4 ms·

We never made such a claim. Cloudflare's CEO has basically come out and admitted that now it was powerful well connected individuals threatening him instead.

by rabite 9y ago

We never made such a claim. Cloudflare's CEO has basically come out and admitted that now it was powerful well connected individuals threatening him instead. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/24/cloudflare-ceo-matthew-prince-explains-why-he-booted-the-daily-stormer.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/24/cloudflare-ceo-matthew-princ...

betterunix2 9y ago
From that article: "The Daily Stormer then raised the stakes with a claim that Cloudflare's management was supportive of its ultra-nationalist ideology."
- goatsi 9y ago
  Cloudflare never provided a screenshot or quote to support that claim, and in a different article admitted that it was just a regular user posting on the dailystormer forum, not a post on the site. https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to... >“The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them and that is the opposite of everything we believe. That was the tipping point for me.” I suppose Cloudflare customers should make sure to censor what gets posted on their sites if it refers to the political opinions of Matthew Prince.
  - detaro 9y ago
    That quote doesn't say that it was "just a regular user" (it's possible that it was, but that's not what it says)
- rabite 9y ago
  The only source on that is Cloudflare, and they are not telling the truth. Please source it directly. Where did we make this claim? We have not removed any Cloudflare related content from any of our articles. Our site is currently up at dailystormer.cat -- you're free to search it, as well as archive sites like archive.is for dailystormer.com. We never made any claim like this. It is simply a lie on the part of Matthew Prince, trying to spin the fact that he isn't an anti-DDoS company anymore as long as the DDoS traffic comes in the form of valid SMTP from powerful individuals and SJW mobs.
jancsika 9y ago
That emphasizes a technical shortcoming of Cloudfare's infrastructure, no? I ask that in light of two recent HN articles that explain how IPFS works.
mindslight 9y ago
Would you happen to have a third party source that could corroborate that you didn't make this claim? I realize I'm asking for the unreasonable (disprove an accusation about yourselves!), but perhaps the source material for the meme would suffice. It's a bit surprising to hear your assertion, as I've only ever heard that "Daily Stormer" egged Cloudflare on. This was easy to accept, as it falls into the general pattern of trolling. But if this tidbit was actually malinterpreted and amplified by the media to flesh out their narrative, it gives a whole new face to the situation - don't let a good crisis go to waste and all that. (FWIW I'm not in agreement with your specific political view here. But most people in the world are some type of asshole, and yet I still believe in their right to communicate freely).
- rabite 9y ago
  Prince dropped us at the same time as a dozen other companies. To pretend that anything but the same pressure that had been applied to all those other companies had anything to do with it is pretty ludicrous. It is obvious that nothing we did had anything to do with it, given the timing. We never made any such claim, but it is obviously irrelevant even if we had. Did we also claim that GoDaddy, Google, RU-CENTER, 101domains, Zoho, Sendgrid, Namecheap, Dreamhost, and a dozen other things I can't even remember were secretly Nazis supporting us? No, but Cloudflare dropped us with them and came up with a really fucking lame excuse to try to pretend that we were a special case. We're not a special case. We're the only legitimate opposition to the establishment. The establishment came to him and made him an offer he couldn't refuse. If he had integrity, he would be honest about it. Now he's a bitch and a liar, whereas he could have been just a bitch.
  - mindslight 9y ago
    Unfortunately, without anything concrete this isn't very compelling. Plausible and likely, sure. But not convincing to others. It also hinges greatly on what you mean by "The establishment came to him and made him an offer he couldn't refuse". This reads as if you're referencing a top-down collusion to silence your type of speech, whereas I think it's more likely that these companies are worried about populist/democratic outrage affecting their image. Same result for you, same chilling effect on free speech, same dynamic where centralized communications administrators are ultimately forced to censor. But stemming from a completely different power mechanism and thus needing a very different approach to tackle.
CalChris 9y ago
First, that's not what's going on in that article. The protection was for his company's reputation ("We were worried that people would say, 'We won't work with you anymore,'") pending their public stock offering. Prince has a fiduciary duty to his company and that was on display. As to your counter claim ("We never made such a claim.") you need to understand that you are asking us to believe you rather than Cloudflare. As the Daily Stormer you have zero credibility. What you do have is legal recourse. If you feel you've been libeled then sue Cloudflare. That is your right in a court of law. But your expectation of credence, no. Moreover, the lack of this lawsuit lowers your credibility below zero.
- rabite 9y ago
  Suing a multibillion dollar company requires us to have the budget to do so-- generally that's a quarter million dollars or more for a federal civil case of that magnitude. Furthermore, what exactly are we suing for? Someone not doing business with us is not a valid tort. They can do that, and they can even lie about why they are doing that. That isn't cause for a suit, you absolute moron.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    What exactly are we suing for? You are suing for damage to your reputation such as it is. You may be able to find some law firm to take you on pro bono or for a substantial cut of the proceeds. The Berkeley Patriot found a lawyer (and they have zero money) to take on UC Berkeley [1] (who has hella money). However, if you will not protect your reputation then asking reasonable people to believe you, The Daily Stormer, well, that is a bit much. [1] http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/22/berkeley-patriot-files-civil-rights-complaint-against-uc-berkeley/ http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/22/berkeley-patriot-files-ci...
    - rabite 9y ago
      Torts rooted in libel require financial damages. Our revenue has increased (companies banning us increases our legitimacy among our readers) so we have no plausible claim to damages. Cloudflare could literally argue that they did us a favor in court and get the case dismissed.

