3 ms·

Does this start to open CloudFlare up to legal issues for all the sites they host? I was under the impression they were more of an infrastructure/utility type s

Does this start to open CloudFlare up to legal issues for all the sites they host? I was under the impression they were more of an infrastructure/utility type service, and weren't liable for what took place, the same way gun manufacturers aren't liable for shootings or gas stations for car crashes. But if now they're manually deciding who goes on their network and who doesn't, it seems like they're more responsible for everything else that's on it that they allow. They're a private company and I support them choosing to do business with whoever they want, but I thought there was some sort of legal distinction if they were totally agnostic to what travels over their wires. Is that not the case?

Lazare 7y ago
They've kicked people off their service before for content based reasons (eg, Daily Stormer), so this changes nothing. In any case: > I thought there was some sort of legal distinction if they were totally agnostic to what travels over their wires. Is that not the case? Not as far as I'm aware, no. The closest thing I can think of is if they were discriminating based on people's membership in a protected class, eg, if they announced a strict "no female clients" policy. This is clearly vastly different. From a PR point of view, yes, every time they kick someone off for being bad, the more their failing to kick someone off will be seen as an implicit endorsement. But again, that ship has sailed.
- tedivm 7y ago
  They've also removed sex worker websites (including a forum that was just sex workers talking to each other), but for some reason no one complains about it.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Congress recently added sex work as an exception to CDA 230 protections, and every provider scrambled to nuke everything remotely related.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    That’s always the way. Censorship/moderation isn’t given a second thought when it’s just sex-related.
  - Lazare 7y ago
    I believe you'll find that this was driven by SESTA/FOSTA, rather than being a discretionary choice by Cloudflare, and if you hang out in the right circles, it gets complained about a lot. (EFF, ACLU, Wikimedia, and many more opposed it.) I think it's unconstitutional and the worst thing to happen to the internet in many years, as well as one of the worst things to happen to civil liberties (which is a pretty high bar!). Unfortunately, it passed senate 97 votes to 2, which suggests legislative fixes will not be coming soon.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    Interesting, never heard about that. Are there are other things too?
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  > "no female clients" policy For the record, gender isn't a protected class in a place of public accommodation and it's why clubs in Las Vegas can charge Men more than Women.
roywiggins 7y ago
You may be thinking of the "CDA 230" nonsense that will not die, where people claim that companies can't moderate their customers because they'd be liable for what they post. The opposite is true. CDA 230 makes it clear that companies can moderate their content without becoming responsible for it. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-thing-trolls-grandstanding-politicians-to-get-cda-230-wrong-press-shouldnt-help-them.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t...
- LegitShady 7y ago
  I've never heard anyone claim that companies can't moderate content without becoming responsible for it. I've heard people say that if publishers show themselves to be capable of censoring, then the legal protections should be rescinded and they should decide if they are a platform or a publisher. Are you sure you heard the argument correctly?
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    The techdirt article I linked cites examples of people doing exactly this. > If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity and > If Facebook is going to behave like a media provider, picking and choosing what viewpoints to represent, then it’s hard to argue that the company should still have immunity from the legal constraints that old-media organizations live with. This is all nonsense. Old-media organizations are protected by CDA 230 just like everyone else: they can host third party content like user comments without being liable for it. Publishers being able to "censor" is the whole value proposition for having a publisher. You're paying for the NYT because it picks who to publish. Facebook has no special "platform" protections that anyone else doesn't get. Many, many people seem to think that CDA 230 itself makes a distinction between "platforms" and "publishers". I even replied to someone here in this comment section: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610778
    - LegitShady 7y ago
      The first one is fair - Vox got it wrong. That vox got it wrong should surprise no one, vox is lowest common denominator agenda driven garbage. \ The second one is asking "should they" - its asking a question not positing a fact. Should they get immunity for what posted if its clear they have the capacity to censor at will? Why should they and not anyone else on the internet? CDA makes a distinction between publisher and platform and the talk about this whole issue is that many people are saying that these companies can clearly police their content, and should be liable for it and not specially protected.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mizchief2 7y ago
You would think but apparently that doesn't apply anymore. You can control the content and still get the protections of a common carrier. I just know I'll remember that cloudflare could pull the pulg on my site if one of my users posts something they don't like. I don't think I can recommend their service to any of clients because of that.

