2 ms·
Except it's absolutely up to the whims of private businesses, if you want to be consistent with how businesses are understood in the US. In the US corporations
by hnbad 4y ago
Except it's absolutely up to the whims of private businesses, if you want to be consistent with how businesses are understood in the US.
In the US corporations are people and money is speech. Cloudflare can try to become a public utility if they want but right now they're a corporation and they're making a political decision to continue to take money from customers that use their services to operate harmful social spaces that are used to coordinate targeted harassment campaigns and drive vulnerable people into suicide.
They frame selling DDoS protection as a neutral and good thing because it prevents cybercrime. But would you accept the same argument for selling ballistic vests? Plate carriers? APCs? Clearly selling defensive equipment to both sides of a conflict is still involving yourself in a conflict. If you want to be neutral, you don't involve yourself, you don't sell.
And to make matters worse, the general consensus is that the party they're selling DDoS protection to are "the bad guys" in this conflict. The guy operating it literally had to create his own hosting company because he ran out of hosting providers willing to do business with him. He had to resort to crypto wallets because payment providers have long banned his site.
Even if there wouldn't be any evidence that he encourages and participates in the harassment campaigns his site is known for (a site, by the way, that was literally created to harass one specific individual), the person maintaining that site still took a principled stand to allow this behavior to continue despite what it cost him. And now Cloudflare's CEO took the same stand to continue doing business with this person.
- abigail95 4y agoWhy do you think it makes a difference whether Cloudflare meets California's public utility law? The law, which could change, doesn't solve the moral objections you have here. Or does it? Do you think it's OK to provide network protection to Kiwi Farms is California politicians say so, but not if Cloudflare says so? Corporations are people because you can sue them. This is good. Money is not speech, but spending money on your speech is legal (and good), just because money flows through a corporation doesn't mean speech that would be legal otherwise can be restricted. This is good. Whether Cloudflare meets the legal definition of a public utility doesn't matter. Nobody, including Cloudflare alleges they have to provide the service. The provide the service becauase they want to prevent network attacks from everyone. This position is mutually exclusive to protecting people from other, non network attack harasssment. From their words they want to address and remove the negative externalitiies of network attacks, and you can't do that if you pick and choose at all.