5 ms·

I wish that they talked a bit more about their stance regarding censorship. They have a small paragraph talking about the problem, but they don't talk about the

by JD557 9y ago

I wish that they talked a bit more about their stance regarding censorship. They have a small paragraph talking about the problem, but they don't talk about the "solution". While Cloudflare has been pretty neutral about censoring sites in the past (notably, pirate sites), the Daily Stormer incident put them in a though spot[1]. They talk a bit about Project Galileo (the link is broken BTW, it should be https://www.cloudflare.com/galileo https://www.cloudflare.com/galileo), but their examples do not mention topics that would be controversial in western societies, and the site is quite vague. Would they also protect sites like sci-hub, for example? While I would rather use a DNS not owned by Google, I have never seen any site blocked by them, including sites with a nation-wide block. I hope that Cloudflare is able to do the same thing. 1: https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-doesnt-want-daily-stormer-evidence-at-piracy-trial-180327/ https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-doesnt-want-daily-storme...

zackbloom 9y ago
The Galileo link works for me. It's worth pointing out Google at the very least censors as easily as Cloudflare [1]. My understanding of Cloudflare's policies though are with the exception of exceptionally objectionable content, Cloudflare only takes sites down in response to a court order. I don't know if it has been established that DNS is something which operators have a proactive obligation to censor, but I imagine it's the kind of thing Cloudflare would go to court over. 1- https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/14/16143820/godaddy-and-google-wont-host-daily-stormer-domain https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/14/16143820/g...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Bear in mind, they dropped Daily Stormer because they were claiming Cloudflare agreed with their ideology. Which someone in the previous discussion pointed out was a Terms of Service violation. DNS resolving offers no such terms and no such reason to make such a claim. I don't see that playing here. And bear in mind, when the CEO did it, he wrote about how dangerous it was that companies had that power. I don't feel other companies running other DNS services hold that level of concern or awareness. When you consider that their "competitor" in the space of free DNS resolvers with easy-to-remember IPs is Google, who recently tried blocking the word "gun" in Google Shopping... it's hard not to see the introduction of a Cloudflare DNS resolver as at least a net positive for resisting censorship. And more options is almost always better.
- Andre_Wanglin 9y ago
  >because they were claiming Cloudflare agreed with their ideology. That was a lie. It was a commenter on an article.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    My tendency would be to ask for some sort of proof, though I realize asking for proof of nonexistence of evidence is near impossible. I'm inclined at present to place more trust in Cloudflare's word at this point, but I try to keep an open mind. It's always good to know both sides' stories.
    - Andre_Wanglin 9y ago
      Well, you have the CloudFlare blog where Prince states "The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology."[0] So, all that is necessary is to find this statement. I won't link to it but the Daily Stormer has been active on the clear web for most of the time intervening the seizure of their domain and now. Prince never provided any proof for his claim, not even a screenshot. Of course, a screenshot would have given away, via the visual context, that the statement wasn't from the "team" but from a forum commenter presenting the notion in a joking manner. As it happens, an internal memo "leaked" to the media wherein Prince admitted he pulled the plug on The Daily Stormer because they are "assholes" and admitted that “The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them."