3 ms·
> 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 un
by 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 agoIt 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 agoCF 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 agoI 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.