5 ms·

I tried their enterprise tier out about 9 months ago and was entirely unimpressed. Moving a site from Akamai -> CF increased page load times dramatically. We

I tried their enterprise tier out about 9 months ago and was entirely unimpressed. Moving a site from Akamai -> CF increased page load times dramatically. We ended up quickly switching back. CloudFlare's complicity with ISIS, however, was what turned me off permanently. For those unaware, CloudFlare was providing proxy shielding of ISIS's propaganda websites. The CF CEO publicly refused to discontinue their service, taking an anti-censorship, pro-free-speech stance. His absolutist views didn't sit well with me and I consider their servicing of these domains to be aiding and abetting this criminal organization.

mtgx 11y ago
That's doesn't sound much different than UK asking Facebook and Google to censor "extremist speech" on their platforms.
bduerst 11y ago
I'm curious if you think ISPs should block ISIS websites, domains, and IP addresses.
- chrissnell 11y ago
  It should be entirely up to the ISP. Consequently, the ISP's customers can judge (with their spending) whether they approve of such blocking.
  - chipperyman573 11y ago
    No they can't, at least not in America.
    - erkkie 11y ago
      Actually they could, but they would lose their common carrier (see a sibling comment) protections.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        To the extent that they are not prohibited from doing so, they would also not lose common carrier status if they did. The rules applied to ISPs under Title II -- the FCC's recent Open Internet Order -- do not prohibit blocking unlawful content, only lawful content.
  - erkkie 11y ago
    Common carrier[0] as a concept exists for good reasons, while cloudflare is not technically required to act as one, it just makes perfect sense to not have to make a ambigious content based judgement call for each of your clients. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
  - pki 11y ago
    In many many places, especially in the states there is no such thing as being able to judge with their spending because of monopolies.
Zirro 11y ago
What would you prefer their policy on censorship be? Though I was unaware of CloudFlare and this situation, I believe that one compromise can easily lead to a slippery slope. How do you see protocols (bittorrent or ipfs, for example) where content can not be removed as long as someone has a copy - are we better off without their existence in your opinion?
chrismsnz 11y ago
On the flip side, if they were offering TLS services to these sites, they're literally man-in-the-middling encrypted comms to those sites. And in scope of US law-enforcement/intel collection. Might be that they were asked to continue to provide services.
paulhauggis 11y ago
"For those unaware, CloudFlare was providing proxy shielding of ISIS's propaganda websites" If the business owner was Christian and decided to ban pro-gay marriage websites, would you be fine with this? The problem is that when we start deciding who gets the freedom of expression/speech, it starts to erode the rights of anyone that doesn't agree with the status quo..and the people with the most money and power get to decide what speech is moral/immoral. HN is a good example of it in action. Even comments slightly off the standard SF ideals gets down voted and silenced. It's a scary time for our country because it's almost like we are slipping into fascism. If you have an opinion that is against the current narrative, you get silenced, your career is ruined, and your life is destroyed. Bullying is also okay in this situation. Nobody can just disagree anymore. Opponents need to be forced into submission. See: The ex-mozilla CEO and the guy that shot cecil the lion. I think it's great that the CEO of CloudFlare took this stance. It takes a lot of balls and I know when the time comes, my speech will also be protected.
lost_my_pwd 11y ago
Interesting. This is the first I have heard of this and CloudFlare's reputation has just gone up my eyes because of it. Is ISIS dangerous and deplorable? Sure. Are there ideas so dangerous that they do not deserve to be exposed to public discourse and judged on their merits? I don't think so.
- devicenull 11y ago
  How about sites that let you remove someone else's free speech? Cloudflare provides services for those too (DDoS-as-a-service).
- voidlogic 11y ago
  I don't follow; CloudFlare is not the government, therefore freedom of expression isn't really the issue here. Who they choose to give a voice to says a lot about them. I would oppose the government censoring ISIS; however, I would be proud of any company that refused to to business with them.
  - gozo 11y ago
    Shouldn't you also be upset over all the other service providers including your own ISP that also doesn't block those sites? Unless it's specifically against protecting people against criminal activity, in which case we are really going down a slippery slope.
    - voidlogic 11y ago
      >Shouldn't you also be upset over all the other service providers including your own ISP that also doesn't block those sites? I would argue that the moral dilemma is different if you choose to allow ISIS traffic to pass through you, vs have them as a client.
      - duaneb 11y ago
        I would argue it's better for them to have their own site rather than fostering a samizdat culture.
rwhitman 11y ago
Cloudflare may be under court order by the DoD to keep ISIS on their network and protecting classified information with the free speech rationalization. Anti terrorist operations are much easier to conduct when the terrorists are using American communications infrastructure.
duaneb 11y ago
I think it's perfectly valid ISIS have a platform. Gagging angry people is not going to calm them down or prevent them from communicating.
- chrissnell 11y ago
  That's not entirely true. ISIS fuels its ground combat force with angry young people recruited via predominately through social media. The social media often consists of video sharing and much of the video is served up from sites like isdarat.tv (now apparently gone) that are/were fronted by CloudFlare. YouTube and Facebook are efficient with their censoring; ISIS needs stable hosting for these videos for maximum efficacy and CF provided them with that. Gagging these people certainly won't calm them down or stop their communication but it has a real effect on their recruitment, which is directly driving their combat operations in the Middle East and as a second-order effect, the flood of refugees to Europe.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    Citation, please. I hugely doubt censorship has clear, measurable effect on recruitment. Among other things it's got to increase resentment of the western world. Finally, there may be extenuating circumstances of which we aren't aware. Perhaps CloudFlare is granting them use of data in exchange for not cutting cables. When you're that big your presence is indistinguishable from the internet itself.
    - chrissnell 11y ago
      EDIT: Have a look at this: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-114-FA18-Wstate-KohlmannE-20150127.pdf http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-... I cannot readily cite any scholarly papers on this subject; this is from my observations as a frequent reader of /r/syriancivilwar, jihadology.net, and Iraq/Syria-related social media content. The typical pattern is for ISIS to release a video to their propaganda sites and for jihadist social media users to tweet the link. al-Ḥayāt Media Center (ISIS's media outlet) relies on the ease of distribution via protected (proxied) channels to reach their large audiences. The reach of this content would be more limited if companies like CF wouldn't shield it.
mhuffman 11y ago
I actually get this. If they don't take a hardline on censorship, they would be inundated with "offended" people wanted every site on the Internet removed from their edge caches because someone in the world found them offensive. Much better to just say, "We don't censor, take it up with the website owner!"
codexon 11y ago
CloudFlare is also complicit with DDoS for sale websites. People have asked them to remove them or reveal their ips to report but they have refused. Here are a few of them. http://cyberstresser.com/ http://cyberstresser.com/ https://spboot.net/ https://spboot.net/ https://alphastress.com https://alphastress.com https://vdos-s.com/ https://vdos-s.com/
threatofrain 11y ago
ISIS, for all we know, could become a legitimate government in a context where legitimacy is clearly unclear. Why do we want CloudFlare to be involved in international politics and middle eastern wars? Should an American business have an opinion on what Muslims, and other interested parties, ought to be viewing over the web with respect to ISIS? I would hope not. CloudFlare should not be in the business of judging whether Muslims and others are vulnerable to brainwashing from ISIS and need the protection of CloudFlare censorship, lest their fragile worldviews become corrupted. Let the people of that region judge for themselves the future of their land.

