3 ms·

There just simply isn't much of a story here. The law says that CF can refuse service to anyone and that isn't going to change. They're not a monopoly and ther

There just simply isn't much of a story here. The law says that CF can refuse service to anyone and that isn't going to change. They're not a monopoly and there's no chance someone is going to be able to force them to provide a service they don't want to provide unless it's contrary to a contract CF signed, which isn't likely here. There are three main reasons CF would cancel service. 1. Cost: Unlikely as CF seems to relish the opportunity to defend against big ddos (see all their blog posts on this subject). 2. Law: if they find they're providing service contrary to US law. The straightforward example is aiding terrorism. Also unlikely. 3. Loss of future revenue due to negative PR reputation. Most likely. They're defending against bad publicity. This same story has played out a zillion times and way before the internet. This isn't new or interesting. This is a tired and repeated storyline.

serf 4y ago
>This isn't new or interesting. This is a tired and repeated storyline. it isn't new or interesting until you consider (their own) 'infrastructure' narrative. Infrastructure, generally, is required by public lawmakers to require oversights and accommodations that a privately owned company would not generally be held to. Let's take any other infrastructure as an example. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if the power company decided to selectively turn off power to properties owned by 'The Westboro Baptist Church'? OK -- let's try another that isn't protected by religious freedom laws. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if the power company decided to disallow service to white nationalist radical groups? What if they have broken no laws? Generally speaking, the only politics that I want my infrastructure to kowtow to is local abided-by laws and regulations. I don't think infrastructure should be a mouth-piece for bias-politick on one side or another. Now, if CF wants to admit that they're just a regular old private company -- sure, they can do as they please. They shouldn't have the benefits of self-proclaimed infrastructure while still being allowed to operate as a private group without oversight.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Infrastructure analogies are terrible. It seems everyone on HN wants to have their cake and eat it too. "I" don't get to install infrastructure. Instead there are any number of codes that control it and licensed installers must certify it and then it must be inspected (and depending on what, at a regular basis). If at any point the infrastructure becomes harmful (for example a gas leak) that infrastructure will be shut down for the safety of others. The problem must then be remediated and then again certified to be safe. Society, in general, does not allow unsafe infrastructure I mean, yea, we can hold groups like Cloudflare to that standard, but I don't think this is going to be the panacea for those that like to intimidate and use violence you think it is.

serf 4y ago

>This isn't new or interesting. This is a tired and repeated storyline. it isn't new or interesting until you consider (their own) 'infrastructure' narrative. Infrastructure, generally, is required by public lawmakers to require oversights and accommodations that a privately owned company would not generally be held to. Let's take any other infrastructure as an example. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if the power company decided to selectively turn off power to properties owned by 'The Westboro Baptist Church'? OK -- let's try another that isn't protected by religious freedom laws. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if the power company decided to disallow service to white nationalist radical groups? What if they have broken no laws? Generally speaking, the only politics that I want my infrastructure to kowtow to is local abided-by laws and regulations. I don't think infrastructure should be a mouth-piece for bias-politick on one side or another. Now, if CF wants to admit that they're just a regular old private company -- sure, they can do as they please. They shouldn't have the benefits of self-proclaimed infrastructure while still being allowed to operate as a private group without oversight.

pixl97 4y ago
Infrastructure analogies are terrible. It seems everyone on HN wants to have their cake and eat it too. "I" don't get to install infrastructure. Instead there are any number of codes that control it and licensed installers must certify it and then it must be inspected (and depending on what, at a regular basis). If at any point the infrastructure becomes harmful (for example a gas leak) that infrastructure will be shut down for the safety of others. The problem must then be remediated and then again certified to be safe. Society, in general, does not allow unsafe infrastructure I mean, yea, we can hold groups like Cloudflare to that standard, but I don't think this is going to be the panacea for those that like to intimidate and use violence you think it is.