Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers • Hacker News Board

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#161

Post by PeaceTed » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 8:01 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #85

ACCount37 wrote: post #38

I'm no fan of Cloudflare, but they're completely in the right on that. Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. Because if it's allowed to exist, it ends up subsumed by political and corporate interests, and becomes a tool of overreach and abuse. We've seen that happen over and over again. If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it.

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply be…

It is a tough predicament we find our selves in. A totally free and open network is prone to exploitation by rampant abuse. A controlled and monitored network is prone to excessive restrictions.

There is a middle way that can kind of muddle along but it can be attacked by both sides for being both to strict and not being strict enough.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#162

Post by foxglacier » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 8:20 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #139

pjc50 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply be…

I think if something is hosted in a different country, the laws of that country apply to that service. It's not under your jurisdiction, so you have no say in whether it's allowed to exist, nor should you. You can, of course, pass a law making it illegal for your citizens to communicate with that service, but I think it's really important to understand that that's what's happening. You are passing a law which applies…

"your citizens" includes your ISPs so you can forbid them from delivering that content to their customers in your country, which is just site blocking. The law could allow consumption of the material but not redistribution within your country so it's not the end user's responsibility but is the ISP's.

What about name suppression for criminal cases? If somebody is charged with a crime but hasn't yet had their trial, or is the victim of a crime such as sexual abuse, some countries will allow judges to forbid publication of their name (in case they turn out to be innocent) so local media can't say who it is but foreign media does and local people all know who it is anyway, defeating the purpose of name suppression. Perhaps we shouldn't have name suppression?

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#163

Post by em-bee » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 8:21 PM UTC

yachad wrote: post #120

ACCount37 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the reason I don't like Cloudflare. Their "black hole the entire country" function is a function no company should provide.

On the contrary, if you don’t have business in a country and they just spam you or try to hack you why not block the whole IP range. China, India, Russia, Subsaharan Africa, SEA

so as a traveler, i can't access important sites in my home country because i happen to be in a different country that you decided to block?

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#164

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 8:27 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #85

ACCount37 wrote: post #38

I'm no fan of Cloudflare, but they're completely in the right on that. Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. Because if it's allowed to exist, it ends up subsumed by political and corporate interests, and becomes a tool of overreach and abuse. We've seen that happen over and over again. If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it.

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply be…

> I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is

If you can forget that a position is extreme, doesn't that imply that it's a relatively unoffensive and reasonable position? For actual extreme positions like "reduce housing scarcity by murdering some category of people" or "mitigate climate change by prohibiting human reproduction", does anyone need to be reminded that they're extreme?

> the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply because it's hosted in a different country.

Is this any different than the premise of sovereignty to begin with?

If you live somewhere gambling is illegal you can get on a flight to Las Vegas. If you want to buy a gun and go to the range to shoot it, or buy a piece of land where you can keep your gun, you can go to Texas, even though there are countries where guns and private land ownership by non-citizens are illegal. If you want to use certain drugs you can go to certain other countries.

Isn't the extreme position that a country should be able to control what you do even when you're willingly choosing to do it in another jurisdiction? Do the people own the government or does the government own the people?

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#165

Post by foxglacier » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 8:32 PM UTC

grayhatter wrote: post #81

golemotron wrote: post #74

This comes from the dated perspective that free trade is universally good. Nations create their own trade rules and they ought to be able to enforce them. I consider that far preferable than attempts to exert extraterritorial control over services from other countries. If, say, Uruguay doesn't like content on Facebook, they are free to block it. In their opinion, they are protecting their citizens and that's ok. It s…

> This comes from the dated perspective that free trade is universally good. lol, ok, I'll bite. Other than one side might try to change the rules; why should I believe is free trade is no longer universally good? What is the specific argument? Because if the argument is that one side might impose taxes, duh? But that's no longer free trade is it? If both sides were willing to play fair, why wouldn't that be better?…

Food production is a huge one. We don't want highly optimized farming where only the most efficient growers feed everyone else because that has the risk of global famine if something fails there. The more a system is optimized, the closer to failure it is. Same goes for all other kinds of production but food is really important compared to, say, CPUs or cars.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#166

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 8:36 PM UTC

pfortuny wrote: post #144

Ajedi32 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if something is hosted in a different country, the laws of that country apply to that service. It's not under your jurisdiction, so you have no say in whether it's allowed to exist, nor should you. You can, of course, pass a law making it illegal for your citizens to communicate with that service, but I think it's really important to understand that that's what's happening. You are passing a law which applies…

Mmmmhhhhh… There is the problem of the middleman (the telcos): you are using them for communication. I guess if the USPS/Fedex knew for a fact (such as your website request) that you were communicating CP, the. they should do something about it? This is an honest question.

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#167

Post by vkou » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 8:38 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #147

vkou wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing one further step - you can also sanction a foreign business from doing business in your country. So, you can allow it to serve your citizens packets, but if you block it from collecting revenue, it will have little incentive to (unless it's a state-sponsored bad actor, then you can only lean on the two mechanisms you described). All three prongs (ban hosting, ban access, ban revenue) can be used to kee…

True, but I would still frame that as a restriction on your own citizen's freedom to buy services from foreign countries. Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion.

> Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion.

We're in the electronic age, 'stuff' includes electricity, media, and remote-provided services. For a concrete example - if you're buying legal advice from a lawyer, it doesn't matter if he's down the street from you, or on another continent - the exchange of money for 'stuff' is the same.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#168

Post by vkou » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 8:39 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #159

vkou wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing one further step - you can also sanction a foreign business from doing business in your country. So, you can allow it to serve your citizens packets, but if you block it from collecting revenue, it will have little incentive to (unless it's a state-sponsored bad actor, then you can only lean on the two mechanisms you described). All three prongs (ban hosting, ban access, ban revenue) can be used to kee…

> but if you block it from collecting revenue How is this not a trade barrier against foreign payment providers?

If it's nation-of-origin-agnostic (All vendors, domestic or foreign have to follow the same rules, and the foreigners have chosen to not follow those rules, and are being sanctioned for it), it's not a trade barrier.

It's just a foreign company being upset that it isn't getting special treatment that would allow it to operate with an illegal advantage over local vendors.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#169

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 8:43 PM UTC

iamnothere wrote: post #126

pjc50 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply be…

> I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply because it's hosted in a different country. This has more or le…

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#170

Post by manishsharan » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 8:50 PM UTC

foxglacier wrote: post #165

grayhatter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This comes from the dated perspective that free trade is universally good. lol, ok, I'll bite. Other than one side might try to change the rules; why should I believe is free trade is no longer universally good? What is the specific argument? Because if the argument is that one side might impose taxes, duh? But that's no longer free trade is it? If both sides were willing to play fair, why wouldn't that be better?…

Food production is a huge one. We don't want highly optimized farming where only the most efficient growers feed everyone else because that has the risk of global famine if something fails there. The more a system is optimized, the closer to failure it is. Same goes for all other kinds of production but food is really important compared to, say, CPUs or cars.

Fine .. say your country has a several years of drought and bad harvest. What happens then ? Do you trade then ?

Or .. lets say due to weather, your farmers can not grow enough oranges or some fruit which drives up local prices. Should only the richest people in your country get to eat fruits ?

Or you discover lithium deposits that your national industry can not use . Should you let that just sit there knowing it could make your province prosperous if traded.