2 ms·

On income? How would this work? As a CF customer, I am far more concerned with a policy or precedent of capriciously cutting off customers than a policy of def

• wizofaus 4y ago
  That CF would have made a judgment that a larger percentage of their customers would feel uncomfortable using a service that also appears to support sites like KF is hardly surprising though. And as a corporation they're well within their rights to decide on that basis to cut off relationships with clients that they see as bad for business.
• superkuh 4y ago
  Cloudflare/DDoS-Guard doesn't care about you. You don't do enough business. The DDOS protection company cares about the reactions of the abstract things called corporations and institutions. Corporate persons have different motives than human person do. I don't think it is controversial to say most corporations and institutions have no problem with this decision. That'd be despite what any informed IT dept. employee might believe about the situation. So yes, they worried about their income.
• Shank 4y ago
  > On income? How would this work? Cloudflare is a public company. I can tell you from being in a position to know this at a small company, but the "vendor review / procurement process" that happens to acquire a new service is non-trivial and usually offers several checkpoints to make sure that you're only onboarding vendors that meet strict criteria. One of those criteria is "not being embroiled in an obviously bad PR scandal easily revealed by a basic Google search." CloudFlare is public and that means that their shareholders have the final say, not the individual customers. If shareholders see that CloudFlare's revenue is declining or that key customers are leaving, and there's an obvious reason why that's happening, well, that's the answer to who has the most say. The whole operational plan that @SleepingGiants had during the Trump administration was to systematically identify corporate links and associations, and to highlight them to PR and legal teams who knew how this worked. "Cancellation" works not because individuals are easily moved by emotional arguments. It works because most companies answer to shareholders, and most shareholders care about value and growth. The company has a fiduciary duty to drive value for shareholders. When those stars align, obvious reasons why value is being artificially capped don't become "hard decisions." They become easy ways to increase value. There are very few companies that can successfully hold an ideology. When they do hold an ideology, that ideology is usually aligned with some market force. Apple advertises privacy as its ideology because it's seemingly aligned with shareholder value. The ideology becomes expensive or even net-negative commensurate with the value being driven.
• sealeck 4y ago
  Because you (and others like you) are probably not a substantial source of revenue to Cloudflare. Big companies who are the bulk of Cloudflare's sales (and whom they spend >1.5x on courting than they do on engineering) would rather not be hosted on the same infrastructure that powers hate groups. Not really as a moral thing, but in the same way that e.g. Volkswagen or Samsung or Allianz would rather not advertise on a child pornography website, they'd also rather not host on an infrastructure provider who provide services to a forum whose members try to drive people to commit suicide, make bomb threats, fake calls to counterterrorism hotlines and generally espouse _extreme_ right ideology.