“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” - Desmond Tutu
This is how one’s neutrality is deemed nowadays.
@Cloudflare and @eastdakota’s stance is also the most net-neutral (read: no changes required) choice they could make. So what if people are getting harmed at the benefit of the company’s brand remaining “neutrally” intact?
Makes you wonder what kind of deals they sign over there.
“It’s better that WE can monitor them versus letting someone else run them amuck”
I can PARTLY see that argument - only if it didn’t lead to them having a reliable means of spreading manifestos of hatred and xenophobia.
“We have to adibe by the law.”
This is the cutest stance ever.
I keep forgetting that @Cloudflare does that bullshit, anti-human thing of “neutrality”. The only non-neurality they have, it seems, is to the greenness of their brand and money.
Why reduce the size of your market? SV in a shell.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/04/mass-shootings-el-paso-texas...