12 ms·

They were served a court order to stop serving Sci-Hub. They had attempted to argue common carrier in a previous case and were told by the court that argument d

They were served a court order to stop serving Sci-Hub. They had attempted to argue common carrier in a previous case and were told by the court that argument didn't hold water.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 9y ago
Yes, and my point is they owe that to themselves. Exercise control over content once and you lose any kind of common carrier argument that you might want to make in the future.
- tonyztan 9y ago
  >"Exercise control over content once" Is this the incident you are referring to? https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/16/cloudflare_ceo_daily_stormer/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/16/cloudflare_ceo_dail...
  - wyldfire 9y ago
    Regardless of whether that's the reference, it certainly satisfies the conditions of the argument.
  - randyrand 9y ago
    I'd imagine so. And because of that move they lost their common carrier argument.
    - morogop 9y ago
      Do you have any evidence that this was the specific reason they lost their common carrier argument? Or are you baselessly asserting that?
    - thephyber 9y ago
      > And because of that move they lost their common carrier argument. > "We could not remain neutral after these claims of secret support by Cloudflare." So common carrier status is forfeited if a company reasonably terminates a contract due to the actions of the other party?
      - notyourday 9y ago
        > So common carrier status is forfeited if a company reasonably terminates a contract due to the actions of the other party? Yes. That's why I can trash Verizon or smear Verizon's CEO name from a Verizon phone and Verizon cannot use it to terminate my service. Neither can AT&T. [Edit: Responding here because HN is saying I'm posting too fast] Non physical plant phone companies have never had any decisions on them that would affirm if they are or they are not common carriers. Verizon Wireless' data services subs behave as if they were. Brand X decision is largely misunderstood because it deals with LECs, CLECs and companies that would like to get access to CLEC like benefits without being CLECs. Its scope was incredibly narrow which is why it took that many years for FCC's net neutrality rules be overturned ( and why it was done by the FCC ) and why it allowed FCC rules to stand. Being disconnected due to utilizing it for harassment is also rather complicated ( and has lots of possible legal theories that have not been tested ): - it is known that a phone company cannot disconnect the last "live line" service, even for non-payment. - phone company may restrict one's ability to use the service as long as it continues to provide live line service ( for wireless service it is what allows one to use a locked or administratively disabled phone to make emergency calls ). There are however tons of hoops to jump through. [Another edit:] Things become a lot more interesting with MVNO because they are really nothing other than buying clubs even if what they buy is a network access. I believe MVNOs can actually terminate services for any reason as they should not fall under the common carrier label. This in turn makes me wonder if Verizon/Sprint/ATT/TMO are actually MVNO themselves as I know for certain that entity from which customer's buy services are not the entities that operate it.
        tedivm 9y ago
        Can you find an example of this that isn't a phone company? Common carrier only applies to phone companies, it doesn't apply to CDNs, content providers in general, or websites. I'll point out too that Verizon or AT&T can terminate services for other things. If your line is used to harass people or make prank phone calls then it can be shut down. Common carrier doesn't mean that they have to allow everyone to use their service.
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      >And because of that move Why not because of their countless previous similar moves?
  - nikojn 9y ago
    What an absolute idiot.
- smokeyj 9y ago
  Didn't you argue that CF should exercise control over content when the Daily Stormer account was terminated? My comment you replied to is still sitting at -4 :( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032696
  - nugi 9y ago
    This is a great reminder for those who question the logic of free speech.
    - ad_hominem 9y ago
