3 ms·

Are you claiming that viraptor or yoshuaw are victims of KF? Because they were the ones demanding Cloudflare answer for not stopping business with KF in this th

Are you claiming that viraptor or yoshuaw are victims of KF? Because they were the ones demanding Cloudflare answer for not stopping business with KF in this thread, and I have not seen any claims that they were doing so in their own name. How many coffee shops have asked you for your facebook name to check whether you are engaging in online harassment of their other customers before serving you coffee? If the customer in line in front of you claimed you harassed them, and even showed the barista some proof, would you think it's normal for the barista to throw you out of the shop?

woodruffw 4y ago
I have no idea if they are, and it doesn't matter -- KF's tendency to harass people who want them removed from private service providers is exceptionally well evidenced. They're proud of how much evidence there is! The rest is another indirection: if I'm known to the establishment for harassment, then it makes perfect sense that they'd not want me around. There's no investigative aspect to this situation: KF's history of harassment is a matter of public record. To be blunt: this is a ridiculous hill to die on. Boycotts are about as old as capitalism; the only thing that really distinguishes calls to boycott Cloudflare from any other boycott in history is how ridiculously trivial it would be for them to do the right thing.
- simiones 4y ago
  People boycott companies for something that company did. Please, go ahead and boycott KiwiFarms all you want: you are well within your right to do so, both legally and morally. But extending this to other random people or companies who choose to do business with the thing you are personally boycotting is often going too far.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Where's the "random"? Cloudflare is a services provider: they are a first-degree participant in the affair. You presumably wouldn't object to a boycott of Hugo Boss in 1941, despite not running the camps themselves. Their own TOS makes this clear, and provides justification for a boycott rather than just general ire: it would be one thing if they merely declined to intervene at all, but they're decided to do so selectively.
    - dmatech 4y ago
      It's wise not to interfere with a contract between two or more willing parties (especially as an outsider). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Boycotts (or threatening one) do not remotely qualify as tortious interference, nor does publicly advocating for a publicly traded customer to drop a client.

woodruffw 4y ago

I have no idea if they are, and it doesn't matter -- KF's tendency to harass people who want them removed from private service providers is exceptionally well evidenced. They're proud of how much evidence there is! The rest is another indirection: if I'm known to the establishment for harassment, then it makes perfect sense that they'd not want me around. There's no investigative aspect to this situation: KF's history of harassment is a matter of public record. To be blunt: this is a ridiculous hill to die on. Boycotts are about as old as capitalism; the only thing that really distinguishes calls to boycott Cloudflare from any other boycott in history is how ridiculously trivial it would be for them to do the right thing.

simiones 4y ago
People boycott companies for something that company did. Please, go ahead and boycott KiwiFarms all you want: you are well within your right to do so, both legally and morally. But extending this to other random people or companies who choose to do business with the thing you are personally boycotting is often going too far.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Where's the "random"? Cloudflare is a services provider: they are a first-degree participant in the affair. You presumably wouldn't object to a boycott of Hugo Boss in 1941, despite not running the camps themselves. Their own TOS makes this clear, and provides justification for a boycott rather than just general ire: it would be one thing if they merely declined to intervene at all, but they're decided to do so selectively.
  - dmatech 4y ago
    It's wise not to interfere with a contract between two or more willing parties (especially as an outsider). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Boycotts (or threatening one) do not remotely qualify as tortious interference, nor does publicly advocating for a publicly traded customer to drop a client.