5 ms·

That’s an interesting opinion. What about being publicly traded makes you think they’ll me more incentivized to censor? Facebook’s performance suggests that pl

That’s an interesting opinion. What about being publicly traded makes you think they’ll me more incentivized to censor? Facebook’s performance suggests that playing fast and loose is preferable

superkuh 7y ago
So far the CEO has twice bowed to public pressure and unilaterally removed completely legal websites from the service because he perceived hosting them made Cloudflare's brand look bad. As a publicly traded company the company is now actually accountable (rather than just in his head) to a slice of public opinion and to keep the brand as profitable as possible. That means not providing services for anything controversial.
- minimaxir 7y ago
  > completely legal websites Are you referring to The Daily Stormer and 8chan?
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Not parent, but probably. If they weren't legal, there wouldn't be an issue: Cloudflare complying with the law to block illegal websites would be a non-story.
    - mffnbs 7y ago
      Cloudflare making the decision not to serve specific customers in a legal fashion that does not discriminate against any protected groups is a non-story as well. You don't often see private businesses making decisions like this on the front page of the new york times, but this one is a hot topic. They have no social, moral, or ethical obligation to serve these customers, and one's disagreement with that does not mean we should be forcing individuals to cater to everyone.
      - moojd 7y ago
        Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be a story and it's not ideologically inconsistent to agree that Cloudflare has the right to not serve these customers while also scrutinizing them for it. What is legal/illegal is not a substitute for a personal value system. A company as large and important as Cloudflare disconnecting a client for moral or public outrage reasons is a big story and they should be watched with a careful eye even if you agree with the outcome.
      - pacoWebConsult 7y ago
        Cloudflare is incorporated in California where political affiliation actually is a protected class.
  - superkuh 7y ago
    They mention those two specifically in the filing itself, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1477333/000119312519222176/d735023ds1.htm#toc https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1477333/000119312519... "Activities of our paying and free customers or the content of their websites or other Internet properties, as well as our response to those activities, could cause us to experience significant adverse political, business, and reputational consequences with customers, employees, suppliers, government entities, and others."
- skrowl 7y ago
  As Daily Stormer and 8chan have shown, CloudFlare has very few competitors and seemingly none that don't censor. 8chan jumped ship to BitMitigate when CloudFlare dropped them, and then BitMitigate dumped them when they had their backbone link yanked out from under them. Neither site broke any US laws, but they were both controversial.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    > CloudFlare has very few competitors In the personal/SMB spaces, you're right. Of course, enterprise remains their cash cow, where they compete with the big boys (akamai, incapsula, etc.). > Neither site broke any US laws, but they were both controversial. This is basically why so many are bothered by CloudFlare's decision. Who decides what's controversial? We've seen many examples in the past of normal views being "controversial".
    - favorited 7y ago
      > Who decides what's controversial? CloudFlare, in this case.
      - pacoWebConsult 7y ago
        What's the difference between this and choosing not to bake a cake for a gay couple? Plenty of people cheered Cloudflare for taking down TDS and 8Chan, but the same people got up in arms to demand a private business provide service to a protected class. Last time I checked political affiliation was a protected class in CA and political activity was a protected class in CA & NY.
        big_chungus 7y ago
        > political activity was a protected class in CA & NY. Yes, but cloudflare is not denying a job to any of those people. Not to mention there are certainly threats of violence on those sites, which are technically illegal. That's grounds enough to take the site down. I argued above that cloudflare's actions were concerning, but at the end of the day, it's cloudflare's network. Do you really want the state compelling by force a firm to carry the traffic of any one? I don't, and find it the only option more concerning than a firm arbitrarily refusing to do business. I personally dislike the actions of cloudflare in this case, and am allowed to criticize them. However, I don't think it makes sense to have the state enforce my criticism via compulsion.

That’s an interesting opinion. What about being publicly traded makes you think they’ll me more incentivized to censor? Facebook’s performance suggests that playing fast and loose is preferable

superkuh 7y ago

So far the CEO has twice bowed to public pressure and unilaterally removed completely legal websites from the service because he perceived hosting them made Cloudflare's brand look bad. As a publicly traded company the company is now actually accountable (rather than just in his head) to a slice of public opinion and to keep the brand as profitable as possible. That means not providing services for anything controversial.

minimaxir 7y ago
> completely legal websites Are you referring to The Daily Stormer and 8chan?
- luckylion 7y ago
  Not parent, but probably. If they weren't legal, there wouldn't be an issue: Cloudflare complying with the law to block illegal websites would be a non-story.
  - mffnbs 7y ago
    Cloudflare making the decision not to serve specific customers in a legal fashion that does not discriminate against any protected groups is a non-story as well. You don't often see private businesses making decisions like this on the front page of the new york times, but this one is a hot topic. They have no social, moral, or ethical obligation to serve these customers, and one's disagreement with that does not mean we should be forcing individuals to cater to everyone.
    - moojd 7y ago
      Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be a story and it's not ideologically inconsistent to agree that Cloudflare has the right to not serve these customers while also scrutinizing them for it. What is legal/illegal is not a substitute for a personal value system. A company as large and important as Cloudflare disconnecting a client for moral or public outrage reasons is a big story and they should be watched with a careful eye even if you agree with the outcome.
    - pacoWebConsult 7y ago
      Cloudflare is incorporated in California where political affiliation actually is a protected class.
- superkuh 7y ago
  They mention those two specifically in the filing itself, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1477333/000119312519222176/d735023ds1.htm#toc https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1477333/000119312519... "Activities of our paying and free customers or the content of their websites or other Internet properties, as well as our response to those activities, could cause us to experience significant adverse political, business, and reputational consequences with customers, employees, suppliers, government entities, and others."
skrowl 7y ago
As Daily Stormer and 8chan have shown, CloudFlare has very few competitors and seemingly none that don't censor. 8chan jumped ship to BitMitigate when CloudFlare dropped them, and then BitMitigate dumped them when they had their backbone link yanked out from under them. Neither site broke any US laws, but they were both controversial.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > CloudFlare has very few competitors In the personal/SMB spaces, you're right. Of course, enterprise remains their cash cow, where they compete with the big boys (akamai, incapsula, etc.). > Neither site broke any US laws, but they were both controversial. This is basically why so many are bothered by CloudFlare's decision. Who decides what's controversial? We've seen many examples in the past of normal views being "controversial".
  - favorited 7y ago
    > Who decides what's controversial? CloudFlare, in this case.
    - pacoWebConsult 7y ago
      What's the difference between this and choosing not to bake a cake for a gay couple? Plenty of people cheered Cloudflare for taking down TDS and 8Chan, but the same people got up in arms to demand a private business provide service to a protected class. Last time I checked political affiliation was a protected class in CA and political activity was a protected class in CA & NY.
      - big_chungus 7y ago
        > political activity was a protected class in CA & NY. Yes, but cloudflare is not denying a job to any of those people. Not to mention there are certainly threats of violence on those sites, which are technically illegal. That's grounds enough to take the site down. I argued above that cloudflare's actions were concerning, but at the end of the day, it's cloudflare's network. Do you really want the state compelling by force a firm to carry the traffic of any one? I don't, and find it the only option more concerning than a firm arbitrarily refusing to do business. I personally dislike the actions of cloudflare in this case, and am allowed to criticize them. However, I don't think it makes sense to have the state enforce my criticism via compulsion.