>Cloudflare didn't establish a precedent. Cloudflare did reserve the right to do so in their ToS; but they had a precedent of not using that right to police sp

>Cloudflare didn't establish a precedent. Cloudflare did reserve the right to do so in their ToS; but they had a precedent of not using that right to police speach (and activly argued that it was not their place to do so). While they did not establish any legal precedent here, they still established a social precedent. >They didn't upset applecart of free speech by doing so. Yes they did. Just because private companies are not subject to the first amendment does not mean that they are not arbiters of free speech. >As a society, we believe that government should be limited in scope to only those powers explicitly granted to it by the people. And we have already decided that one of those powers is to prevent private companies from discriminating. See the Civil Rights, which defined the notion of public accommodations. Despite being (potentially) privately owned, these public accommodations are not allowed to discriminate based on protected classes. I would also like to point out that, in the course of this thread, we have gone from 'Andre_Wanglin should not be listened to because his defense of Cloudflare demonstrates that he is an impassioned Nazi sympathizer' to 'reasonable people can disagree, but Cloudflare's behavior did not violate the constitution or break any law'.