[1] These forums are also what served as the area for readers to comment on articles. Ergo, he acknowledged that he knew his statement about the Daily Stormer "team" claiming CloudFlare supported their ideology was a lie. You also have to go back in time and consider the context in which The Daily Stormer was successively de-platformed. The site had been publishing low-brow racist commentary including jokes about pushing Jews into ovens and referring to Africans as various simian species for years. It was, however, a single article wherein they mocked the woman who died at the Charlottesville, VA conflict between the alt-right and antifa that led to the widespread outrage that resulted in the The Daily Stormer being temporarily kicked off the internet.[2] At the same time that Cloudflare was banning the Daily Stormer, they were (and still are, AFAIK) providing services to pro-pedophilia and ISIS web sites. The Daily Stormer itself pointed out not only the hypocrisy of this situation but also the risk it created to CloudFlare's continued safe harbor protections.[3] [0]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ [1]: https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to... [2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/daily-stormer-godaddy-bans-charlotteville-victim-heather-heyer-victim-fat-slut-defame-uva-neo-nazi-a7891856.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/da... [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180401233331/https://dailystormer.name/cloudflare-explicitly-condoning-young-city-pedophile-chat-and-other-pedophile-havens/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180401233331/https://dailystor...
kentonv 9y ago
There's a pretty big difference between terminating a business relationship (which is what Cloudflare did to Daily Stormer, and which Google also did a couple days before Cloudflare did) and refusing to answer DNS queries for third-party domains with which there is no business relationship. It's hard to imagine how the former could be used as precedent to compel the latter. Cloudflare has no interest in censorship -- the whole reason the Daily Stormer thing was such a big deal was because it's the only time Cloudflare has ever terminated a customer for objectionable content. Be sure to read the blog post to understand: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ (Disclosure: I work for Cloudflare but I'm not in a position to set policy.)
- JD557 9y ago
  I probably should have made a clearer point instead of linking to TorrentFreak. I did not mean that I was worried that CloudFlare's DNS would start blocking sites whose content they disagree with (although that would also be worrisome). I'm worried that copyright holders might be able to use the Daily Stormer case as a precedent to force CloudFlare to stop offering services to infringing sites. If they are able to do that, I can also see them attempting to force CloudFlare to remove DNS entries as well.
  - kentonv 9y ago
    Right, as I said, it's hard for me to see how one could be used as precedent for the other given how different the situations are. And if you could use it, you could just as easily do the same against Google DNS. I'm not a lawyer, though.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
pdcerb 9y ago
Actually, they have already suspended the service for sci-hub, albeit under a court order. https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/02/05/1944225/cloudflare-terminates-service-to-sci-hub-domain-names https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/02/05/1944225/cloudflare-t...
rsync 9y ago
"I wish that they talked a bit more about their stance regarding censorship. They have a small paragraph talking about the problem, but they don't talk about the "solution"." I think there's a good way to put this to the test - establish a DNS "mixer" that will randomly direct DNS requests to either 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8 or (whatever) and let the public have access to it. In this way, Cloudflare would bear some small expense from processing these DNS requests (essentially zero) but would receive no information about the initial requestor. It would be interesting to run this experiment and perhaps see some real traffic on the DNS mixer ... and then see how cloudflare responds. Would they block the mixer ?

