5 ms·

What do you mean, you don’t trust them? Cloudflare provides services to scummy websites, yes. But Cloudflare isn’t doing anything to promote these websites, tri

What do you mean, you don’t trust them? Cloudflare provides services to scummy websites, yes. But Cloudflare isn’t doing anything to promote these websites, trick users into visiting them, or otherwise aide them in any way other than providing the exact same services they provide to everybody else. I fully understand disagreeing with Cloudflare’s decision to turn a blind eye towards what their customers are doing. I just don’t understand why this behavior means you “don’t trust them”. What do you think Cloudflare is going to do?

slededit 8y ago
Its just weird they are willing to censor legal speech but not illegal things like malware.
- untog 8y ago
  Have they said they won't? Or is it just more difficult to stamp out? The malware sites can use any URL, so I imagine it's difficult to stamp out automatically.
  - eridius 8y ago
    Cloudflare explicitly takes a hands-off approach. They said they'll provide their basic services to anyone and everyone as long as it's not violating the law (which basically means they won't protect child pornography sites), and they explicitly don't police the content of the sites. AIUI their rationale is that it's so easy to DDoS sites these days that everyone deserves to have access to basic DDoS protection no matter who they are or what they believe.
- eridius 8y ago
  Except they're not willing to censor legal speech. What they did was, one time and one time only, kicked someone off their platform for publicly advertising that Cloudflare supported their awful site. This was a unilateral decision made by the Cloudflare CEO because he was mad that they were saying that, and it's a decision that he admitted was wrong and said would not happen again. So this wasn't about "censoring legal speech" but rather for the specific act of trying to publicly associate Cloudflare with white supremacy ideology, and it's something they've committed to not doing again.
  - slededit 8y ago
    Actions speak much louder than words. They did it knowing it violated their principles yet they want to eat their cake and have it too. We wouldn't give another corporation the same benefit of the doubt, but because they are in tech we're willing to use a double standard.
    - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
      They were absolutely right in what they did. Free speech does not mean you have to give a platform to people you find abhorrent.
      - slededit 8y ago
        That's fine, but if CloudFlare believes that then they shouldn't write long winded blog posts explaining how they believe the exact opposite immediately after de-platforming someone. Its the two-faced nature of it I object to.
      - trothamel 8y ago
        Being a common carrier does, though. If they want to be treated like a common carrier - and I think there's a reasonable case for treating infrastructure providers like that - they should be expected to act like one.
        omnimus 8y ago
        Well i would like to see you if some hardcore communists were claiming you are supporting them because you let them use your service? Its private company - those can choose who they make bussiness with. Also lets not forget they are nothing like carrier. Carrier laws exist because there is no possible alternative. This is just CDN we are talking about. You can quite easily replace it, even yourself.
      - atmosx 8y ago
        > Free speech does not mean you have to give a platform to people you find abhorrent. From wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction." A platform either supports free speech or it doesn't. Most of them do not. That's fine as long as we (and they) understand the difference between freedom and censorship. Freedom is awesome but comes at a cost, censorship is good too but comes at a cost...
johnklos 8y ago
Something is clearly and obviously illegal. Nobody can say there's ambiguity about the legitimacy of these sites. Yet Cloudflare not only does nothing even when these sites are reported to them, they help make sure the sites continue to run. Would the problem here be more clear if Cloudflare did nothing when people use them to provide hosting services for child porn sites? Why do you think it's OK for Cloudflare to decide when to ignore the law and when to do something about obviously illegal content?
- eridius 8y ago
  Providing services to malware sites isn't illegal. Providing services to child porn sites is. That's the distinction that Cloudflare draws.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > That's the distinction that Cloudflare draws And we free persons are at liberty to disagree with their lime. Personally, their delineation seems self-serving and marginally scummy. (The service and this app are appreciated and used.)
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      How about torrent sites? Where would you personally draw the line? It has to be drawn somewhere.
  - johnklos 8y ago
    Actually, sites which claim they are one thing (Adobe, a bank's web site) when they obviously aren't are, in fact, illegal. But hey - if you want to pretend that a site which pretends to be Bank of America is somehow in some grey area, then by all means be a phishing apologist.
    - eridius 8y ago
      Sites that sell malware aren’t pretending to be Bank of America. Also, while I certainly believe that some phishing site pretending to be Bank of America should be illegal, I’m not actually sure what law that would violate. Is it actually illegal or do you just believe that it it should be? And I’m not looking for “it violates copyright/trademark” as an answer, that’s a civil issue.

