4 ms·
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 d
by 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 agoI 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 agoRight, 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]