3 ms·

I think Cloudflare didn't help their case when they started blocking websites based on their content (I think it started with a neo-Nazi journal). Many people

by GuB-42 3y ago

I think Cloudflare didn't help their case when they started blocking websites based on their content (I think it started with a neo-Nazi journal). Many people predicted (rightfully it seems) that it will haunt them back when copyright holders will hold Cloudflare responsible for piracy. Banning such sites mean they are no more content neutral. If Cloudflare cares that their users follow whatever rules are against neo-Nazi content, they should also care that they follow copyright law, at least from the point of view of copyright holders.

BlackFly 3y ago
Upon learning what your customer is doing, one can choose to stop doing business with them. Whether it should be a requirement of a B2B enterprise with a liability component is easily separable from that. Any sufficiently large corporation providing services to criminal organizations is an attractive target for a certain type of lawsuit. Maybe the plaintiffs honestly felt wronged and wanted the courts to make them right, but based on the history of these types of suits I feel it is simply weaponization of the legal system which ultimately undermines public opinion that our laws (ought to or do) serve justice. The cynical view that laws are wholly divorced from justice, while perhaps a realist view, is not beneficial to a free and democratic society.
immibis 3y ago
The two are unrelated. They would still be sued for piracy sites even if they didn't block Nazi sites.
redserk 3y ago
I disagree both for German courts and US courts. This makes the assumption that the German courts care about Cloudflare’s previous actions in another country related to removing what’s perceived as offensive content. I don’t see why they would care about this. Next, if you’re talking about US law, that doesn’t hold up either. The US doesn’t have to take into account previous activity regarding neutrality. I’m assuming the reasoning here lies in Section 230. Providers can still be held liable for the content that passes through their systems, especially if they don’t reasonably regulate what is done on their network. The $1bn verdict (that was upheld!) against Cox for piracy by their customers is something to consider. https://variety.com/2019/music/news/cox-communications-music-copyright-suit-verdict-1203449254/ https://variety.com/2019/music/news/cox-communications-music...
freejazz 3y ago
>I think Cloudflare didn't help their case when they started blocking websites based on their content (I think it started with a neo-Nazi journal). Was this cited by the court in making its determination? I'd imagine not. In fact, I imagine this has nothing to do with Cloudflare's liability at all.

by GuB-42 3y ago

BlackFly 3y ago

Upon learning what your customer is doing, one can choose to stop doing business with them. Whether it should be a requirement of a B2B enterprise with a liability component is easily separable from that. Any sufficiently large corporation providing services to criminal organizations is an attractive target for a certain type of lawsuit. Maybe the plaintiffs honestly felt wronged and wanted the courts to make them right, but based on the history of these types of suits I feel it is simply weaponization of the legal system which ultimately undermines public opinion that our laws (ought to or do) serve justice. The cynical view that laws are wholly divorced from justice, while perhaps a realist view, is not beneficial to a free and democratic society.

immibis 3y ago

The two are unrelated. They would still be sued for piracy sites even if they didn't block Nazi sites.

redserk 3y ago

I disagree both for German courts and US courts. This makes the assumption that the German courts care about Cloudflare’s previous actions in another country related to removing what’s perceived as offensive content. I don’t see why they would care about this. Next, if you’re talking about US law, that doesn’t hold up either. The US doesn’t have to take into account previous activity regarding neutrality. I’m assuming the reasoning here lies in Section 230. Providers can still be held liable for the content that passes through their systems, especially if they don’t reasonably regulate what is done on their network. The $1bn verdict (that was upheld!) against Cox for piracy by their customers is something to consider. https://variety.com/2019/music/news/cox-communications-music-copyright-suit-verdict-1203449254/ https://variety.com/2019/music/news/cox-communications-music...

freejazz 3y ago

>I think Cloudflare didn't help their case when they started blocking websites based on their content (I think it started with a neo-Nazi journal). Was this cited by the court in making its determination? I'd imagine not. In fact, I imagine this has nothing to do with Cloudflare's liability at all.