mtgx 11y ago

That's doesn't sound much different than UK asking Facebook and Google to censor "extremist speech" on their platforms.

bduerst 11y ago

I'm curious if you think ISPs should block ISIS websites, domains, and IP addresses.

chrissnell 11y ago
It should be entirely up to the ISP. Consequently, the ISP's customers can judge (with their spending) whether they approve of such blocking.
- chipperyman573 11y ago
  No they can't, at least not in America.
  - erkkie 11y ago
    Actually they could, but they would lose their common carrier (see a sibling comment) protections.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      To the extent that they are not prohibited from doing so, they would also not lose common carrier status if they did. The rules applied to ISPs under Title II -- the FCC's recent Open Internet Order -- do not prohibit blocking unlawful content, only lawful content.
- erkkie 11y ago
  Common carrier[0] as a concept exists for good reasons, while cloudflare is not technically required to act as one, it just makes perfect sense to not have to make a ambigious content based judgement call for each of your clients. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
- pki 11y ago
  In many many places, especially in the states there is no such thing as being able to judge with their spending because of monopolies.

Zirro 11y ago

What would you prefer their policy on censorship be? Though I was unaware of CloudFlare and this situation, I believe that one compromise can easily lead to a slippery slope. How do you see protocols (bittorrent or ipfs, for example) where content can not be removed as long as someone has a copy - are we better off without their existence in your opinion?

chrismsnz 11y ago

On the flip side, if they were offering TLS services to these sites, they're literally man-in-the-middling encrypted comms to those sites. And in scope of US law-enforcement/intel collection. Might be that they were asked to continue to provide services.

