6 ms·
So then the answer is for Cloudflare to restructure their company. If they want to be seen as a utility so desperately, make it so! Not having the legal obliga
by phillipcarter 4y ago
So then the answer is for Cloudflare to restructure their company. If they want to be seen as a utility so desperately, make it so!
Not having the legal obligations of a utility, while acting like one (i.e., getting to pull the "neutrality" card in the face of public pressure to drop nazis) is not okay.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoCf themselves are disincentivized to make that change
- phillipcarter 4y agoYes, exactly. They want all the benefits of being seen as a utility, but none of the obligations of actually being one. That's called being slimy.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoWhy not go a step further and call the incentives and the ones who prop them up slimy?
- robryk 4y agoWhat change would that be? I don't know of anything they could do to make themselves a utility besides behaving like one and publicly starting that they intend to do so.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoyes there is a deeper systemic crux to this symptom and it won’t be solved by a business
- robryk 4y agoI'm sorry, i don't see how this answers my question. What do you mean by "this symptom"?
- wahnfrieden 4y agothere’s no serious suggestion that cf reform themselves away from their incentives. their negative behavior is a symptom of a wider structural problem
- robryk 4y agoWhat incentives do you claim they are under? I'm sorry, but you seem to be assuming some context i seem not to have.
- wahnfrieden 4y agojust capitalism lol sorry for speaking a little suggestively on a vc forum
- robryk 4y agoI really mean my original question. I think what CF is doing is trying to behave like a utility, and i think it's arguably in their best interest[1]. You seem to think that it's very obviously not in their interest. Care to elaborate on why? [1] because their business scales very well, so they'd prefer to be considered reliable, so that competition doesn't have that available as a differentiator; any attempt at applying content-dependent rules either uses lots of heuristic automation or is reactive in response to Twitter storms, neither of which is predictable and reliable
- wahnfrieden 4y agoI think it’s an easy and attractive talking point for them to posture publicly and internally, and to feel a connection to their personal philosophies. So far Cf has at most discussed the thought and process behind their policies and actions. I don’t see them offering up real public control and accountability of their service policy and enforcement. They’ll want to keep control over their business operations and seek the business dealings convenience of perceived neutrality, which they can do through thought leadership bs etc.
- vorpalhex 4y agoAs a private company, they can choose how they serve users. Isn't this what gets said everytime Twitter bans someone? Cloudflare is allowed to offer services to people you don't like.
- phillipcarter 4y agoAnd we're allowed to pressure them to act more ethical.
- Banana699 4y agoOk, but your pressuring is not working. We're just trying to save you from wasting your time.
- phillipcarter 4y agoYou should look at their stock price.
- Banana699 4y agoIt took a hit because a bunch of random nobodies are raging about them on HN?
- pvillano 4y agoPrivate companies are allowed to do a lot of immoral things because lobbying prevents the law from accurately reflecting the values of the voting public. Nazis shouldn't get a website, even if the law permits it, and everyone has a moral obligation to fight fascism.
- vorpalhex 4y agoEveryone has a right to speech, even speech that is not good. That applies to gay people at Stonewall and the KKK marching in DC equally. If you would restrict one then you restrict both. The freedom is absolute or it does not exist for anyone except the current favored group. It's like laws on the treatment of prisoners of war - we don't have those rules because we love our enemy, it's because we want our brothers to not be tortured.