by rabite 9y ago

betterunix2 9y ago

From that article: "The Daily Stormer then raised the stakes with a claim that Cloudflare's management was supportive of its ultra-nationalist ideology."

goatsi 9y ago
Cloudflare never provided a screenshot or quote to support that claim, and in a different article admitted that it was just a regular user posting on the dailystormer forum, not a post on the site. https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to... >“The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them and that is the opposite of everything we believe. That was the tipping point for me.” I suppose Cloudflare customers should make sure to censor what gets posted on their sites if it refers to the political opinions of Matthew Prince.
- detaro 9y ago
  That quote doesn't say that it was "just a regular user" (it's possible that it was, but that's not what it says)
rabite 9y ago
The only source on that is Cloudflare, and they are not telling the truth. Please source it directly. Where did we make this claim? We have not removed any Cloudflare related content from any of our articles. Our site is currently up at dailystormer.cat -- you're free to search it, as well as archive sites like archive.is for dailystormer.com. We never made any claim like this. It is simply a lie on the part of Matthew Prince, trying to spin the fact that he isn't an anti-DDoS company anymore as long as the DDoS traffic comes in the form of valid SMTP from powerful individuals and SJW mobs.

jancsika 9y ago

That emphasizes a technical shortcoming of Cloudfare's infrastructure, no? I ask that in light of two recent HN articles that explain how IPFS works.

mindslight 9y ago

Would you happen to have a third party source that could corroborate that you didn't make this claim? I realize I'm asking for the unreasonable (disprove an accusation about yourselves!), but perhaps the source material for the meme would suffice. It's a bit surprising to hear your assertion, as I've only ever heard that "Daily Stormer" egged Cloudflare on. This was easy to accept, as it falls into the general pattern of trolling. But if this tidbit was actually malinterpreted and amplified by the media to flesh out their narrative, it gives a whole new face to the situation - don't let a good crisis go to waste and all that. (FWIW I'm not in agreement with your specific political view here. But most people in the world are some type of asshole, and yet I still believe in their right to communicate freely).

rabite 9y ago
Prince dropped us at the same time as a dozen other companies. To pretend that anything but the same pressure that had been applied to all those other companies had anything to do with it is pretty ludicrous. It is obvious that nothing we did had anything to do with it, given the timing. We never made any such claim, but it is obviously irrelevant even if we had. Did we also claim that GoDaddy, Google, RU-CENTER, 101domains, Zoho, Sendgrid, Namecheap, Dreamhost, and a dozen other things I can't even remember were secretly Nazis supporting us? No, but Cloudflare dropped us with them and came up with a really fucking lame excuse to try to pretend that we were a special case. We're not a special case. We're the only legitimate opposition to the establishment. The establishment came to him and made him an offer he couldn't refuse. If he had integrity, he would be honest about it. Now he's a bitch and a liar, whereas he could have been just a bitch.
- mindslight 9y ago
  Unfortunately, without anything concrete this isn't very compelling. Plausible and likely, sure. But not convincing to others. It also hinges greatly on what you mean by "The establishment came to him and made him an offer he couldn't refuse". This reads as if you're referencing a top-down collusion to silence your type of speech, whereas I think it's more likely that these companies are worried about populist/democratic outrage affecting their image. Same result for you, same chilling effect on free speech, same dynamic where centralized communications administrators are ultimately forced to censor. But stemming from a completely different power mechanism and thus needing a very different approach to tackle.

CalChris 9y ago

First, that's not what's going on in that article. The protection was for his company's reputation ("We were worried that people would say, 'We won't work with you anymore,'") pending their public stock offering. Prince has a fiduciary duty to his company and that was on display. As to your counter claim ("We never made such a claim.") you need to understand that you are asking us to believe you rather than Cloudflare. As the Daily Stormer you have zero credibility. What you do have is legal recourse. If you feel you've been libeled then sue Cloudflare. That is your right in a court of law. But your expectation of credence, no. Moreover, the lack of this lawsuit lowers your credibility below zero.

rabite 9y ago
Suing a multibillion dollar company requires us to have the budget to do so-- generally that's a quarter million dollars or more for a federal civil case of that magnitude. Furthermore, what exactly are we suing for? Someone not doing business with us is not a valid tort. They can do that, and they can even lie about why they are doing that. That isn't cause for a suit, you absolute moron.
- CalChris 9y ago
  What exactly are we suing for? You are suing for damage to your reputation such as it is. You may be able to find some law firm to take you on pro bono or for a substantial cut of the proceeds. The Berkeley Patriot found a lawyer (and they have zero money) to take on UC Berkeley [1] (who has hella money). However, if you will not protect your reputation then asking reasonable people to believe you, The Daily Stormer, well, that is a bit much. [1] http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/22/berkeley-patriot-files-civil-rights-complaint-against-uc-berkeley/ http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/22/berkeley-patriot-files-ci...
  - rabite 9y ago
    Torts rooted in libel require financial damages. Our revenue has increased (companies banning us increases our legitimacy among our readers) so we have no plausible claim to damages. Cloudflare could literally argue that they did us a favor in court and get the case dismissed.