      This is a great reminder to not auto-upvote an HN darling when you see the handle. It's pathetic this comment pointing out their hypocrisy is buried at the bottom of the thread.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        And where did you see me advocating in this thread that they should not exercise editorial control? I merely pointed out the consequences of exercising editorial control: that once you show you can do it you lose any kind of argument based on your ability to do it or that you are only taking down content when the law requires it, such as when ordered to do so on account of a ruling by a judge. My position is pretty consistent: - Cloudflare for the longest used a broken argument to leave all kinds of crap websites up longer than they should have (for instance: booter sites) - Their argumentation was that they would not censor sites based on content unless a court order was presented to them - And so they were aiding and abetting many illegal schemes, which were too costly for the people suffering from those schemes to prosecute (for instance: because they were abroad) - But when the Daily Stormer thing happened Cloudflare crossed their self imposed line - At the time I pointed out that they would regret this, just like Slashdot folding for Scientology would regret it. - And now we've come to the end of that line and Cloudflare now takes down sites because some vested commercial interest is harmed, as predicted. So, I argue that they should exercise editorial control, and that they never had any shot at achieving common carrier protection (because (a) they are not a phone company and (b) because they are not essential, and (c) they never litigated that). In this case it would have been nice for them to make a stand. Unfortunately for Cloudflare the publishing houses can now point at Cloudflare taking down the Daily Stormer without a court order, and there is no helping them for that. But just like before, Cloudflare simply is a commercial service, they have the ability (and sometimes the responsibility) to take down content. They are simply bad at picking their battles. Then finally, I see the likes of Cloudflare as a cancer on the web. Way too much power in the hands of one entity in a jurisdiction that is too expensive to litigate in for the vast majority of the world. I hope the net/webservers will get fast enough and that bandwidth on the server side will get cheap enough that we do not need CDNs anymore.
- matt4077 9y ago
  They never had a common carrier argument that held water. Common Carrier is a legal term that refers to regulation under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. It grants the FCC the ability to classify certain communication companies as common carriers. That status can only be acquired by FCC action, not implicitly by following any standard set of rules. The argument that taking action once creates a liability to police all content you're serving stems from an outdated court case. The Communications Decency Act of 1996(!) specifically addressed the issue: [..] Through the so-called Good Samaritan provision, [Section 230] also protects ISPs from liability for restricting access to certain material or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > They never had a common carrier argument that held water. Agreed, they're not a phone company to begin with. But they did try to use that argument and they definitely did not help themselves. A better argument would have been to claim they don't have the technical capability, that might have bought them some time but then too they should not have shown first that they do have that capability. All in all a less than stellar performance.
    - mr_toad 9y ago
      I can’t see how that argument would hold water. As a DNS provider, removing DNS records is clearly something they are capable of, regardless of whether they have demonstrated that ability.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Me neither, it was a bs argument to begin with. But you can see how their reasoning went from "If ISPs can be common carriers why couldn't a CDN be a common carrier?". That said I can see the case for domain registrars and the Tor network long before I can see one for a CDN.
- Terretta 9y ago
  You’re right about editorial control. I am proud that as an ISP in the 90s, and then as a VDN (CDN for video) in 2000s, we successfully kept all our clients online despite countless acts of bullying including CDA and DMCA. We even had a major satellite carrier go after our various DC real estate providers and backbone connections. You’d be amazed how long you can keep a client online just by requiring DMCA notices to adhere to the letter of the law before complying — usually weeks! More than enough time to give clients notice and for clients to make arrangements.
ryanlol 9y ago
Cloudflare regularly takes down sites without court orders. Try hosting a site on cloudflare that significantly upsets a major SV company and see what happens.
- acdha 9y ago
  Do you have any examples?
  - drb91 9y ago
    They pulled the plug on a white supremacy site, the Daily Stormer. Hardly a problem with most people, but they certainly exercise content-level discrimination (in the most neutral sense of the word).
    - acdha 9y ago
      That’s not what was claimed: the Daily Stormer wasn’t annoying a major tech company even if most of their employees find Nazis detestable. That case is also complicated by the claim that they dropped that site in response to Daily Stormer people claiming CloudFlare supported their ideology. Given the number of objectionable sites which they continue to provide service to, that seems plausible.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - drb91 9y ago
        Hmm, fair, I suppose. But if they remove a site arbitrarily for one motivation, why not a profit motivation? I have no idea where the remark about the other tech giants comes from, though.

