3 ms·

Sounds great - if a website is hosting content that is illegal, then there are laws that can be enforced by the government. The government, in the united state

Sounds great - if a website is hosting content that is illegal, then there are laws that can be enforced by the government. The government, in the united states at least, cannot restrict freedom of speech. Its kind of a big deal. Hoping that corporations revoke their ddos protection so that terrorists can ddos them down is laughable. "I know the government can't do it, but ... just walk away wink wink and I am sure the problem will be fixed wink wink". Come on.

zimpenfish 4y ago
> The government, in the united states at least, cannot restrict freedom of speech. But USGOV doesn't run Cloudflare. They are perfectly able to pick and choose their own customers without any reference to 1A. > if a website is hosting content that is illegal No-one is obliged to service them.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  You seem to misunderstand - or at least I hope you are misunderstanding. If a group is doing something illegal, the government should act. You seem to imply "Well if they are doing something illegal, people shouldn't have to work with them." I think you know what I know - they aren't going to be targeted by the government because they are not, in fact, doing something illegal.
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > If a group is doing something illegal, the government should act. Yes but as you surely know, the government has limited resources which precludes them from acting on every illegal act in a timely manner. Which means that groups can, and do, get away with illegal acts for a long time before they get to the front of the queue for being dealt with. > they aren't going to be targeted by the government because they are not, in fact, doing something illegal. It is a fact that the government may not target you because you are not doing something illegal - 100%, yes. But it is also a fact that you can be doing something illegal for a long time before the government targets you. You cannot use government inaction as proof one way or the other.

zimpenfish 4y ago

> The government, in the united states at least, cannot restrict freedom of speech. But USGOV doesn't run Cloudflare. They are perfectly able to pick and choose their own customers without any reference to 1A. > if a website is hosting content that is illegal No-one is obliged to service them.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
You seem to misunderstand - or at least I hope you are misunderstanding. If a group is doing something illegal, the government should act. You seem to imply "Well if they are doing something illegal, people shouldn't have to work with them." I think you know what I know - they aren't going to be targeted by the government because they are not, in fact, doing something illegal.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > If a group is doing something illegal, the government should act. Yes but as you surely know, the government has limited resources which precludes them from acting on every illegal act in a timely manner. Which means that groups can, and do, get away with illegal acts for a long time before they get to the front of the queue for being dealt with. > they aren't going to be targeted by the government because they are not, in fact, doing something illegal. It is a fact that the government may not target you because you are not doing something illegal - 100%, yes. But it is also a fact that you can be doing something illegal for a long time before the government targets you. You cannot use government inaction as proof one way or the other.