slededit 8y ago

Its just weird they are willing to censor legal speech but not illegal things like malware.

untog 8y ago
Have they said they won't? Or is it just more difficult to stamp out? The malware sites can use any URL, so I imagine it's difficult to stamp out automatically.
- eridius 8y ago
  Cloudflare explicitly takes a hands-off approach. They said they'll provide their basic services to anyone and everyone as long as it's not violating the law (which basically means they won't protect child pornography sites), and they explicitly don't police the content of the sites. AIUI their rationale is that it's so easy to DDoS sites these days that everyone deserves to have access to basic DDoS protection no matter who they are or what they believe.
eridius 8y ago
Except they're not willing to censor legal speech. What they did was, one time and one time only, kicked someone off their platform for publicly advertising that Cloudflare supported their awful site. This was a unilateral decision made by the Cloudflare CEO because he was mad that they were saying that, and it's a decision that he admitted was wrong and said would not happen again. So this wasn't about "censoring legal speech" but rather for the specific act of trying to publicly associate Cloudflare with white supremacy ideology, and it's something they've committed to not doing again.
- slededit 8y ago
  Actions speak much louder than words. They did it knowing it violated their principles yet they want to eat their cake and have it too. We wouldn't give another corporation the same benefit of the doubt, but because they are in tech we're willing to use a double standard.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    They were absolutely right in what they did. Free speech does not mean you have to give a platform to people you find abhorrent.
    - slededit 8y ago
      That's fine, but if CloudFlare believes that then they shouldn't write long winded blog posts explaining how they believe the exact opposite immediately after de-platforming someone. Its the two-faced nature of it I object to.
    - trothamel 8y ago
      Being a common carrier does, though. If they want to be treated like a common carrier - and I think there's a reasonable case for treating infrastructure providers like that - they should be expected to act like one.
      - omnimus 8y ago
        Well i would like to see you if some hardcore communists were claiming you are supporting them because you let them use your service? Its private company - those can choose who they make bussiness with. Also lets not forget they are nothing like carrier. Carrier laws exist because there is no possible alternative. This is just CDN we are talking about. You can quite easily replace it, even yourself.
    - atmosx 8y ago
      > Free speech does not mean you have to give a platform to people you find abhorrent. From wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction." A platform either supports free speech or it doesn't. Most of them do not. That's fine as long as we (and they) understand the difference between freedom and censorship. Freedom is awesome but comes at a cost, censorship is good too but comes at a cost...

johnklos 8y ago

Something is clearly and obviously illegal. Nobody can say there's ambiguity about the legitimacy of these sites. Yet Cloudflare not only does nothing even when these sites are reported to them, they help make sure the sites continue to run. Would the problem here be more clear if Cloudflare did nothing when people use them to provide hosting services for child porn sites? Why do you think it's OK for Cloudflare to decide when to ignore the law and when to do something about obviously illegal content?

eridius 8y ago
Providing services to malware sites isn't illegal. Providing services to child porn sites is. That's the distinction that Cloudflare draws.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > That's the distinction that Cloudflare draws And we free persons are at liberty to disagree with their lime. Personally, their delineation seems self-serving and marginally scummy. (The service and this app are appreciated and used.)
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    How about torrent sites? Where would you personally draw the line? It has to be drawn somewhere.
- johnklos 8y ago
  Actually, sites which claim they are one thing (Adobe, a bank's web site) when they obviously aren't are, in fact, illegal. But hey - if you want to pretend that a site which pretends to be Bank of America is somehow in some grey area, then by all means be a phishing apologist.
  - eridius 8y ago
    Sites that sell malware aren’t pretending to be Bank of America. Also, while I certainly believe that some phishing site pretending to be Bank of America should be illegal, I’m not actually sure what law that would violate. Is it actually illegal or do you just believe that it it should be? And I’m not looking for “it violates copyright/trademark” as an answer, that’s a civil issue.