5 ms·

Not to mention, CloudFlare has become synonymous with hosting and protecting the worst websites on the internet, with currently only two exceptions made, seemin

by cirno 7y ago

Not to mention, CloudFlare has become synonymous with hosting and protecting the worst websites on the internet, with currently only two exceptions made, seemingly at the CEO's whim. CloudFlare protects websites dedicated to doxing, stalking and harassing their victims. And when their victims complain, CloudFlare forwards all their personal information directly to said website owners while doing nothing about it. Websites that host content like the Christchurch massacre video and manifesto. Websites that have bullied people to the point of suicide. I'm all for the importance of freedom of speech and being able to say offensive things on the internet, but CloudFlare is protecting sites that flagrantly violate the law.

judge2020 7y ago
The CEO's blog posts make it clear that CF really wants to bee the city water company that sells access to "dumb pipes": pipes that can route, filter and transform the stuff that goes through them while not knowing about exactly what it is that is going through them (at least when some maliciousness filters haven't triggered); the city water doesn't want to start cutting people's water off because of what they use the water for. Their stance is that they don't have the power to remove that content, all they can do is make the website vulnerable to ddos attacks and whatnot by kicking them off the service. While 8chan being kicked off CF did bring them offline (their new anti-DDOS provider was told to kick 8chan off by the upstream bandwidth provider, and the domain hasn't worked since to my knowledge) the daily stormer is still working. CF kicking TDS off their network didn't stop their website from working.
- cirno 7y ago
  I understand that, and I don't think websites should be deplatformed just for saying unpopular things. But when a site clearly crosses into blatant criminality, it's disappointing when everyone who has the power to rein them in (Google with PageRank, CloudFlare with protection, the US government with criminal proceedings) decides to pass the buck on to someone else. It's always someone else's problem, meanwhile people's lives are being ruined and lost. These sites would not be as highly profitable without CloudFlare's network, so I think it's fair that if someone wants to use CloudFlare, they're aware of what they're supporting when they give CloudFlare their money.
  - mendelmaleh 7y ago
    If it's "blatant criminality", sue them in court. Deplatforming is literally passing the buck to some other platform.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
cnst 7y ago
There are many good reasons to hate Cloudflare. IMHO, them failing to be the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner for deplatforming inconvenient content aren't quite one of them.

by cirno 7y ago

judge2020 7y ago

The CEO's blog posts make it clear that CF really wants to bee the city water company that sells access to "dumb pipes": pipes that can route, filter and transform the stuff that goes through them while not knowing about exactly what it is that is going through them (at least when some maliciousness filters haven't triggered); the city water doesn't want to start cutting people's water off because of what they use the water for. Their stance is that they don't have the power to remove that content, all they can do is make the website vulnerable to ddos attacks and whatnot by kicking them off the service. While 8chan being kicked off CF did bring them offline (their new anti-DDOS provider was told to kick 8chan off by the upstream bandwidth provider, and the domain hasn't worked since to my knowledge) the daily stormer is still working. CF kicking TDS off their network didn't stop their website from working.

cirno 7y ago
I understand that, and I don't think websites should be deplatformed just for saying unpopular things. But when a site clearly crosses into blatant criminality, it's disappointing when everyone who has the power to rein them in (Google with PageRank, CloudFlare with protection, the US government with criminal proceedings) decides to pass the buck on to someone else. It's always someone else's problem, meanwhile people's lives are being ruined and lost. These sites would not be as highly profitable without CloudFlare's network, so I think it's fair that if someone wants to use CloudFlare, they're aware of what they're supporting when they give CloudFlare their money.
- mendelmaleh 7y ago
  If it's "blatant criminality", sue them in court. Deplatforming is literally passing the buck to some other platform.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

cnst 7y ago

There are many good reasons to hate Cloudflare. IMHO, them failing to be the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner for deplatforming inconvenient content aren't quite one of them.