<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>tedivm</author><text>There will always be companies that care more about making a buck than anything else. For years spammers and malware authors have been able to find hosting without issue, and taking them down has been a serious pain in the ass. All these nazis need to do is rent a server in russia (where they&amp;#x27;ve moved their name server) and they will be fine.&lt;p&gt;The idea that companies like Cloudflare should help support sites like this is nonsensical. The slippery slope argument is an awful fallacy and ignores the fact that we can&amp;#x27;t even get content most of the world agrees is bad (child porn, active malware exploits, spammers) offline.</text><parent_chain><item><author>colejohnson66</author><text>I get the whole &amp;quot;companies can choose not to host whatever they want&amp;quot; argument, but in order to do &lt;i&gt;anything&lt;/i&gt; on the internet, you &lt;i&gt;have&lt;/i&gt; to interact with companies.&lt;p&gt;If I want to run my own website, I need an IP address at the minimum, and ISPs are free to cut off my internet service if they don&amp;#x27;t like what I&amp;#x27;m hosting. In a public setting, if people don&amp;#x27;t like what I&amp;#x27;m saying, they can&amp;#x27;t force me to be quiet (generally). But when hosting a website, there is the ability for companies to silence you.&lt;p&gt;For example, if Google doesn&amp;#x27;t like a website, it can derank it. People who agree with the site might cry censorship, while the others just say that a company can block what it wants. Replace Google with an ISP, and all of a sudden, it seems everyone says the ISP shouldn&amp;#x27;t be able to do that.&lt;p&gt;If the web is supposed to be the future of communication, but can prevent you from voicing your opinions just because they&amp;#x27;re a &amp;quot;deplorable&amp;quot; or you don&amp;#x27;t agree with them, how is that argument valid? Can someone explain that to me?&lt;p&gt;Tangent(?): Also, by not hosting Daily Stormer, you simply push them further down. One of the big reasons Trump won was &lt;i&gt;because&lt;/i&gt; people felt like they weren&amp;#x27;t allowed to voice their opinions easily. There were people, basically closeted Trump supporters, who said they didn&amp;#x27;t like Trump, but secretly did. Pushing people down because they&amp;#x27;re &amp;quot;deplorables&amp;quot; simply reinforces their opinions.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Why We Terminated Daily Stormer</title><url>https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>notyourwork</author><text>Reading this it sounds like you missed the intent of the post. Cloudflare would have not done this had there not been circumstances in which it was indicated that cloudflare supports the organization.&lt;p&gt;It isn&amp;#x27;t clear to me where&amp;#x2F;how they determined this organization was &amp;quot;secretly&amp;quot; claiming cloudflare supported them.</text><parent_chain><item><author>colejohnson66</author><text>I get the whole &amp;quot;companies can choose not to host whatever they want&amp;quot; argument, but in order to do &lt;i&gt;anything&lt;/i&gt; on the internet, you &lt;i&gt;have&lt;/i&gt; to interact with companies.&lt;p&gt;If I want to run my own website, I need an IP address at the minimum, and ISPs are free to cut off my internet service if they don&amp;#x27;t like what I&amp;#x27;m hosting. In a public setting, if people don&amp;#x27;t like what I&amp;#x27;m saying, they can&amp;#x27;t force me to be quiet (generally). But when hosting a website, there is the ability for companies to silence you.&lt;p&gt;For example, if Google doesn&amp;#x27;t like a website, it can derank it. People who agree with the site might cry censorship, while the others just say that a company can block what it wants. Replace Google with an ISP, and all of a sudden, it seems everyone says the ISP shouldn&amp;#x27;t be able to do that.&lt;p&gt;If the web is supposed to be the future of communication, but can prevent you from voicing your opinions just because they&amp;#x27;re a &amp;quot;deplorable&amp;quot; or you don&amp;#x27;t agree with them, how is that argument valid? Can someone explain that to me?&lt;p&gt;Tangent(?): Also, by not hosting Daily Stormer, you simply push them further down. One of the big reasons Trump won was &lt;i&gt;because&lt;/i&gt; people felt like they weren&amp;#x27;t allowed to voice their opinions easily. There were people, basically closeted Trump supporters, who said they didn&amp;#x27;t like Trump, but secretly did. Pushing people down because they&amp;#x27;re &amp;quot;deplorables&amp;quot; simply reinforces their opinions.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Why We Terminated Daily Stormer</title><url>https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/</url></story>