They were served a court order to stop serving Sci-Hub. They had attempted to argue common carrier in a previous case and were told by the court that argument didn't hold water.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 9y ago

Yes, and my point is they owe that to themselves. Exercise control over content once and you lose any kind of common carrier argument that you might want to make in the future.

tonyztan 9y ago
>"Exercise control over content once" Is this the incident you are referring to? https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/16/cloudflare_ceo_daily_stormer/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/16/cloudflare_ceo_dail...
- wyldfire 9y ago
  Regardless of whether that's the reference, it certainly satisfies the conditions of the argument.
- randyrand 9y ago
  I'd imagine so. And because of that move they lost their common carrier argument.
  - morogop 9y ago
    Do you have any evidence that this was the specific reason they lost their common carrier argument? Or are you baselessly asserting that?
  - thephyber 9y ago
    > And because of that move they lost their common carrier argument. > "We could not remain neutral after these claims of secret support by Cloudflare." So common carrier status is forfeited if a company reasonably terminates a contract due to the actions of the other party?
    - notyourday 9y ago
      > So common carrier status is forfeited if a company reasonably terminates a contract due to the actions of the other party? Yes. That's why I can trash Verizon or smear Verizon's CEO name from a Verizon phone and Verizon cannot use it to terminate my service. Neither can AT&T. [Edit: Responding here because HN is saying I'm posting too fast] Non physical plant phone companies have never had any decisions on them that would affirm if they are or they are not common carriers. Verizon Wireless' data services subs behave as if they were. Brand X decision is largely misunderstood because it deals with LECs, CLECs and companies that would like to get access to CLEC like benefits without being CLECs. Its scope was incredibly narrow which is why it took that many years for FCC's net neutrality rules be overturned ( and why it was done by the FCC ) and why it allowed FCC rules to stand. Being disconnected due to utilizing it for harassment is also rather complicated ( and has lots of possible legal theories that have not been tested ): - it is known that a phone company cannot disconnect the last "live line" service, even for non-payment. - phone company may restrict one's ability to use the service as long as it continues to provide live line service ( for wireless service it is what allows one to use a locked or administratively disabled phone to make emergency calls ). There are however tons of hoops to jump through. [Another edit:] Things become a lot more interesting with MVNO because they are really nothing other than buying clubs even if what they buy is a network access. I believe MVNOs can actually terminate services for any reason as they should not fall under the common carrier label. This in turn makes me wonder if Verizon/Sprint/ATT/TMO are actually MVNO themselves as I know for certain that entity from which customer's buy services are not the entities that operate it.
      - tedivm 9y ago
        Can you find an example of this that isn't a phone company? Common carrier only applies to phone companies, it doesn't apply to CDNs, content providers in general, or websites. I'll point out too that Verizon or AT&T can terminate services for other things. If your line is used to harass people or make prank phone calls then it can be shut down. Common carrier doesn't mean that they have to allow everyone to use their service.
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    >And because of that move Why not because of their countless previous similar moves?
- nikojn 9y ago
  What an absolute idiot.
smokeyj 9y ago
Didn't you argue that CF should exercise control over content when the Daily Stormer account was terminated? My comment you replied to is still sitting at -4 :( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032696
- nugi 9y ago
  This is a great reminder for those who question the logic of free speech.
  - ad_hominem 9y ago
    This is a great reminder to not auto-upvote an HN darling when you see the handle. It's pathetic this comment pointing out their hypocrisy is buried at the bottom of the thread.