what is ‘Nazi enough to ban’ and what is just ‘approaching Nazi’.
I’m live and work in a country where the public denial of crimes against humanity is punished by fines and prison. I don’t deny crimes like the Holocaust or Srebrenica or Rwanda and I despise the people who do, but I still feel uncomfortable with laws that criminalise that sort of speech. This situation is not exactly the same - Daily Stormer can probably find someone else to support their site - but there’s something to the slippery slope argument.
The term is often over-used; not in this case.
It would be great to get a comment from the anon on here about what was so wrong.