6 ms·

For starters, these events are totally unrelated, and are a very strange false equivalence. Would be very curious to see more details of Tavis’ claim though. Th

For starters, these events are totally unrelated, and are a very strange false equivalence. Would be very curious to see more details of Tavis’ claim though. That being said, CF is still in the right for the stand they’re taking on not being a content regulator of their base internet utilities.

6c737133 4y ago
Nothing better than claiming the perks of "being a utility provider" while bearing none of the burdens lol If CF didn't offer free DDoS protection - ironically, whilst providing cover & protection to the greatest # of DDoS-4-hire websites on the clear-web - they would have nothing else to offer that would be considered best-in-class But yeah, they're the preeminent force in ensuring free speech on the internet lol
- llama052 4y ago
  I think they offer a lot of best in class services, have you used the enterprise tier or just the free tier?
- fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago
  A lot of their services, such as R2 storage, have literally no competition.
  - fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago
    Hope the guy who down voted me enjoys paying 100-1000 times more to Amazon's egress racket!
    - markovbot 4y ago
      not the one who downvoted you, but backblaze has similar pricing: https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html
      - trollied 4y ago
        Backblaze also has free egress to Cloudflare. Which is very cost efficient.
        fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago
        Using this for significant amounts of non-html content will get your account disabled. They only allow it for R2.
- _8j50 4y ago
  I am all for a law compelling companies like CF to cooperate with LE and censor on behalf of the state if that is the will of the people. They are a utility provider that has not been expected by society to fund and administer a censorship operation. Go and vote if you think they should be compelled to censor.
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    Unless I'm misunderstanding your idea, that sounds like it goes against the First Amendment.
    - _8j50 4y ago
      That's why I said vote. But not neccesarily, companies are not people they are not protected by the bill of rights and this is already happening when LE forcibly takeover domains to censor them with cause of course. Also, freedom of speech does not include speech made with thr intent and effect of causing demonstrable harm.
      - Hamuko 4y ago
        >That's why I said vote. Constitutional amendments are so tricky that I'm not sure if just going out to vote is gonna change anything. >Also, freedom of speech does not include speech made with thr intent and effect of causing demonstrable harm. I don't think that is a legal standard for the First Amendment. Advocacy of violence is protected speech under the First Amendment.
        _8j50 4y ago
        States needs to ratify amendments so having enough state legislatures and laws to support the amendment is the best way. Having someone propose it at the fed level is the easy part.
    - 6c737133 4y ago
      lol plz see my reply to OP
phillipcarter 4y ago
> That being said, CF is still in the right for the stand they’re taking on not being a content regulator of their base internet utilities. This is entirely unrelated to the issue of if they should stop offering their services to known Very Bad People. Nothing about current events with CF is related to regulating content.
- cassonmars 4y ago
  It absolutely is about regulating content. Just because the content and the people that generate it are vile does not mean an internet backbone utility should play great internet censor about it. I say this as exactly the kind of person (trans) that the community in question loves to attack.
  - phillipcarter 4y ago
    CF isn't a utility. KF is perfectly capable of operating on their own, without CF's products. This is strictly a matter of CF's desire to continue to do business with them. Their whole spiel on the blog post about how they're a utility is just dancing around the issue - they have no legal obligations that an actual utility does. It's an interesting discussion if they, and others like them, should be considered a utility. But that's neither here nor there because they aren't one.
    - derangedHorse 4y ago
      I don’t think CF ever said they had a legal obligation and I don’t think they ever wanted to be perceived as if they do so I don’t think the reminder in your comment changes any stances. The fact of the matter is that people are mad because CF is protecting a site against digital vigilante justice instead of finding a better means to approach taking down KF. As a company CF could deny service to KF but then it would be giving power to the vocal dissidents who could seemingly quiet any site they find disagreeable.

6c737133 4y ago

Nothing better than claiming the perks of "being a utility provider" while bearing none of the burdens lol If CF didn't offer free DDoS protection - ironically, whilst providing cover & protection to the greatest # of DDoS-4-hire websites on the clear-web - they would have nothing else to offer that would be considered best-in-class But yeah, they're the preeminent force in ensuring free speech on the internet lol

llama052 4y ago
I think they offer a lot of best in class services, have you used the enterprise tier or just the free tier?
fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago
A lot of their services, such as R2 storage, have literally no competition.
- fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago
  Hope the guy who down voted me enjoys paying 100-1000 times more to Amazon's egress racket!
  - markovbot 4y ago
    not the one who downvoted you, but backblaze has similar pricing: https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html
    - trollied 4y ago
      Backblaze also has free egress to Cloudflare. Which is very cost efficient.
      - fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago
        Using this for significant amounts of non-html content will get your account disabled. They only allow it for R2.
_8j50 4y ago
I am all for a law compelling companies like CF to cooperate with LE and censor on behalf of the state if that is the will of the people. They are a utility provider that has not been expected by society to fund and administer a censorship operation. Go and vote if you think they should be compelled to censor.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  Unless I'm misunderstanding your idea, that sounds like it goes against the First Amendment.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    That's why I said vote. But not neccesarily, companies are not people they are not protected by the bill of rights and this is already happening when LE forcibly takeover domains to censor them with cause of course. Also, freedom of speech does not include speech made with thr intent and effect of causing demonstrable harm.
    - Hamuko 4y ago
      >That's why I said vote. Constitutional amendments are so tricky that I'm not sure if just going out to vote is gonna change anything. >Also, freedom of speech does not include speech made with thr intent and effect of causing demonstrable harm. I don't think that is a legal standard for the First Amendment. Advocacy of violence is protected speech under the First Amendment.
      - _8j50 4y ago
        States needs to ratify amendments so having enough state legislatures and laws to support the amendment is the best way. Having someone propose it at the fed level is the easy part.
  - 6c737133 4y ago
    lol plz see my reply to OP

phillipcarter 4y ago

> That being said, CF is still in the right for the stand they’re taking on not being a content regulator of their base internet utilities. This is entirely unrelated to the issue of if they should stop offering their services to known Very Bad People. Nothing about current events with CF is related to regulating content.

cassonmars 4y ago
It absolutely is about regulating content. Just because the content and the people that generate it are vile does not mean an internet backbone utility should play great internet censor about it. I say this as exactly the kind of person (trans) that the community in question loves to attack.
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  CF isn't a utility. KF is perfectly capable of operating on their own, without CF's products. This is strictly a matter of CF's desire to continue to do business with them. Their whole spiel on the blog post about how they're a utility is just dancing around the issue - they have no legal obligations that an actual utility does. It's an interesting discussion if they, and others like them, should be considered a utility. But that's neither here nor there because they aren't one.
  - derangedHorse 4y ago
    I don’t think CF ever said they had a legal obligation and I don’t think they ever wanted to be perceived as if they do so I don’t think the reminder in your comment changes any stances. The fact of the matter is that people are mad because CF is protecting a site against digital vigilante justice instead of finding a better means to approach taking down KF. As a company CF could deny service to KF but then it would be giving power to the vocal dissidents who could seemingly quiet any site they find disagreeable.