4 ms·

But they are in international markets and this particular customer was in Australia where sex work is legal.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Doesn’t matter. Cloudflare is a US corporation operating under US law (as well as the laws of other countries they have offices in).
- amorphid 9y ago
  I guess the technocracy promotes free speech when it suits them & shuts it down when they fear it.
  - lerie82 9y ago
    Free speech doesn't have anything to do with prostitution lil buddy.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    It’s not an enjoyable experience to be pursued by a nation state with limitless resources.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - xoa 9y ago
    FFS. Please, please actually think about what you're saying and about the implications it carries if you game theory it out a bit, that's absolutely critical when dealing with proposed solutions for wider issues of society. "The technocracy" is not in fact responsible for creating law, at least not yet. They are subjects to the law, and while of course they have an input both in the way any other group does and extra in the way more resources and education can enhance that, they're not even a dominant player amongst political powers. They cannot overrule law, nor should they be expected to, and really is that what you, amorphid, would actually want to see? Responsibility is tied to power, if you want them to be responsible then you're necessarily suggesting they have the power too. And that takes us straight to a world where corporations really are governing powers also, as in they can legitimately wield physical force against opponents. If this is due to FOSTA/SESTA, then regardless of Cloudflare's personal views they need to follow it. The fault lies somewhat in Congress but ultimately in the American People for repeatedly failing to appropriately carry out our duties in maintaining our democracy. If you argue that the people simply aren't up for that at all, then you're arguing democracy should be dumped or at least toned down in a further hybridization, and that gets into very, very deep waters. There is no contradiction whatsoever between Cloudflare and other tech companies promoting/lobbying heavily for Free Speech protections, which again are protections against government action, while still acceding to the supremacy of government if it passes laws to the contrary and those laws are still in force (during a legal challenge with no injunction for example, or following a failed legal challenge). There's nothing wrong in parallel with all this either in all of us working to try to eliminate centralized pressure points and decentralized malicious actor capabilities so on as well, far from it. But that doesn't mean you are justified in your accusations against some specific actor under the control of a jurisdiction that acts contrary to our preferences.
    - srslack 9y ago
      >"The technocracy" is not in fact responsible for creating law, at least not yet. They lobbied specifically for this compromise, because they don't give a shit. These companies are begging for Congress to come in and give them some sweet regulatory capture: you didn't see Zuckerberg overly concerned, for example, he practically asked for regulation. They have the resources to not sweat much of the overly broad chilling effect, especially the ex post facto aspect of this legislation. Small companies and startups that have the potential to topple these players don't have such leisure. Personally, beyond Rob Portman and the GOP, I blame the people who are getting hysterical over fake news and "nazis", who claim that Facebook et al are "destroying democracy". They have set the tone and made it much easier for this to happen, and they don't give a shit either because there's a fundamental disconnect due to their partisan bickering. No one wants to put their money where their mouth is and challenge these terrible statutes, despite the fact that Justice did not need them to take down Backpage. The entire legislative package, and the justification behind it (child trafficking), is a sham. The real purpose was to force companies to do exactly what Cloudflare has done today.
- nailer 9y ago
  I wonder why they don't have affiliates elsewhere. Not just for the sale of sex between consenting adults, but other, ethical yet banned-in-some-parts-of-the-world things: online gambling, marijuana, etc.
  - detaro 9y ago
    How would you structure that? PoP-operating companies for each country/region, owning the infrastructure, and CDN companies that rent capacity from the infrastructure-companies and combine it into international packages? And of course you can't have a shared entity owning them or anything else that a court could convincingly find to be really one entity, which makes it kind of impractical to get that started. Actually independently formed companies would of course help, but they'll have a strong motivation to grow themselves instead of working together with competitors.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    In most cases, legal trickery like this doesn't actually fly with the courts. The US doesn't care if the datacenter the data they want is in is technically owned by "Microsoft Ireland". Because Microsoft Ireland is controlled by Microsoft, so they can sue the latter to compel action from the former. This is one of the many downsides of multinational corporations, and I suspect we're going to see a new market for more localized replacements for a lot of these corporations' services abroad.
    - hckdff 9y ago
      Isn't it sick that courts are happy to allow such legal trickery when it comes to tax avoidance, but not when it comes to avoiding other laws some people don't like?
    - K2L8M11N2 9y ago
      How is it possible that it works for taxes[0], but not in this case? [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

