5 ms·

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

by 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.

by Lazare 7y ago

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.