3 ms·

- "This also means that if a country DNS-blocks our main domain, a secondary domain may still be available. This could arguably be seen as a violation of the Cl

- "This also means that if a country DNS-blocks our main domain, a secondary domain may still be available. This could arguably be seen as a violation of the Cloudflare TOS, as they wrote above." Attorneys love it when people put everything in writing like this.

albert_e 2y ago
Devil's advocate: If a country A decides to block twitter.com but forgets to ban x.com which remains available ... is Twitter engaging in illegality / violation of CDN terms of service?
- gruez 2y ago
  Like most things in the legal system, it depends on intent. It's pretty obvious that twitter's rebrand to x.com was an actual rebrand and not some way of evading domain bans.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    The author claims a reasonable intent and they give a traffic number that proves they're not doing "domain rotation".
    - gruez 2y ago
      >The author claims a reasonable intent Right, I'm not arguing that they're guilty, just that the legal system doesn't operate off pure black and white rules like "if you have two seemingly unrelated domains then you're trying to evade bans". >and they give a traffic number that proves they're not doing "domain rotation". Are you talking about the part where they said "95% of our traffic through the main domain"? Without additional context behind that number it's a stretch to claim that "proves" they're not trying to evade bans. For instance if their country is banned in country A, but country A is a small country that only makes up 3% of their overall traffic, they can confidently claim "95% of our traffic through the main domain" while still theoretically using alternate domains for ban evasion purposes.
radiojosh 2y ago
This has always been my concern about establishing a presence online. I've considered blogging about my experiences at work or the cool stuff that I've built and it feels impossible for me to know when I've crossed a legal boundary. How do I know for sure if I'm sharing proprietary stuff or confidential stuff. The lines of legality seem to get blurry real quick.
Dylan16807 2y ago
This is legally equivalent to "we have domain aliases". Lots of sites have those. Do you think that's really the problem here?
- eschaton 2y ago
  No, it’s technically equivalent. I be legally equivalent it would be required to prove (or disprove) intent.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

albert_e 2y ago

Devil's advocate: If a country A decides to block twitter.com but forgets to ban x.com which remains available ... is Twitter engaging in illegality / violation of CDN terms of service?

gruez 2y ago
Like most things in the legal system, it depends on intent. It's pretty obvious that twitter's rebrand to x.com was an actual rebrand and not some way of evading domain bans.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  The author claims a reasonable intent and they give a traffic number that proves they're not doing "domain rotation".
  - gruez 2y ago
    >The author claims a reasonable intent Right, I'm not arguing that they're guilty, just that the legal system doesn't operate off pure black and white rules like "if you have two seemingly unrelated domains then you're trying to evade bans". >and they give a traffic number that proves they're not doing "domain rotation". Are you talking about the part where they said "95% of our traffic through the main domain"? Without additional context behind that number it's a stretch to claim that "proves" they're not trying to evade bans. For instance if their country is banned in country A, but country A is a small country that only makes up 3% of their overall traffic, they can confidently claim "95% of our traffic through the main domain" while still theoretically using alternate domains for ban evasion purposes.

radiojosh 2y ago

This has always been my concern about establishing a presence online. I've considered blogging about my experiences at work or the cool stuff that I've built and it feels impossible for me to know when I've crossed a legal boundary. How do I know for sure if I'm sharing proprietary stuff or confidential stuff. The lines of legality seem to get blurry real quick.

Dylan16807 2y ago

This is legally equivalent to "we have domain aliases". Lots of sites have those. Do you think that's really the problem here?

eschaton 2y ago
No, it’s technically equivalent. I be legally equivalent it would be required to prove (or disprove) intent.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]