> 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.
Talk about a catch all term “… or is otherwise harmful …”
I understand there are examples, but this literally leaves the door open to anything they deem harmful. Free speech means enabling potentially “harmful” content. Really depends who seems something “harmful”. Dead naming on Twitter is considered “hate speech”, does that mean an old website that deadnames can be harmful?
Imo just stay out of the regulation business unless someone MAKES you. Otherwise it’s a slippery slope.
Which it appears they realized, after being rather aggressive in their “canceling” of others:
> Just as the telephone company doesn't terminate your line if you say awful, racist, bigoted things, we have concluded in consultation with politicians, policy makers, and experts that turning off security services because we think what you publish is despicable is the wrong policy. 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.
My bet is they also opened the door to companies from Russia who would allow said free speech. From a business case, when I saw cloud flare drop customers I recommended everyone I know to move to someone else (at least one large company I know of moved due to this incident). Why risk your business with someone who arbitrarily changes policies and terms?