paulhauggis 11y ago

"For those unaware, CloudFlare was providing proxy shielding of ISIS's propaganda websites" If the business owner was Christian and decided to ban pro-gay marriage websites, would you be fine with this? The problem is that when we start deciding who gets the freedom of expression/speech, it starts to erode the rights of anyone that doesn't agree with the status quo..and the people with the most money and power get to decide what speech is moral/immoral. HN is a good example of it in action. Even comments slightly off the standard SF ideals gets down voted and silenced. It's a scary time for our country because it's almost like we are slipping into fascism. If you have an opinion that is against the current narrative, you get silenced, your career is ruined, and your life is destroyed. Bullying is also okay in this situation. Nobody can just disagree anymore. Opponents need to be forced into submission. See: The ex-mozilla CEO and the guy that shot cecil the lion. I think it's great that the CEO of CloudFlare took this stance. It takes a lot of balls and I know when the time comes, my speech will also be protected.

lost_my_pwd 11y ago

Interesting. This is the first I have heard of this and CloudFlare's reputation has just gone up my eyes because of it. Is ISIS dangerous and deplorable? Sure. Are there ideas so dangerous that they do not deserve to be exposed to public discourse and judged on their merits? I don't think so.

devicenull 11y ago
How about sites that let you remove someone else's free speech? Cloudflare provides services for those too (DDoS-as-a-service).
voidlogic 11y ago
I don't follow; CloudFlare is not the government, therefore freedom of expression isn't really the issue here. Who they choose to give a voice to says a lot about them. I would oppose the government censoring ISIS; however, I would be proud of any company that refused to to business with them.
- gozo 11y ago
  Shouldn't you also be upset over all the other service providers including your own ISP that also doesn't block those sites? Unless it's specifically against protecting people against criminal activity, in which case we are really going down a slippery slope.
  - voidlogic 11y ago
    >Shouldn't you also be upset over all the other service providers including your own ISP that also doesn't block those sites? I would argue that the moral dilemma is different if you choose to allow ISIS traffic to pass through you, vs have them as a client.
    - duaneb 11y ago
      I would argue it's better for them to have their own site rather than fostering a samizdat culture.

rwhitman 11y ago

Cloudflare may be under court order by the DoD to keep ISIS on their network and protecting classified information with the free speech rationalization. Anti terrorist operations are much easier to conduct when the terrorists are using American communications infrastructure.

duaneb 11y ago

I think it's perfectly valid ISIS have a platform. Gagging angry people is not going to calm them down or prevent them from communicating.

chrissnell 11y ago
That's not entirely true. ISIS fuels its ground combat force with angry young people recruited via predominately through social media. The social media often consists of video sharing and much of the video is served up from sites like isdarat.tv (now apparently gone) that are/were fronted by CloudFlare. YouTube and Facebook are efficient with their censoring; ISIS needs stable hosting for these videos for maximum efficacy and CF provided them with that. Gagging these people certainly won't calm them down or stop their communication but it has a real effect on their recruitment, which is directly driving their combat operations in the Middle East and as a second-order effect, the flood of refugees to Europe.
- duaneb 11y ago
  Citation, please. I hugely doubt censorship has clear, measurable effect on recruitment. Among other things it's got to increase resentment of the western world. Finally, there may be extenuating circumstances of which we aren't aware. Perhaps CloudFlare is granting them use of data in exchange for not cutting cables. When you're that big your presence is indistinguishable from the internet itself.
  - chrissnell 11y ago
    EDIT: Have a look at this: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-114-FA18-Wstate-KohlmannE-20150127.pdf http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-... I cannot readily cite any scholarly papers on this subject; this is from my observations as a frequent reader of /r/syriancivilwar, jihadology.net, and Iraq/Syria-related social media content. The typical pattern is for ISIS to release a video to their propaganda sites and for jihadist social media users to tweet the link. al-Ḥayāt Media Center (ISIS's media outlet) relies on the ease of distribution via protected (proxied) channels to reach their large audiences. The reach of this content would be more limited if companies like CF wouldn't shield it.

mhuffman 11y ago

I actually get this. If they don't take a hardline on censorship, they would be inundated with "offended" people wanted every site on the Internet removed from their edge caches because someone in the world found them offensive. Much better to just say, "We don't censor, take it up with the website owner!"

codexon 11y ago

CloudFlare is also complicit with DDoS for sale websites. People have asked them to remove them or reveal their ips to report but they have refused. Here are a few of them. http://cyberstresser.com/ http://cyberstresser.com/ https://spboot.net/ https://spboot.net/ https://alphastress.com https://alphastress.com https://vdos-s.com/ https://vdos-s.com/

threatofrain 11y ago

ISIS, for all we know, could become a legitimate government in a context where legitimacy is clearly unclear. Why do we want CloudFlare to be involved in international politics and middle eastern wars? Should an American business have an opinion on what Muslims, and other interested parties, ought to be viewing over the web with respect to ISIS? I would hope not. CloudFlare should not be in the business of judging whether Muslims and others are vulnerable to brainwashing from ISIS and need the protection of CloudFlare censorship, lest their fragile worldviews become corrupted. Let the people of that region judge for themselves the future of their land.