4 ms·

> I still really don't like the company Is that because they provide TLS termination for an increasingly large chunk of all internet traffic?

whoknew1122 5y ago
I really don't want to get sidetracked into a political or philosophical conversation. But to me, a policy of content neutrality is tacitly supporting extremist content. Cloudflare has to be dragged kicking and screaming before it stops profiting and protecting extremist sites and sites which host illegal content. The concentration of internet infrastructure into a few companies is something to be concerned about. But my bigger beef with Cloudflare is that they profit from and protect despicable websites and only cave when public pressure is high enough.
- mqnfred 5y ago
  That to me is a reason to like the company rather than not... Let's see where you stand once your opinions are on the chopping block
  - whoknew1122 5y ago
    The company sure made a courageous stance protecting a site which advocates explicitly for accelerationist race wars, and another image board that was notorious for housing child abuse imagery and conspiracies which led to real-world deaths. The answer to where a company should draw the line isn't 'OMG, slippery slope!' It's 'somewhere.' And preferably the CEO of the company shouldn't agonize about getting rid of stuff like the Daily Stormer and 8chan.
    - von_lohengramm 5y ago
      > and another image board that was notorious for housing child abuse imagery and conspiracies which led to real-world deaths. You know what, maybe you're right. Maybe Cloudflare should ban reddit.
- von_lohengramm 5y ago
  > But to me, a policy of content neutrality is tacitly supporting extremist content. When I read this, I agreed, but as I continued I realized that we come to opposite conclusions. A platform that espouses neutrality and fairness _should_ support extremist content, but it should be the reader's job to determine if the content is despicable.

whoknew1122 5y ago

I really don't want to get sidetracked into a political or philosophical conversation. But to me, a policy of content neutrality is tacitly supporting extremist content. Cloudflare has to be dragged kicking and screaming before it stops profiting and protecting extremist sites and sites which host illegal content. The concentration of internet infrastructure into a few companies is something to be concerned about. But my bigger beef with Cloudflare is that they profit from and protect despicable websites and only cave when public pressure is high enough.

mqnfred 5y ago
That to me is a reason to like the company rather than not... Let's see where you stand once your opinions are on the chopping block
- whoknew1122 5y ago
  The company sure made a courageous stance protecting a site which advocates explicitly for accelerationist race wars, and another image board that was notorious for housing child abuse imagery and conspiracies which led to real-world deaths. The answer to where a company should draw the line isn't 'OMG, slippery slope!' It's 'somewhere.' And preferably the CEO of the company shouldn't agonize about getting rid of stuff like the Daily Stormer and 8chan.
  - von_lohengramm 5y ago
    > and another image board that was notorious for housing child abuse imagery and conspiracies which led to real-world deaths. You know what, maybe you're right. Maybe Cloudflare should ban reddit.
von_lohengramm 5y ago
> But to me, a policy of content neutrality is tacitly supporting extremist content. When I read this, I agreed, but as I continued I realized that we come to opposite conclusions. A platform that espouses neutrality and fairness _should_ support extremist content, but it should be the reader's job to determine if the content is despicable.