4 ms·
You make a good point that policing who is who is difficult enough that letting bad guys pay $20 month or whatever is "cheaper" than actively validating who the
by schainks 4y ago
You make a good point that policing who is who is difficult enough that letting bad guys pay $20 month or whatever is "cheaper" than actively validating who they are and then kicking them off your service for moral reasons. I get the feeling that 9/10 times these bad actors are on the cheapest cheapo plan available so it's actually very expensive to deal many tiny customers versus one huge one.
Oh, but wait, CloudFlare HAS the resources to validate and act, since they know whose fees to send to rights organizations.
And as for being the fire department? Excuse me? They are a company that exists to make money, not a public service beholden to a specific, lawfully mandated social contract. Their first point is a false equivalency and they can go fuck themselves for even bringing that up.
This statement from them is PR fluff.
Paradox of tolerance. You must be _intolerant_ to these intolerant people or they will fuck up everything for everyone. Cloudflare is letting cancer of society erode public trust, just like every other hyper scale tech company, because businesses exist to make money.
- DoctorOW 4y ago> They are a company that exists to make money, not a public service beholden to a specific, lawfully mandated social contract. Part of the reason for my position as stated above and throughout the thread. I believe that SPECIFICALLY at Cloudflare's scale, they have more control than most governments in the realm of speech. Therefore, they are MORALLY (not legally) required to enact the same social contract. I believe any alternative where they break that social contract will have unintentional repercussions for minority groups. To have my position changed, I would need to be convinced those repercussions wouldn't happen in practice.