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      And where did you see me advocating in this thread that they should not exercise editorial control? I merely pointed out the consequences of exercising editorial control: that once you show you can do it you lose any kind of argument based on your ability to do it or that you are only taking down content when the law requires it, such as when ordered to do so on account of a ruling by a judge. My position is pretty consistent: - Cloudflare for the longest used a broken argument to leave all kinds of crap websites up longer than they should have (for instance: booter sites) - Their argumentation was that they would not censor sites based on content unless a court order was presented to them - And so they were aiding and abetting many illegal schemes, which were too costly for the people suffering from those schemes to prosecute (for instance: because they were abroad) - But when the Daily Stormer thing happened Cloudflare crossed their self imposed line - At the time I pointed out that they would regret this, just like Slashdot folding for Scientology would regret it. - And now we've come to the end of that line and Cloudflare now takes down sites because some vested commercial interest is harmed, as predicted. So, I argue that they should exercise editorial control, and that they never had any shot at achieving common carrier protection (because (a) they are not a phone company and (b) because they are not essential, and (c) they never litigated that). In this case it would have been nice for them to make a stand. Unfortunately for Cloudflare the publishing houses can now point at Cloudflare taking down the Daily Stormer without a court order, and there is no helping them for that. But just like before, Cloudflare simply is a commercial service, they have the ability (and sometimes the responsibility) to take down content. They are simply bad at picking their battles. Then finally, I see the likes of Cloudflare as a cancer on the web. Way too much power in the hands of one entity in a jurisdiction that is too expensive to litigate in for the vast majority of the world. I hope the net/webservers will get fast enough and that bandwidth on the server side will get cheap enough that we do not need CDNs anymore.
matt4077 9y ago
They never had a common carrier argument that held water. Common Carrier is a legal term that refers to regulation under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. It grants the FCC the ability to classify certain communication companies as common carriers. That status can only be acquired by FCC action, not implicitly by following any standard set of rules. The argument that taking action once creates a liability to police all content you're serving stems from an outdated court case. The Communications Decency Act of 1996(!) specifically addressed the issue: [..] Through the so-called Good Samaritan provision, [Section 230] also protects ISPs from liability for restricting access to certain material or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > They never had a common carrier argument that held water. Agreed, they're not a phone company to begin with. But they did try to use that argument and they definitely did not help themselves. A better argument would have been to claim they don't have the technical capability, that might have bought them some time but then too they should not have shown first that they do have that capability. All in all a less than stellar performance.
  - mr_toad 9y ago
    I can’t see how that argument would hold water. As a DNS provider, removing DNS records is clearly something they are capable of, regardless of whether they have demonstrated that ability.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Me neither, it was a bs argument to begin with. But you can see how their reasoning went from "If ISPs can be common carriers why couldn't a CDN be a common carrier?". That said I can see the case for domain registrars and the Tor network long before I can see one for a CDN.
Terretta 9y ago
You’re right about editorial control. I am proud that as an ISP in the 90s, and then as a VDN (CDN for video) in 2000s, we successfully kept all our clients online despite countless acts of bullying including CDA and DMCA. We even had a major satellite carrier go after our various DC real estate providers and backbone connections. You’d be amazed how long you can keep a client online just by requiring DMCA notices to adhere to the letter of the law before complying — usually weeks! More than enough time to give clients notice and for clients to make arrangements.

ryanlol 9y ago

Cloudflare regularly takes down sites without court orders. Try hosting a site on cloudflare that significantly upsets a major SV company and see what happens.

acdha 9y ago
Do you have any examples?
- drb91 9y ago
  They pulled the plug on a white supremacy site, the Daily Stormer. Hardly a problem with most people, but they certainly exercise content-level discrimination (in the most neutral sense of the word).
  - acdha 9y ago
    That’s not what was claimed: the Daily Stormer wasn’t annoying a major tech company even if most of their employees find Nazis detestable. That case is also complicated by the claim that they dropped that site in response to Daily Stormer people claiming CloudFlare supported their ideology. Given the number of objectionable sites which they continue to provide service to, that seems plausible.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - drb91 9y ago
      Hmm, fair, I suppose. But if they remove a site arbitrarily for one motivation, why not a profit motivation? I have no idea where the remark about the other tech giants comes from, though.