4 ms·
Wow, zero coverage about their attempts to centralize key parts of the Internet under their control and how many people got outraged about that, but plenty on t
by Dirlewanger 6y ago
Wow, zero coverage about their attempts to centralize key parts of the Internet under their control and how many people got outraged about that, but plenty on the trivial outrage of CF supplying services to customers they found offensive. I'm kind of tempted to update this section.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- core-questions 6y agoWhy establish a false dichotomy? One can be just as mad about them abusing their position to attack free speech in a censorious way, as one is about their other efforts to create a monopoly over a large swathe of internet traffic. I get it, nobody wants to defend badthink, but it's a hell of a lot easier philosophically to defend all political speech regardless of content than it is to try to pick and choose and make some moral case.
- johnklos 6y agoSet aside the free speech stuff which involves groups inciting violence - while we can agree that it's bad, deciding what to do will inevitably lead to wildly divergent ideas. Cloudflare says that it's "free speech" for their customers to claim to be Adobe offering a "Flash Updater", or for their customers to claim to be Bank of America. That is how evil Cloudflare is - they allow clear and unambiguous crime for pennies.
- meowface 6y agoThey do? I'm pretty sure they've always banned phishing pages. Do you have a source on that?