5 ms·

"it is likely that the requested information will be handed over" I would say the opposite at this point. Cloudflare has a track record of sticking to its prin

by pbreit 8y ago

"it is likely that the requested information will be handed over" I would say the opposite at this point. Cloudflare has a track record of sticking to its principles and has demonstrated a willingness to defend them in court.

cloakandswagger 8y ago
What principles? I can't find a mission statement or list of principles on their site, and it wasn't long ago that Cloudflare joined GoDaddy and others in shutting down the Daily Stormer -- one of the principles of a CDN might be supporting a free and open internet, but that isn't supported by their actions.
- calimac 8y ago
  Exactly, Cloudflare's virtue signaling S.F. Executives made it clear in an open letter that they are totally ok with squashing "hate speech" because of their Moral obligation. That day, I made the point that they just screwed themselves. They should never have ever impeded any traffic ever because now there's precedent. Virtue Signaling Leftist shoot themselves in the foot again. #LiberalismIsAMentalDissorder
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  While I agree with you in principle, they aren't required to host content that they don't want to. They certainly shouldn't be actively shutting down content, however that's not the same as declining to host content. I'm somewhat surprised that a conservative network hasn't been established to support the White Power, Alex Jones, Gab types of places. It would seem to be at the minimum a viable business for a niche audience.
krn 8y ago
The problem with the US-based companies is, that they are required to reveal their private customer data even without judge's approval[1], depending on who asks for it. [1] https://apnews.com/4986e44871dc4f70a467239fa49b15dd https://apnews.com/4986e44871dc4f70a467239fa49b15dd
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  Why do you limit this to US-based companies? I can't think of any country in the world where a company is sovereign and can withhold private data from the government. In most of them, a judge's approval would not be required.
  - krn 8y ago
    The difference is, how much private customer data a company can reveal without a judge's approval. In many European countries it's limited only to meta-data (i.e., basic account information).
    - jiveturkey 8y ago
      I'm thinking of China and Russia, South America, Africa, you know "most" of the countries of the world. You are thinking of "best practices" countries but really, most countries grant no such privilege to companies (or their citizens).
      - krn 8y ago
        > You are thinking of "best practices" countries I tried to compare the US to other Western countries, most of which are in Europe[1], but you might be right, that in this regard it stands closer to Russia and China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#/media/File:The_West_-_Clash_of_Civilizations.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#/media/File:The_...
electroly 8y ago
The first part of that sentence that you omitted is explaining that they already did have their chance to respond to the order in court. They did not respond, and now the order stands.
otterley 8y ago
Attorney here! (Not offering legal advice, though.) That doesn't mean they'll prevail. It's very difficult to get a judge to quash a subpoena demanding a business produce customer records that are needed to identify a potential party to a civil action.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mcdowell28 8y ago
All Cloudflare has ever done was to put up a few technical posts and now everybody circlejerks over them. They are a scummy business on my book. Took down Daily Stormer because the CEO doesn't like Nazis, made half the Internet unusable for Tor users for a long time, completely ignore all abuse reports (including phishing sites, carders, etc)
- jjeaff 8y ago
  >because the owner doesn't like Nazis. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I think there are some things so deplorable that we can just all agree that it's ok for a private platform to just shut them down and still maintain a mostly neutral stance on content. As a consumer, you can state publically that "we are neutral when it comes to content... Except for that one site full of Nazis" and I'm ok with that.
  - mcdowell28 8y ago
    People who hate Nazis so much don't seem to have a problem with Communists, even if they have a much higher body count. Gee, I wonder why... But that's beside the point.
  - miracle2k 8y ago
    There is non-Nazi content that large groups of people passionately find deplorable, and I don't envy you being in the position of explaining that although Nazi content should be kicked off, terrorist recruiting, bomb building instructions (or 3d gun printing), human trafficking facilitators (i.e. any escort website), drug marketplaces, violent but legal pornography, websites that spread hate about LGBT people or woman, infrastructure used by Russian bots to attack our democracy, illegal gambling websites, or indeed, content that rips off creative people and flagrany steels their hard work is something you decide to distribute.
kuraudo 8y ago
Any chance of that working went out the window now that they demonstrated the willingness to kick people off of the service altogether.

