21–30 of 1001 posts
Instead he's managing to hold the line against all of the authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other down. I never thought I'd say this, but, well done cloudflare.
> For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation service we worked with our Proudflare employee resource group to identify an organization that supported LGBTQ+ rights and donate 100 percent of the fees for our services to them. We don't and won't talk about these efforts publicly because we don't do them for marketing purposes; we do them because they are aligned with what we believe is morally correct.
These are the two strongest points for me. The former is one I already believed, and the latter makes me more hopeful as someone in that specific minority community.
In addition, I think it's touched on but Cloudflare is huge. Even if they changed their mind on terminating amoral customers, how would that go down? Another automated moderation system that checks for certain keywords? Ask the LGBTQ people banned from Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/Google/etc. if those systems really work all that well. All too often person A implying that X group deserves violence skirts the system, while the actual text calling out Person A's beliefs from an advocate is considered hate.
If this is in response to Kiwi Farms, I would say this is very disappointing. Love CloudFlare, think they are amazingly innovative, huge amount of respect for the people who work there. I see where they're coming from, but I don't see how KF is defensible whilst 8chan et al aren't.
It's a really tricky situation. On the one hand, websites like KF and the like are utterly reprehensible. On the other hand, Cloudflare taking it upon themselves to police the Internet is a nightmare in its own, given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. What is permitted to say is something for the courts, not for the whims of p…
If this is in response to Kiwi Farms, I would say this is very disappointing. Love CloudFlare, think they are amazingly innovative, huge amount of respect for the people who work there. I see where they're coming from, but I don't see how KF is defensible whilst 8chan et al aren't.
8chan had the whole mass shooter thing. Comparing the two websites is very hyperbolic.
> 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 ha…
> In the end it's always the same: placing abstract morals over clear and provable actual harm to people's health and sometimes life. Good.
Two times in the past we decided to terminate content from our security services because we found it reprehensible. In 2017, we terminated the neo-Nazi troll site The Daily Stormer. And in 2019, we terminated the conspiracy theory forum 8chan. In a deeply troubling response, after both terminations we saw a dramatic increase in authoritarian regimes attempting to have us terminate security services for human rights o…
If this is in response to Kiwi Farms, I would say this is very disappointing. Love CloudFlare, think they are amazingly innovative, huge amount of respect for the people who work there. I see where they're coming from, but I don't see how KF is defensible whilst 8chan et al aren't.
8chan had the whole mass shooter thing. Comparing the two websites is very hyperbolic.
Cloudflare services are really only useful when a site is under attack - otherwise it's just a CDN to reduce hosting costs. If "kicking someone off cloudflare" makes them unavailable, it means they're undergoing ongoing attacks of some sort.
You bet they'd get attacked if they ever stopped using a proxy.
> 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 ha…