Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

I understand the point CF is trying to make; however, I still have a hard time trying to ignore many of the content that is being protected by CF.

With that being said; I have seen cases where the T&S team flagged legitimate sites by mistake so... I get why CF wants to be careful with any action they decide making on this regard.

> While we believe we have an obligation to restrict the content that we host ourselves, we do not believe we have the political legitimacy to determine generally what is and is not online by restricting security or core Internet services. If that content is harmful, the right place to restrict it is legislatively.

Agreed, but realistically: for the near future there will be no legislative restriction in the US on harmful content. Congress is far too grid-locked for that, not to mention the question if meaningfully combatting hate speech and bullying can actually be done via laws or requires constitutional amendments - which are even more unrealistic.

Meanwhile, sites like KF (or rather: their users) will cause a lot of harm, including cyber-bullying people to suicide. At what point will you draw the line? Or clearer: how many dead people will it require?

The whole insistence on "we need a legislative solution" reminds me way too much of European inner politics on refugees: politicians all over the EU said "we won't deal with refugees on our own, we want an European solution" - all while knowing that thanks to the destructive-obstructionist Polish and Hungarian governments there was no chance of such an "European solution", and as a result nothing changed - and thousands paid with their life [1] as a result as they drowned in the Middle Sea.

In the end it's always the same: placing abstract morals over clear and provable actual harm to people's health and sometimes life.

[1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/892249/umfrag...

They're effectively saying they were wrong then:

> To be clear, just because we did it in a limited set of cases before doesn’t mean we were right when we did. Or that we will ever do it again.

That’s a lot of words to say they’re not dropping Kiwi Farms. In spite of the fact that I think they plainly meet this condition for removal:

> Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public.

Since the article talks about how they will use different policies for different services:

Which services was kiwifarms using? Are they now using a reduced set or none at all?