Lazare 7y ago

They've kicked people off their service before for content based reasons (eg, Daily Stormer), so this changes nothing. In any case: > I thought there was some sort of legal distinction if they were totally agnostic to what travels over their wires. Is that not the case? Not as far as I'm aware, no. The closest thing I can think of is if they were discriminating based on people's membership in a protected class, eg, if they announced a strict "no female clients" policy. This is clearly vastly different. From a PR point of view, yes, every time they kick someone off for being bad, the more their failing to kick someone off will be seen as an implicit endorsement. But again, that ship has sailed.

tedivm 7y ago
They've also removed sex worker websites (including a forum that was just sex workers talking to each other), but for some reason no one complains about it.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Congress recently added sex work as an exception to CDA 230 protections, and every provider scrambled to nuke everything remotely related.
- mikeash 7y ago
  That’s always the way. Censorship/moderation isn’t given a second thought when it’s just sex-related.
- Lazare 7y ago
  I believe you'll find that this was driven by SESTA/FOSTA, rather than being a discretionary choice by Cloudflare, and if you hang out in the right circles, it gets complained about a lot. (EFF, ACLU, Wikimedia, and many more opposed it.) I think it's unconstitutional and the worst thing to happen to the internet in many years, as well as one of the worst things to happen to civil liberties (which is a pretty high bar!). Unfortunately, it passed senate 97 votes to 2, which suggests legislative fixes will not be coming soon.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  Interesting, never heard about that. Are there are other things too?
blackflame7000 7y ago
> "no female clients" policy For the record, gender isn't a protected class in a place of public accommodation and it's why clubs in Las Vegas can charge Men more than Women.

roywiggins 7y ago

You may be thinking of the "CDA 230" nonsense that will not die, where people claim that companies can't moderate their customers because they'd be liable for what they post. The opposite is true. CDA 230 makes it clear that companies can moderate their content without becoming responsible for it. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-thing-trolls-grandstanding-politicians-to-get-cda-230-wrong-press-shouldnt-help-them.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t...

LegitShady 7y ago
I've never heard anyone claim that companies can't moderate content without becoming responsible for it. I've heard people say that if publishers show themselves to be capable of censoring, then the legal protections should be rescinded and they should decide if they are a platform or a publisher. Are you sure you heard the argument correctly?
- roywiggins 7y ago
  The techdirt article I linked cites examples of people doing exactly this. > If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity and > If Facebook is going to behave like a media provider, picking and choosing what viewpoints to represent, then it’s hard to argue that the company should still have immunity from the legal constraints that old-media organizations live with. This is all nonsense. Old-media organizations are protected by CDA 230 just like everyone else: they can host third party content like user comments without being liable for it. Publishers being able to "censor" is the whole value proposition for having a publisher. You're paying for the NYT because it picks who to publish. Facebook has no special "platform" protections that anyone else doesn't get. Many, many people seem to think that CDA 230 itself makes a distinction between "platforms" and "publishers". I even replied to someone here in this comment section: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610778
  - LegitShady 7y ago
    The first one is fair - Vox got it wrong. That vox got it wrong should surprise no one, vox is lowest common denominator agenda driven garbage. \ The second one is asking "should they" - its asking a question not positing a fact. Should they get immunity for what posted if its clear they have the capacity to censor at will? Why should they and not anyone else on the internet? CDA makes a distinction between publisher and platform and the talk about this whole issue is that many people are saying that these companies can clearly police their content, and should be liable for it and not specially protected.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mizchief2 7y ago

You would think but apparently that doesn't apply anymore. You can control the content and still get the protections of a common carrier. I just know I'll remember that cloudflare could pull the pulg on my site if one of my users posts something they don't like. I don't think I can recommend their service to any of clients because of that.