6 ms·

Why should it be outrageous?? When cloudflare accept provinding service to a customer they are linking their brand to whatever their customer do.. Should they

Why should it be outrageous?? When cloudflare accept provinding service to a customer they are linking their brand to whatever their customer do.. Should they not have the right to stop serving this customer if they are doing indirect damage to cloudflare business?? If someone get murdered because someone did something in a site hosted by cloudflare, sure cloudflare is not direct responsible for causing that murder but they do share the moral repercutions of it.. it sure get people asking, would that person not have being murded if cloudflare did not provide this site with the plataform they used to achieve this murder?? Having their brand linked to a site like this can be damaging to their brand\business\moral stance and they would be totally within their right to stop proving service for that.. as for the site/company/organization, cloudflare is not the only player around, if cloudflare stop providing service they can move somewhere else, they can even buy their own servers and host it themselves if no third-party hosting is willing to provide then services..

Rufhfhs3747rhe7 4y ago
I for one would stop using Cloudflare if they caved to the pressure and starting dropping clients based on some people being offended by their content. If you don't like a website, don't use it. Don't try to prevent others from using it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bauruine 4y ago
>Having their brand linked to a site like this can be damaging to their brand\business\moral stance and they would be totally within their right to stop proving service for that.. Sure Cloudflare could drop them but the reason people want Kiwi Farms to loose Cloudflare is because they are DDoSing them. What is a DDoS protection worth if all it takes to circumvent it are a few people screeching on social media? >buy their own servers and host it themselves They are doing it already [0] [0]: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2021-10-28/where-sidewalk-ends-death-internet https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2021-10-28/where-sidewalk-end...
- tmottabr 4y ago
  It is not as simple as just a few people screenching in social media.. The people screenching need to convince the company leadership that keeping this customer will do more damage to their business then dropping then.. It is not like cloudflare could this this left and right all the time.. If cloudflare started dropping any customer for even the smallest issues it would cause massive damage to their brand and no one would use then anymore.. So they need to weigh in the pros and con every time they make this decision.. >They are doing it already [0] Then if the problem is DDOS they could go to someone else to get their DDOS protection from, cloudflare is not the only solution around.. As last resort they even are free to buy the necessary link withstand a DDOS attack if no one is willing to offer their DDOS protection service.. Or they could distribute their servers around the world so a single ddos is unlikely to take then out.. They have many options other then cloudflare..
  - bauruine 4y ago
    >They have many options other then cloudflare.. I guess you haven't read the article because the whole article is about why it's not that easy as you portray it. I don't want to to recite everything but for instance "NTT refuses to peer with any company that peers with my subnet" He can't use anything that peers with NTT (a Tier 1 transit provider).
    - tmottabr 4y ago
      Sure, it is hard as hell and expensive as hell.. so what?? But why should they be entitled to ddos protection?? If they want to keep a site that many people find nasty in the air and that other companies refuse to have their brand linked to they have to deal with the technical hurdles of it.. Same way you can’t get to a newspaper and demand they publish you, same as you can’t force tv channel to give you air time.. While you can still publish your own newspaper and have your own tv channel, it is still hard and expensive as hell.. Internet access sure should be neutral like a utility, hosting other people content should not.. So sure, they have the right to have access to the internet and keep their site in it.. this does not means they should be able to force other help then against their will to keep it online when they are unable to do so, like in the case of a ddos.. You have te right to say what you want, but this does not give you the right to force other to provide you with a platform..

Rufhfhs3747rhe7 4y ago

I for one would stop using Cloudflare if they caved to the pressure and starting dropping clients based on some people being offended by their content. If you don't like a website, don't use it. Don't try to prevent others from using it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

bauruine 4y ago

>Having their brand linked to a site like this can be damaging to their brand\business\moral stance and they would be totally within their right to stop proving service for that.. Sure Cloudflare could drop them but the reason people want Kiwi Farms to loose Cloudflare is because they are DDoSing them. What is a DDoS protection worth if all it takes to circumvent it are a few people screeching on social media? >buy their own servers and host it themselves They are doing it already [0] [0]: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2021-10-28/where-sidewalk-ends-death-internet https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2021-10-28/where-sidewalk-end...

tmottabr 4y ago
It is not as simple as just a few people screenching in social media.. The people screenching need to convince the company leadership that keeping this customer will do more damage to their business then dropping then.. It is not like cloudflare could this this left and right all the time.. If cloudflare started dropping any customer for even the smallest issues it would cause massive damage to their brand and no one would use then anymore.. So they need to weigh in the pros and con every time they make this decision.. >They are doing it already [0] Then if the problem is DDOS they could go to someone else to get their DDOS protection from, cloudflare is not the only solution around.. As last resort they even are free to buy the necessary link withstand a DDOS attack if no one is willing to offer their DDOS protection service.. Or they could distribute their servers around the world so a single ddos is unlikely to take then out.. They have many options other then cloudflare..
- bauruine 4y ago
  >They have many options other then cloudflare.. I guess you haven't read the article because the whole article is about why it's not that easy as you portray it. I don't want to to recite everything but for instance "NTT refuses to peer with any company that peers with my subnet" He can't use anything that peers with NTT (a Tier 1 transit provider).
  - tmottabr 4y ago
    Sure, it is hard as hell and expensive as hell.. so what?? But why should they be entitled to ddos protection?? If they want to keep a site that many people find nasty in the air and that other companies refuse to have their brand linked to they have to deal with the technical hurdles of it.. Same way you can’t get to a newspaper and demand they publish you, same as you can’t force tv channel to give you air time.. While you can still publish your own newspaper and have your own tv channel, it is still hard and expensive as hell.. Internet access sure should be neutral like a utility, hosting other people content should not.. So sure, they have the right to have access to the internet and keep their site in it.. this does not means they should be able to force other help then against their will to keep it online when they are unable to do so, like in the case of a ddos.. You have te right to say what you want, but this does not give you the right to force other to provide you with a platform..