4 ms·

Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. Post the

Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. Post the screenshot then. Show us what changed between when CF said "KF is acting within the bounds of the law and will remain online" and today. Refusing service to customers you find contemptible is completely reasonable. Continuing to service customers out of a sense of fairness even though you find them contemptible is also reasonable. Pretending that you have a sense of fairness that keeps all legal entities online and abandoning it to protect your bottom line is hypocritical and cowardly. Being a company that protects the vulnerable is every bit as honorable as being a company that stands for freedom of expression. Today Cloudflare proves it is neither.

systemvoltage 4y ago
If you go on Twitter, 90% of the replies aren't happy with Cloudflare's action. They want Cloudflare to do more and blaming CEO for why it took so long. https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1566188237986893824 https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1566188237986893824 Just shows how the activists are hammering Cloudflare CEO into submission. These people want complete abandonment of Freedom of Speech/Expression despite of what CEO is saying in this thread that it isn't about FoS/FoE. I am just terrified of what holds for our future. We used to celebrate speech as progressives back in the 90's and used to defend it with fierce opposition to any supression. They say, freedom and liberty are one generation away, if the newer generation wants CCP-style authoritarianism, they will get it.
- mike_d 4y ago
  Maybe centralizing a measurable percentage of the internet onto a single provider to the point they are frequently in this situation wasn't a great idea. Consider this next time you consider Cloudflare. Not because of what decision they made, but because they are trying to make themselves the pipe that connects any two points on the internet.
  - causality0 4y ago
    I dearly wish there was public-sector internet that was governed by the same rules as the post office. Stay within the law and nothing happens to you, violate the law and get arrested.
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      You think that would be a viable option? One half of the country thinks that we don't need to hand over internet in the hands of Gov. The other half wants to abolish SCOTUS. But in spirit, if it works well like the post office, I am onboard with that idea. The other idea would be to pass laws that make what Cloudflare is doing illegal.
      - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
        The internet is global, some individual countries might have faults with their government, but the idea as a whole could be viable. It would need to be managed by a supranational, non-partisan, multipolar entity.
        systemvoltage 4y ago
        Oh god, I hope you don't mean WEF kind of an entity. On other note, I expect ICANN to become political in a few years, observing the way our institutions are failing, both domestic and international.
      - DangitBobby 4y ago
        > we don't need to hand over the internet in the hands of Gov. I don't know what you're trying to say. > The other half want to abolish SCOTUS Sorry, who are these people? I don't know any.
    - jhugo 4y ago
      We have something even better than that! The Internet is decentralised, no matter how much CF tries to pretend it isn't. Just choose not to use services like CF.
scifibestfi 4y ago
In fact freedom of expression is central to protecting the vulnerable. Civil rights were enabled by free speech.
- abliefern 4y ago
- andrepd 4y ago
  Yes, the vulnerable here being, of course, the people who expressed non-cis gender identity online and were harassed and bullied into shutting up or (preferably) killing themselves, not the forum orchestrating these hunts.
  - tsol 4y ago
    Yes the point being this precedent can be used to hurt minority groups in the future even if it's for the sake of helping a minority group right now
    - wbl 4y ago
      Only if Matthew Prince decides to do that. Plenty of people published Malcom X speeches and not KKK speeches.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

systemvoltage 4y ago

If you go on Twitter, 90% of the replies aren't happy with Cloudflare's action. They want Cloudflare to do more and blaming CEO for why it took so long. https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1566188237986893824 https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1566188237986893824 Just shows how the activists are hammering Cloudflare CEO into submission. These people want complete abandonment of Freedom of Speech/Expression despite of what CEO is saying in this thread that it isn't about FoS/FoE. I am just terrified of what holds for our future. We used to celebrate speech as progressives back in the 90's and used to defend it with fierce opposition to any supression. They say, freedom and liberty are one generation away, if the newer generation wants CCP-style authoritarianism, they will get it.

mike_d 4y ago
Maybe centralizing a measurable percentage of the internet onto a single provider to the point they are frequently in this situation wasn't a great idea. Consider this next time you consider Cloudflare. Not because of what decision they made, but because they are trying to make themselves the pipe that connects any two points on the internet.
- causality0 4y ago
  I dearly wish there was public-sector internet that was governed by the same rules as the post office. Stay within the law and nothing happens to you, violate the law and get arrested.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    You think that would be a viable option? One half of the country thinks that we don't need to hand over internet in the hands of Gov. The other half wants to abolish SCOTUS. But in spirit, if it works well like the post office, I am onboard with that idea. The other idea would be to pass laws that make what Cloudflare is doing illegal.
    - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
      The internet is global, some individual countries might have faults with their government, but the idea as a whole could be viable. It would need to be managed by a supranational, non-partisan, multipolar entity.
      - systemvoltage 4y ago
        Oh god, I hope you don't mean WEF kind of an entity. On other note, I expect ICANN to become political in a few years, observing the way our institutions are failing, both domestic and international.
    - DangitBobby 4y ago
      > we don't need to hand over the internet in the hands of Gov. I don't know what you're trying to say. > The other half want to abolish SCOTUS Sorry, who are these people? I don't know any.
  - jhugo 4y ago
    We have something even better than that! The Internet is decentralised, no matter how much CF tries to pretend it isn't. Just choose not to use services like CF.

scifibestfi 4y ago

In fact freedom of expression is central to protecting the vulnerable. Civil rights were enabled by free speech.

abliefern 4y ago
andrepd 4y ago
Yes, the vulnerable here being, of course, the people who expressed non-cis gender identity online and were harassed and bullied into shutting up or (preferably) killing themselves, not the forum orchestrating these hunts.
- tsol 4y ago
  Yes the point being this precedent can be used to hurt minority groups in the future even if it's for the sake of helping a minority group right now
  - wbl 4y ago
    Only if Matthew Prince decides to do that. Plenty of people published Malcom X speeches and not KKK speeches.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]