6 ms·

Sounds like what you want is some regulation for content hosts, isn't it?

• mccorrinall 4y ago
  I don’t want infrastructure providers to play law enforcement. If they would have had received a court order and acted afterwards, I’d be okay with their decision. But kicking customers for marketing? Meh.
  • doliveira 4y ago
    So, they did it due to commercial reasons, not legal reasons? I assume they judged the commercial repercussions and decided keeping the content was a negative. Why do you think they should host it anyway?
    • Minor49er 4y ago
      They didn't host the content, though. They were only providing DDoS protection
      • doliveira 4y ago
        Tomato, tomato. And in this case, Cloudflare does proxy and cache traffic through its infrastructure, that's their whole business model.
        • Minor49er 4y ago
          Tomato, tomato? There's a very big difference between a hosting provider and a caching service
          • doliveira 4y ago
            In terms of political, public and commercial repercussions, which is what the discussion is about? Not much difference at all.
            • Minor49er 4y ago
              I'm glad you'll keep that in mind so you can describe these entities correctly in the future
  • stjohnswarts 4y ago
    When it's a site trying to get people to kill people over the color of their skin and suicide themselves over being LGBQT, I don't have a problem with a private business saying they won't do business with you. There are plenty of other providers that will. I would be bothered by the government making a company do it however.