211–220 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
KF actively pushes people to commit suicide. People have died because of them.
So does Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and every large platform. There is so much harassment, doxing, and other disturbing behavior on all the platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...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. I'm sure their LGBTQ+ employees will appreciate that when they get doxxed, swatted, and harassed every hour of the day and night because they're providing critical resources to the groups doing so. Their position probably really does come from…
So, you have at least one example of this scenario (gay Cloudflare employee gets doxxed and harassed) ready to tell us about, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. The push to platform everyone you don't like is accelerating radicalization. Instead of just existing as a small number of weirdos on mainstream platforms with millions of users, they are now building their own silos. Forced from internet infrastructure and payment networks, they are forced to build their own platforms and banks. This is happening now. The…
> Instead of just existing as a small number of weirdos on mainstream platforms with millions of users, they are now building their own silos. This is _not_ about that - these people are building their own siloes; Cloudflare are hosting them. If Cloudflare stop providing services to them it will reduce their ability to host their own siloes.
Unless, of course, you are an _enabler_ of such attacks.
This is where CF's hypocrisy shines through.
instant-stresser.com str3ssed.co freestresser.co metastresser.com (dozens more)
These are all sites hosted with CF DNS, who provide services that are literally the opposite of free speech -- they are in the business of _suppressing speech_, for money (or for free!). They are the providers of the service CF protects its paying customers against. There could be no more simple definition of a shakedown racket than this: Pay us for DDoS protection, or risk being brought down by one or more of our (non-paying) customers!
For all their completely defensible talk about free speech, this is a category of customer that is indefensible, and completely identifiable.
Except for one thing: If they were "relegated to the dustbin of history", so too would be CF's business model.
So before defending CF's stance on "free speech", take a good look at their business model, and who they support.
> Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. > For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation…
The negative value of a website being serviced by Cloudflare is usually significantly higher than the price they pay for the service. How much do you think Cloudflare donated for the 3 suicides caused by Kiwi Farms in the recent years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I support ButtFlare here - they should act as a utility, not as an arbiter of content. So then advocate for them to actually be a utility. Right now they get to benefit from being treated like one, but not being held to the same legal standard of an actual utility.
Left your cloud2butt extension on by any chance?
I am amazed at how cloudflare has turned around and become a reputable, reliable company re: arbitrary breaches of contract based on the CEO's personal opinions. After he breached contract with the Daily Stormer because of "a bad mood" I was sure it'd just devolve into a no-holds barred censorship-fest. Instead he's managing to hold the line against all of the authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other…
Are you aware of what site this blog post is about?
> Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. > For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation…
> ...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. I'm sure their LGBTQ+ employees will appreciate that when they get doxxed, swatted, and harassed every hour of the day and night because they're providing critical resources to the groups doing so. Their position probably really does come from…
Cloudflare loves to call back on the law when defending Kiwifarms, but then equate themselves to a public utility.
If the law intended for it, DDoS protection would be a public utility or at least a protected class of service that can't refuse customers. And if you say that it should be and the law is just lagging behind (and I'd tend to agree with you), I can say the same thing about the technical legality of a website that enabled and (indirectly) incentives doxing, harassment or even swatting (except on Kiwifarms, people might technically have a case for defamation, but good luck getting that prosecuted).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech does not cover defamation.
Sounds like something for the courts to handle and not cloudflare. https://casetext.com/case/scott-v-moon-1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cloudflare. It's in the TOS. They're not a utility, so yes, they get to decide.
Ok then: they have decided, and they decided not to take KF down. Their TOS gives them the lateral autonomy to decide what breaks the TOS, whether or not something violates their TOS, and how harsh of a punishment to enact.