Hacker News Reader

Comment by minerva23 | Hacker News Reader

I had donated to the EFF in the past, but their stance[1] that CDNs/hosted services shouldn't be allowed to choose the customers they are willing work with is not only wrong, it's causes harm[2].

[1] https://www.eff.org/press/releases/international-coalition-r...

[2] https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/

View on HN

I'm a strong supporter of EFF -- but you know what? I don't agree with every position they take. I can't think of any organization (or person) that I agree with 100%. If perfect alignment with my worldview were a prerequisite, I'd be unable to support anything or anyone.

Instead, I look at the total effect. On the whole, EFF (in my opinion) does far more good than ill, so they have my support.

I agree with you in disagreeing with EFF's stance on that issue. However, I think the good work they do in other areas makes them still a worthy place to put money, so I continue to donate to them. I definitely understand if others feel more strongly about that issue, though.

I'm more on the side of the EFF on this one. I don't think that infrastructure (and banking) companies should be able to deny lawful access as a default. What is able to be done in China in terms of cutting people off based on social credit scores should be terrifying and the only way around this is to expressly make certain markets open to anyone, even if you don't like them.

I'm happy to make up the loss with my donations.

You know what I love about donating to EFF? They actually ask you which positions of theirs you agree with and will only use your money on those issues if you ask them to.

>hosted services shouldn't be allowed to choose the customers they are willing work with is not only wrong,

Cool. So since you do think multi-billion dollar companies should be allowed to deny services to a paying customer, I assume if they deny offering their services to gays or blacks, for instance, you are also fine with that? Like, we shouldn't force corporations to do business with anyone...

You are essentially saying that we should have to ask permission from large corporations to be able to effectively run a website. For all practical purposes that means no free speech on the internet.

Freedom of speech meaning freedom from consequences has never existed, and will never exist.

Infringing on a company's freedom of association does not eliminate consequences for speech.

This is about freedom of association and the right (or lack thereof) to other people's broadcast equipment.

As a society we have held that in most cases corporations do not have freedom of association when providing vital services. e.g. your electric company has to offer you access to its services as long as you pay. This clearly needs to be extended to preserve freedom of speech on the internet. I care a lot about individual rights to free speech and very little about freedom of association for large corporations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com