4 ms·

So to avoid this, how should they have done things differently?

• bayindirh 4y ago
  Maybe they should have confined "bad" hosting to some IPs and disseminated this to countries directly? P.S.: I'm not serious, of course.
  • CrazyStat 4y ago
    RFC 3514 would be helpful here.
    • bayindirh 4y ago
      Ah, yes. That’s a much more elegant way.
• dogecoinbase 4y ago
  This is literally the business model. The owner of an IP address is responsible for the content delivered from that IP address. Cloudflare would like to have it both ways -- they get to multiplex sites behind their network infrastructure and accept money for the service, but not be responsible for the content that they deliver, because it originally came from somewhere else.
  • robertlagrant 4y ago
    In case the use of "literally" wasn't enough of a clue, this is incorrect. For the same reason that the DNS service, the ISP, or the internet itself are not responsible for the content.
  • tomByrer 4y ago
    > The owner of an IP address is responsible for the content delivered from that IP address Nope, you are totally wrong; they are immune by US law. AFAIK, CloudFlare removed only a handful of sites, but protected 100s - 1000s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230