3 ms·

That's why society is dependent on large companies staying in their lane. If a hospital decides to refuse service to bad people because the world would be bett

That's why society is dependent on large companies staying in their lane. If a hospital decides to refuse service to bad people because the world would be better if they died, we'd obviously condemn that. The same is true of some utilities, but general businesses can shun people. Cloudflare tried to stay in its lane, but it was dragged out of it by the Twitter mob.

noasaservice 4y ago
> Cloudflare tried to stay in its lane, but it was dragged out of it by the Twitter mob. That's bullshit. Cloudflare removed the sex worker-friendly social media network Switter over NO complaints or likewise. Cloudflare seems eagerly anti-sexwork and pro nazi. Except when the whole internet comes out and says "NO". Cloudflare can play pretend that it's some "core functionality" of the internet, but their core business is "safeguarding booters to DDoS sites" while they provide the DDoS cover as a business racket. One might even describe it as "organized"
- detaro 4y ago
  I wouldn't call the passing of SESTA/FOSTA "no complaints or likewise". In that specific instance, you can very much put the blame on lawmakers being more anti-sexwork than anti-nazis, if you want to frame it that way.
  - noasaservice 4y ago
    - detaro 4y ago
      I don't think I've claimed that these things aren't illegal or that KF is innocent, so please don't suggest I did. thanks. Cloudflare clearly doesn't care about illegal things their users do unless it becomes a risk or too inconvenient to them. Content on KF might be illegal, but hosting KF with such content is generally not, which is why they could point to Section 230 and stick their fingers in their ears. Whereas SESTA turned Switter into a massive legal risk for them, because it removed that protection. I bet if a SESTA-style law existed against KFs content Cloudflare would have kicked them off very quickly. And in reverse I think there is a good chance that if SESTA hadn't passed, CF would still host Switter. (And just to be clear, SESTA is a terrible law, and trying to "fix" CFs attitude by making more such laws is not worth it. But clearly lawmakers decided kicking sexworkers of the internet was more important/worth it than kicking places like KF off the internet when making it)
- dmatech 4y ago
  FOSTA/SESTA was a poorly-conceived law that created a lot of potential liability for the ostensible goal of reducing sex trafficking. Pretty much all sex work is potentially sex trafficking, so any corporate lawyer will tell management to stay as far away from that as possible. The USA cannot criminalize being a "Nazi" because freedom of political affiliation and political expression is a core right. The USA went through political inquisitions in past decades to root out communism among US citizens, and nobody looks back on that with approval. As an aside, "Nazi" has devolved into a completely meaningless term, so I'd prefer something a bit more specific.

noasaservice 4y ago

> Cloudflare tried to stay in its lane, but it was dragged out of it by the Twitter mob. That's bullshit. Cloudflare removed the sex worker-friendly social media network Switter over NO complaints or likewise. Cloudflare seems eagerly anti-sexwork and pro nazi. Except when the whole internet comes out and says "NO". Cloudflare can play pretend that it's some "core functionality" of the internet, but their core business is "safeguarding booters to DDoS sites" while they provide the DDoS cover as a business racket. One might even describe it as "organized"

detaro 4y ago
I wouldn't call the passing of SESTA/FOSTA "no complaints or likewise". In that specific instance, you can very much put the blame on lawmakers being more anti-sexwork than anti-nazis, if you want to frame it that way.
- noasaservice 4y ago
  - detaro 4y ago
    I don't think I've claimed that these things aren't illegal or that KF is innocent, so please don't suggest I did. thanks. Cloudflare clearly doesn't care about illegal things their users do unless it becomes a risk or too inconvenient to them. Content on KF might be illegal, but hosting KF with such content is generally not, which is why they could point to Section 230 and stick their fingers in their ears. Whereas SESTA turned Switter into a massive legal risk for them, because it removed that protection. I bet if a SESTA-style law existed against KFs content Cloudflare would have kicked them off very quickly. And in reverse I think there is a good chance that if SESTA hadn't passed, CF would still host Switter. (And just to be clear, SESTA is a terrible law, and trying to "fix" CFs attitude by making more such laws is not worth it. But clearly lawmakers decided kicking sexworkers of the internet was more important/worth it than kicking places like KF off the internet when making it)
dmatech 4y ago
FOSTA/SESTA was a poorly-conceived law that created a lot of potential liability for the ostensible goal of reducing sex trafficking. Pretty much all sex work is potentially sex trafficking, so any corporate lawyer will tell management to stay as far away from that as possible. The USA cannot criminalize being a "Nazi" because freedom of political affiliation and political expression is a core right. The USA went through political inquisitions in past decades to root out communism among US citizens, and nobody looks back on that with approval. As an aside, "Nazi" has devolved into a completely meaningless term, so I'd prefer something a bit more specific.