4 ms·
Definitions of ethical may differ. Shielding far-right sites, cesspits like Kiwi Farms which make it their stated goal to drive people they don't like to suicid
by breakingcups 5y ago
Definitions of ethical may differ. Shielding far-right sites, cesspits like Kiwi Farms which make it their stated goal to drive people they don't like to suicide, criminals like DDOS vendors, credit card fraud forums, etc. all under the guise of being a "neutral passthrough layer third party" feels incredibly disingenuous to me. The aforementioned people are Cloudflare's customers and Cloudflare hosts their content (yes, sometimes with a short ttl, but the public IP address still terminates at their web servers). They can not be afforded the same leeway that actual internet exchanges are when routing traffic to bad actors.
So no. They may have demonstrated business-friendly behaviour. But ethical? No.
- maccolgan 5y agoThat is the very definition of neutrality though. What are you suggesting? They determine what content is "good" ?
- breakingcups 5y agoYes, but my point is that they are by definition not neutral, contrary to what they claim. They get to choose who they do business with and their choices are not ethical. You should consider them a hosting company, would you consider a hosting company an ethical company if they hosted nazi forums?
- afiori 5y agoBy this definition neutrality does not exist. With some strawmanning by this definition sleeping is not neutral as I could fight for a cause, or healthcare is not neutral as you might save a nazi's life.
- maccolgan 5y agoYes, I'd consider a hosting company that hosts Nazi forums if they can remain neutral and host content from all sides.