10 ms·

To be even clearer, in this case it’s not even really quite clear that this was legal content at all! Coordinated stalking of people! Of course you could say “

by rtpg 4y ago

To be even clearer, in this case it’s not even really quite clear that this was legal content at all! Coordinated stalking of people! Of course you could say “the legal system should handle it”. But what serious company says “let’s wait for a court to maximize our legal exposure”. The guy cited hard cases. This seems pretty easy! And of course, why does Cloudflare proactively take down other sites that have anything to do with sex work but require a billion justifications for sites like this?

Kalium 4y ago
Is that a rhetorical question or a sincere one? Legal liability. American law has lots of direct liability for Cloudflare under SESTA/FOSTA for being involved in sex work websites. There's not equivalent liability for hate websites.
- rtpg 4y ago
  It is rhetorical. CF admits that they have contacted law enforcement several times about contact in kiwi farm. They clearly get the hosting of the “problematic” content. They understand how that site is used. That seems like an admission of guilt to me! Anyone who wants to be a bit of an activist investor: who at the company is putting the company at needless legal risk?
  - Kalium 4y ago
    As far as I'm aware, KF didn't come with the kind of direct liability under US law that sex work content does. I welcome the chance to learn that I'm wrong here!
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    This seems like the correct thing. They realise the content is dodgy. Report to law enforcement repeatedly hoping that they look at it and give them a legal reason to shut them down. If they shut things down as a private company, so long as the customer is not in breach of the service contract and the content is not illegal, couldn’t they mount a defence? This sounds like a reasonable strategy. I don’t understand this need for private justice.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> And of course, why does Cloudflare proactively take down other sites that have anything to do with sex work but require a billion justifications for sites like this? It’s almost certainly cultural more than anything else. Sex workers are regarded negatively by vastly larger proportions of most communities, while hate groups are incredibly partisan. Not that it justifies the distinction, if anything it should be a clarion call to humanize and decriminalize sex work.
eastdakota 4y ago
Because we’re a U.S.-based company subject to SESTA and the one site in question we took down affirmatively told us they were violating SESTA. SESTA is a very bad law. But, if you’re violating it, don’t wave that fact in the face of your infrastructure providers who are liable under the law for providing service to you. We continue to work to overturn or repeal SESTA.
- rtpg 4y ago
  - scrollaway 4y ago
    > I would recommend you stop posting Can we not turn HN a place where we shit on CEOs for actually being openly communicative and cutting through the bullshit? The fact Matt is here talking about stuff you yourself think "his lawyers would disapprove of" is a great quality of this site.
    - rtpg 4y ago
      I was thinking “if I was your lawyer” and didn’t type it. Then hit enter and saw my message, and edited it. The problems of getting in flamewars while making breakfast! I would recommend to anyone to follow the advice of their lawyers regarding posting to hacker news! But it’s mainly a joke EDIT: and to the original post, I was being way too glib. I do kinda believe what I say but there are less agressive ways of saying it. Again, breakfast posting, but legitimately touchy subject for obvious reasons and I should keep my cool.
  - JYellensFuckboy 4y ago
    Please don't tell him to stop posting. Some of us appreciate the insight direct from Cloudfare's founder and CEO.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > to be under oath and claim nobody at your company was like “maybe this site is coordinating illegal activity” and you said “nah” and continued to provide services for them? I think Cloudflare did the right thing. But I'd fight for a CEO's right to make calls about user-generated content without worrying about liability because someone suspected something.

by rtpg 4y ago

Kalium 4y ago

Is that a rhetorical question or a sincere one? Legal liability. American law has lots of direct liability for Cloudflare under SESTA/FOSTA for being involved in sex work websites. There's not equivalent liability for hate websites.

rtpg 4y ago
It is rhetorical. CF admits that they have contacted law enforcement several times about contact in kiwi farm. They clearly get the hosting of the “problematic” content. They understand how that site is used. That seems like an admission of guilt to me! Anyone who wants to be a bit of an activist investor: who at the company is putting the company at needless legal risk?
- Kalium 4y ago
  As far as I'm aware, KF didn't come with the kind of direct liability under US law that sex work content does. I welcome the chance to learn that I'm wrong here!
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  This seems like the correct thing. They realise the content is dodgy. Report to law enforcement repeatedly hoping that they look at it and give them a legal reason to shut them down. If they shut things down as a private company, so long as the customer is not in breach of the service contract and the content is not illegal, couldn’t they mount a defence? This sounds like a reasonable strategy. I don’t understand this need for private justice.

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> And of course, why does Cloudflare proactively take down other sites that have anything to do with sex work but require a billion justifications for sites like this? It’s almost certainly cultural more than anything else. Sex workers are regarded negatively by vastly larger proportions of most communities, while hate groups are incredibly partisan. Not that it justifies the distinction, if anything it should be a clarion call to humanize and decriminalize sex work.

eastdakota 4y ago

Because we’re a U.S.-based company subject to SESTA and the one site in question we took down affirmatively told us they were violating SESTA. SESTA is a very bad law. But, if you’re violating it, don’t wave that fact in the face of your infrastructure providers who are liable under the law for providing service to you. We continue to work to overturn or repeal SESTA.

rtpg 4y ago
- scrollaway 4y ago
  > I would recommend you stop posting Can we not turn HN a place where we shit on CEOs for actually being openly communicative and cutting through the bullshit? The fact Matt is here talking about stuff you yourself think "his lawyers would disapprove of" is a great quality of this site.
  - rtpg 4y ago
    I was thinking “if I was your lawyer” and didn’t type it. Then hit enter and saw my message, and edited it. The problems of getting in flamewars while making breakfast! I would recommend to anyone to follow the advice of their lawyers regarding posting to hacker news! But it’s mainly a joke EDIT: and to the original post, I was being way too glib. I do kinda believe what I say but there are less agressive ways of saying it. Again, breakfast posting, but legitimately touchy subject for obvious reasons and I should keep my cool.
- JYellensFuckboy 4y ago
  Please don't tell him to stop posting. Some of us appreciate the insight direct from Cloudfare's founder and CEO.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > to be under oath and claim nobody at your company was like “maybe this site is coordinating illegal activity” and you said “nah” and continued to provide services for them? I think Cloudflare did the right thing. But I'd fight for a CEO's right to make calls about user-generated content without worrying about liability because someone suspected something.