by pbreit 8y ago

cloakandswagger 8y ago

What principles? I can't find a mission statement or list of principles on their site, and it wasn't long ago that Cloudflare joined GoDaddy and others in shutting down the Daily Stormer -- one of the principles of a CDN might be supporting a free and open internet, but that isn't supported by their actions.

calimac 8y ago
Exactly, Cloudflare's virtue signaling S.F. Executives made it clear in an open letter that they are totally ok with squashing "hate speech" because of their Moral obligation. That day, I made the point that they just screwed themselves. They should never have ever impeded any traffic ever because now there's precedent. Virtue Signaling Leftist shoot themselves in the foot again. #LiberalismIsAMentalDissorder
cannonedhamster 8y ago
While I agree with you in principle, they aren't required to host content that they don't want to. They certainly shouldn't be actively shutting down content, however that's not the same as declining to host content. I'm somewhat surprised that a conservative network hasn't been established to support the White Power, Alex Jones, Gab types of places. It would seem to be at the minimum a viable business for a niche audience.

krn 8y ago

The problem with the US-based companies is, that they are required to reveal their private customer data even without judge's approval[1], depending on who asks for it. [1] https://apnews.com/4986e44871dc4f70a467239fa49b15dd https://apnews.com/4986e44871dc4f70a467239fa49b15dd

jiveturkey 8y ago
Why do you limit this to US-based companies? I can't think of any country in the world where a company is sovereign and can withhold private data from the government. In most of them, a judge's approval would not be required.
- krn 8y ago
  The difference is, how much private customer data a company can reveal without a judge's approval. In many European countries it's limited only to meta-data (i.e., basic account information).
  - jiveturkey 8y ago
    I'm thinking of China and Russia, South America, Africa, you know "most" of the countries of the world. You are thinking of "best practices" countries but really, most countries grant no such privilege to companies (or their citizens).
    - krn 8y ago
      > You are thinking of "best practices" countries I tried to compare the US to other Western countries, most of which are in Europe[1], but you might be right, that in this regard it stands closer to Russia and China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#/media/File:The_West_-_Clash_of_Civilizations.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#/media/File:The_...

electroly 8y ago

The first part of that sentence that you omitted is explaining that they already did have their chance to respond to the order in court. They did not respond, and now the order stands.

otterley 8y ago

Attorney here! (Not offering legal advice, though.) That doesn't mean they'll prevail. It's very difficult to get a judge to quash a subpoena demanding a business produce customer records that are needed to identify a potential party to a civil action.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mcdowell28 8y ago

All Cloudflare has ever done was to put up a few technical posts and now everybody circlejerks over them. They are a scummy business on my book. Took down Daily Stormer because the CEO doesn't like Nazis, made half the Internet unusable for Tor users for a long time, completely ignore all abuse reports (including phishing sites, carders, etc)

jjeaff 8y ago
>because the owner doesn't like Nazis. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I think there are some things so deplorable that we can just all agree that it's ok for a private platform to just shut them down and still maintain a mostly neutral stance on content. As a consumer, you can state publically that "we are neutral when it comes to content... Except for that one site full of Nazis" and I'm ok with that.
- mcdowell28 8y ago
  People who hate Nazis so much don't seem to have a problem with Communists, even if they have a much higher body count. Gee, I wonder why... But that's beside the point.
- miracle2k 8y ago
  There is non-Nazi content that large groups of people passionately find deplorable, and I don't envy you being in the position of explaining that although Nazi content should be kicked off, terrorist recruiting, bomb building instructions (or 3d gun printing), human trafficking facilitators (i.e. any escort website), drug marketplaces, violent but legal pornography, websites that spread hate about LGBT people or woman, infrastructure used by Russian bots to attack our democracy, illegal gambling websites, or indeed, content that rips off creative people and flagrany steels their hard work is something you decide to distribute.

kuraudo 8y ago

Any chance of that working went out the window now that they demonstrated the willingness to kick people off of the service altogether.