3 ms·
>The big unanswered question is how they'll manage to stay good given the obvious incentive of abusing this setup. Why do you think they're still "good"? Cloud
by quanticle 4y ago
>The big unanswered question is how they'll manage to stay good given the obvious incentive of abusing this setup.
Why do you think they're still "good"? CloudFlare has chosen to abandon sites that held free speech (abhorrent speech, but still free speech) while still protecting forums upon which credit cards and methamphetamine were listed for sale on the front page.
To me, that's not a sign of a "good" actor.
- waboremo 4y agoFree speech doesn't exist within the context of a privately held website.
- marcellus23 4y agoFree speech is an ideal, not just an amendment.
- riffraff 4y agobut a private entity (person or corp) does not have any obligation to protect ideas they find abhorrent to be considered on the side of "good".
- iceburgcrm 4y agoThat's the point. They find free speech abhorrent but consider selling dangerous drugs to be acceptable. So many people find them abhorrent because they represent different values. Legally no one has any obligations here.
- quanticle 4y agoAgreed, but it's a strange value system that says, "Dealing meth and stolen credit cards is okay, but having a web forum that makes fun of people is not."