Doesn’t matter. Cloudflare is a US corporation operating under US law (as well as the laws of other countries they have offices in).

amorphid 9y ago
I guess the technocracy promotes free speech when it suits them & shuts it down when they fear it.
- lerie82 9y ago
  Free speech doesn't have anything to do with prostitution lil buddy.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  It’s not an enjoyable experience to be pursued by a nation state with limitless resources.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- xoa 9y ago
  FFS. Please, please actually think about what you're saying and about the implications it carries if you game theory it out a bit, that's absolutely critical when dealing with proposed solutions for wider issues of society. "The technocracy" is not in fact responsible for creating law, at least not yet. They are subjects to the law, and while of course they have an input both in the way any other group does and extra in the way more resources and education can enhance that, they're not even a dominant player amongst political powers. They cannot overrule law, nor should they be expected to, and really is that what you, amorphid, would actually want to see? Responsibility is tied to power, if you want them to be responsible then you're necessarily suggesting they have the power too. And that takes us straight to a world where corporations really are governing powers also, as in they can legitimately wield physical force against opponents. If this is due to FOSTA/SESTA, then regardless of Cloudflare's personal views they need to follow it. The fault lies somewhat in Congress but ultimately in the American People for repeatedly failing to appropriately carry out our duties in maintaining our democracy. If you argue that the people simply aren't up for that at all, then you're arguing democracy should be dumped or at least toned down in a further hybridization, and that gets into very, very deep waters. There is no contradiction whatsoever between Cloudflare and other tech companies promoting/lobbying heavily for Free Speech protections, which again are protections against government action, while still acceding to the supremacy of government if it passes laws to the contrary and those laws are still in force (during a legal challenge with no injunction for example, or following a failed legal challenge). There's nothing wrong in parallel with all this either in all of us working to try to eliminate centralized pressure points and decentralized malicious actor capabilities so on as well, far from it. But that doesn't mean you are justified in your accusations against some specific actor under the control of a jurisdiction that acts contrary to our preferences.
  - srslack 9y ago
    >"The technocracy" is not in fact responsible for creating law, at least not yet. They lobbied specifically for this compromise, because they don't give a shit. These companies are begging for Congress to come in and give them some sweet regulatory capture: you didn't see Zuckerberg overly concerned, for example, he practically asked for regulation. They have the resources to not sweat much of the overly broad chilling effect, especially the ex post facto aspect of this legislation. Small companies and startups that have the potential to topple these players don't have such leisure. Personally, beyond Rob Portman and the GOP, I blame the people who are getting hysterical over fake news and "nazis", who claim that Facebook et al are "destroying democracy". They have set the tone and made it much easier for this to happen, and they don't give a shit either because there's a fundamental disconnect due to their partisan bickering. No one wants to put their money where their mouth is and challenge these terrible statutes, despite the fact that Justice did not need them to take down Backpage. The entire legislative package, and the justification behind it (child trafficking), is a sham. The real purpose was to force companies to do exactly what Cloudflare has done today.
nailer 9y ago
I wonder why they don't have affiliates elsewhere. Not just for the sale of sex between consenting adults, but other, ethical yet banned-in-some-parts-of-the-world things: online gambling, marijuana, etc.
- detaro 9y ago
  How would you structure that? PoP-operating companies for each country/region, owning the infrastructure, and CDN companies that rent capacity from the infrastructure-companies and combine it into international packages? And of course you can't have a shared entity owning them or anything else that a court could convincingly find to be really one entity, which makes it kind of impractical to get that started. Actually independently formed companies would of course help, but they'll have a strong motivation to grow themselves instead of working together with competitors.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  In most cases, legal trickery like this doesn't actually fly with the courts. The US doesn't care if the datacenter the data they want is in is technically owned by "Microsoft Ireland". Because Microsoft Ireland is controlled by Microsoft, so they can sue the latter to compel action from the former. This is one of the many downsides of multinational corporations, and I suspect we're going to see a new market for more localized replacements for a lot of these corporations' services abroad.
  - hckdff 9y ago
    Isn't it sick that courts are happy to allow such legal trickery when it comes to tax avoidance, but not when it comes to avoiding other laws some people don't like?
  - K2L8M11N2 9y ago
    How is it possible that it works for taxes[0], but not in this case? [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement