And all that while the company refuses to acknowledge that it is full backing. 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 a…
The law describes DDoS attacks as a felony. The technology makes it such that it's infeasable to prevent DDoS attacks without a centralized entity like cloudflare.
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…
Proudly supporting teenagers urging each other to suicide. A great moral stance.
Well Cloudflare isn't going to do anything, so maybe try running and write a letter to ICANN or RIPE, like what the Ukrainian government did and stop them then? (It didn't work)
> 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…
I somewhat agree with these two points as well. When you're running a business, you'll often have customers you find disagreeable. That doesn't mean that they're invalid customers, but you may feel gross helping them. For the exceptionally bad cases, why not jack up the prices 10x and donate those proceeds? > Another automated moderation system that checks for certain keywords? Ask the LGBTQ people banned from Facebo…
> For the exceptionally bad cases, why not jack up the prices 10x and donate those proceeds?
Even paying victims can't fix all harms. Never mind donating to someone else.
Except that they don't respect court verdicts - e.g. in one case they lost against an Italian court "US-based Cloudflare disagreed. It countered that the Italian court didn’t have jurisdiction and that the e-Commerce directive didn’t apply to foreign companies, but those objections were rejected." How can you argue that a legal ruling is legally invalid (besides appealing it) and use this as a supposed justification…
Their point for not respecting verdicts is: > Unfortunately, these cases are becoming more common where largely copyright holders are attempting to get a ruling in one jurisdiction and have it apply worldwide to terminate core Internet technology services and effectively wipe content offline. Again, we believe this is a dangerous precedent to set, placing the control of what content is allowed online in the hands of…
How can we leave something for the courts to decide while at the same time dismissing all courts other than the US? Especially when you consider neither the hosting provider of the site in question, nor the target of this wave of harassment are from the US.
If they are a terrorist group (or otherwise doing something "wrong"), then the appropriate means to deal with that is courts and law enforcement, not a CDN.
I agree, I wish we had a law enforcement apparatus that cared about protecting transgender people. But we don't have a clear path to that at the moment, and in the meantime we want to avoid more people being killed. Thus you have people trying to argue for more informal procedures that revolve around social pressure, telling companies basically "This is obviously way beyond the pale, you should not associate yourself…
What evidence is there for the law enforcement apparatus not protecting transgender people in this particular case? Have their been similar cases for cisgender people where the law enforcement apparatus has cared more? I am not sure saying we need mob action to stop other mob action is a good long term solution.
Nobody is talking about 1A. Freedom of speech is a principle. That there are laws codifying it is incidental.
If I reword my reply to: "There has never been a reasonable expectation that private businesses are or should be required to allow all speech. Doing so prevents the business from exercising their own freedom of speech protections." it still holds. Freedom of speech does not mean that a company should be compelled or required to host speech it disagrees with.
You can go much further: freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech.
Glad we both agree on the importance of free speech.
So, you have at least one example of this scenario (gay Cloudflare employee gets doxxed and harassed) ready to tell us about, right?
I can provide lots of examples of Kiwi Farms doxxing and harassing queer people. Whether they happen to work for Cloudflare at the time is a matter of chance, and not particularly relevant to the point.
Swatting people is illegal, if you have evidence of a crime you should bring it to the police, not to cloudflare.