5 ms·
Its just weird they are willing to censor legal speech but not illegal things like malware.
by slededit 8y ago
Its just weird they are willing to censor legal speech but not illegal things like malware.
- untog 8y agoHave 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 agoCloudflare 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 agoExcept 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 agoActions 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 agoThey 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 agoThat'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 agoBeing 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 agoWell 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...
- simias 8y ago
- zackbloom 8y agoYou can read some of the reaction here: https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-criticism/ https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-criticism/
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoIt's so strange that we live in a time where refusing to give a platform to Nazis is considered controversial. Perhaps we are due another world war.