> It's obvious to everyone else that they are, in fact, a hate site, and that their purpose is to organize harassment and violence. I don't think it's obvious.

> It's obvious to everyone else that they are, in fact, a hate site, and that their purpose is to organize harassment and violence. I don't think it's obvious. It sounds possible, sure, but they vigorously deny it, and when it comes to actual, falsifiable claims, I don't think the evidence is terribly strong. (For instance, the alleged "Kiwi Farms death list" contains people who did not even have an active thread on the forum). When you make a serious claim like this, it does seem like some more evidence is in order than "everyone knows it". > As a private business, CloudFlare enjoys the freedom to choose with whom it does business. If they were required by law to provide services indiscriminately, then they could not be held responsible. But that's not the case. No privilege comes without responsibility, and the means by which they exercise this freedom should be in accordance with their values. Then where does the limit go? Do you, as a general rule, support large monopoly corporations having veto rights over all public speech?