by JD557 9y ago

zackbloom 9y ago

The Galileo link works for me. It's worth pointing out Google at the very least censors as easily as Cloudflare [1]. My understanding of Cloudflare's policies though are with the exception of exceptionally objectionable content, Cloudflare only takes sites down in response to a court order. I don't know if it has been established that DNS is something which operators have a proactive obligation to censor, but I imagine it's the kind of thing Cloudflare would go to court over. 1- https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/14/16143820/godaddy-and-google-wont-host-daily-stormer-domain https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/14/16143820/g...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Bear in mind, they dropped Daily Stormer because they were claiming Cloudflare agreed with their ideology. Which someone in the previous discussion pointed out was a Terms of Service violation. DNS resolving offers no such terms and no such reason to make such a claim. I don't see that playing here. And bear in mind, when the CEO did it, he wrote about how dangerous it was that companies had that power. I don't feel other companies running other DNS services hold that level of concern or awareness. When you consider that their "competitor" in the space of free DNS resolvers with easy-to-remember IPs is Google, who recently tried blocking the word "gun" in Google Shopping... it's hard not to see the introduction of a Cloudflare DNS resolver as at least a net positive for resisting censorship. And more options is almost always better.

Andre_Wanglin 9y ago
>because they were claiming Cloudflare agreed with their ideology. That was a lie. It was a commenter on an article.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  My tendency would be to ask for some sort of proof, though I realize asking for proof of nonexistence of evidence is near impossible. I'm inclined at present to place more trust in Cloudflare's word at this point, but I try to keep an open mind. It's always good to know both sides' stories.
  - Andre_Wanglin 9y ago
    Well, you have the CloudFlare blog where Prince states "The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology."[0] So, all that is necessary is to find this statement. I won't link to it but the Daily Stormer has been active on the clear web for most of the time intervening the seizure of their domain and now. Prince never provided any proof for his claim, not even a screenshot. Of course, a screenshot would have given away, via the visual context, that the statement wasn't from the "team" but from a forum commenter presenting the notion in a joking manner. As it happens, an internal memo "leaked" to the media wherein Prince admitted he pulled the plug on The Daily Stormer because they are "assholes" and admitted that “The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them."[1] These forums are also what served as the area for readers to comment on articles. Ergo, he acknowledged that he knew his statement about the Daily Stormer "team" claiming CloudFlare supported their ideology was a lie. You also have to go back in time and consider the context in which The Daily Stormer was successively de-platformed. The site had been publishing low-brow racist commentary including jokes about pushing Jews into ovens and referring to Africans as various simian species for years. It was, however, a single article wherein they mocked the woman who died at the Charlottesville, VA conflict between the alt-right and antifa that led to the widespread outrage that resulted in the The Daily Stormer being temporarily kicked off the internet.[2] At the same time that Cloudflare was banning the Daily Stormer, they were (and still are, AFAIK) providing services to pro-pedophilia and ISIS web sites. The Daily Stormer itself pointed out not only the hypocrisy of this situation but also the risk it created to CloudFlare's continued safe harbor protections.[3] [0]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ [1]: https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to... [2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/daily-stormer-godaddy-bans-charlotteville-victim-heather-heyer-victim-fat-slut-defame-uva-neo-nazi-a7891856.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/da... [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180401233331/https://dailystormer.name/cloudflare-explicitly-condoning-young-city-pedophile-chat-and-other-pedophile-havens/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180401233331/https://dailystor...

kentonv 9y ago

There's a pretty big difference between terminating a business relationship (which is what Cloudflare did to Daily Stormer, and which Google also did a couple days before Cloudflare did) and refusing to answer DNS queries for third-party domains with which there is no business relationship. It's hard to imagine how the former could be used as precedent to compel the latter. Cloudflare has no interest in censorship -- the whole reason the Daily Stormer thing was such a big deal was because it's the only time Cloudflare has ever terminated a customer for objectionable content. Be sure to read the blog post to understand: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ (Disclosure: I work for Cloudflare but I'm not in a position to set policy.)

JD557 9y ago
I probably should have made a clearer point instead of linking to TorrentFreak. I did not mean that I was worried that CloudFlare's DNS would start blocking sites whose content they disagree with (although that would also be worrisome). I'm worried that copyright holders might be able to use the Daily Stormer case as a precedent to force CloudFlare to stop offering services to infringing sites. If they are able to do that, I can also see them attempting to force CloudFlare to remove DNS entries as well.
- kentonv 9y ago
  Right, as I said, it's hard for me to see how one could be used as precedent for the other given how different the situations are. And if you could use it, you could just as easily do the same against Google DNS. I'm not a lawyer, though.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

pdcerb 9y ago

Actually, they have already suspended the service for sci-hub, albeit under a court order. https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/02/05/1944225/cloudflare-terminates-service-to-sci-hub-domain-names https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/02/05/1944225/cloudflare-t...

rsync 9y ago

"I wish that they talked a bit more about their stance regarding censorship. They have a small paragraph talking about the problem, but they don't talk about the "solution"." I think there's a good way to put this to the test - establish a DNS "mixer" that will randomly direct DNS requests to either 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8 or (whatever) and let the public have access to it. In this way, Cloudflare would bear some small expense from processing these DNS requests (essentially zero) but would receive no information about the initial requestor. It would be interesting to run this experiment and perhaps see some real traffic on the DNS mixer ... and then see how cloudflare responds. Would they block the mixer ?