3 ms·

Hello. I was in practically the same situation: I hosted a political site via cloudflare that some people took exception to. In my case they took the example

by maxk42 2y ago

Hello. I was in practically the same situation: I hosted a political site via cloudflare that some people took exception to. In my case they took the example of clearly satirical cartoons (that were uploaded by users - not my own content)and claimed they promoted violence. Cloudflare immediately terminated my account without warning and refused to refund me for the remainder of the month. The harasser then went on to contact my host and after a campaign of reporting every cartoon over the course of several months the host decided it wasn't worth the headache anymore and dropped me also. This experience really soured me on the lack of defense of free speech in the US. I'm afraid I have nothing to offer but my sympathies. If you're reading this and hosting political content on Cloudflare please act accordingly.

wandaluzt 2y ago
Yeah I really regret using Cloudflare. It was in the back of my mind that they could 'throw me under the bus' to use a British colloquialism. I'm amazed that this can happen so easily in the US. I realise the US courts probably don't care about UK citizens, but free speech is free speech. I realise that's not without consequence, there's been nothing untrue said about this individual to warrant this action.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  How are US courts relevant in a case concerning a UK citizen being challenged by another UK citizen in the UK? From what I understand anyone in the UK can make claims, file cases, etc…, against anyone else. Edit: They may take action in another jurisdiction where they posesss some advantage, but it would have to be taken up in UK courts to actually mete out formal punishment.
  - wandaluzt 2y ago
    Cloudflare is the middleman to my site. The individual got a court to issue a subpoena to Cloudflare, a US based company to find out the identity of the operators of the site.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      I edited the prior comment a minute after I posted it. How is that relevant when they would still need to go to a UK court to go after you in some way? Which is what you are afraid of, I’m assumming?
      - wandaluzt 2y ago
        At least in the UK a lawyer would tell him whether he had a case or not. At least I'd be dealing with the UK court system where I have some chance of understanding it. I also have legal insurance. I do not genuinely believe it would get to court. Cloudflare just handing over details is just chilling. They could have just asked me to take the content down.
r33b33 2y ago
Why not host in China or Mongolia or Russia and never have to deal with any of these issues?
- wandaluzt 2y ago
  I'd rather not give my money to any of them! I realise you're probably being ironic given the whole USA free speech thing.
  - pas 2y ago
    No, it sounds like the kind of pragmatism required to uphold higher-order principles.
SahAssar 2y ago
> lack of defense of free speech in the US Free speech (as in the first amendment) allows you to say most things, it does not however compel others to broadcast or host your speech. So there is no free speech argument for a service provider to be required to host your website or protect it with a reverse proxy. You can speak, but nobody is required to give you a megaphone and nobody is required to listen.
- wandaluzt 2y ago
  No, but you wouldn't expect them to just hand over a users data just because some individual doesn't like the opinion someone has of them. There are consequences for free speech I totally understand that. Unfortunately the consequences for me are not going to be good.
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    That's a violation of privacy problem, quite different from free speech. With all the vacuuming of user data, our data is leaking around all the time for all sorts of reasons, including just being sold. No subpoena required.
- magnoliakobus 2y ago
  Cloudflare is very happy to lend their megaphone and DDoS protection to people hosting nonconsensual pornography boards on the other hand. Along with a multitude of other sites that exist solely to traffic in human misery and exploitation. Even when you follow their processes to the letter to report them nothing comes of it.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  Free speech is an interface, the first amendment is an implementation. We can’t use them interchangeably. So when you say > there is no free speech argument You really mean there is no first amendment argument. There is still an abstract free speech argument. Another example: SLAPP laws that effectively intimidate people into silence are a free speech issue but not a first amendment issue.

by maxk42 2y ago

wandaluzt 2y ago

Yeah I really regret using Cloudflare. It was in the back of my mind that they could 'throw me under the bus' to use a British colloquialism. I'm amazed that this can happen so easily in the US. I realise the US courts probably don't care about UK citizens, but free speech is free speech. I realise that's not without consequence, there's been nothing untrue said about this individual to warrant this action.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
How are US courts relevant in a case concerning a UK citizen being challenged by another UK citizen in the UK? From what I understand anyone in the UK can make claims, file cases, etc…, against anyone else. Edit: They may take action in another jurisdiction where they posesss some advantage, but it would have to be taken up in UK courts to actually mete out formal punishment.
- wandaluzt 2y ago
  Cloudflare is the middleman to my site. The individual got a court to issue a subpoena to Cloudflare, a US based company to find out the identity of the operators of the site.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    I edited the prior comment a minute after I posted it. How is that relevant when they would still need to go to a UK court to go after you in some way? Which is what you are afraid of, I’m assumming?
    - wandaluzt 2y ago
      At least in the UK a lawyer would tell him whether he had a case or not. At least I'd be dealing with the UK court system where I have some chance of understanding it. I also have legal insurance. I do not genuinely believe it would get to court. Cloudflare just handing over details is just chilling. They could have just asked me to take the content down.

r33b33 2y ago

Why not host in China or Mongolia or Russia and never have to deal with any of these issues?

wandaluzt 2y ago
I'd rather not give my money to any of them! I realise you're probably being ironic given the whole USA free speech thing.
- pas 2y ago
  No, it sounds like the kind of pragmatism required to uphold higher-order principles.

SahAssar 2y ago

> lack of defense of free speech in the US Free speech (as in the first amendment) allows you to say most things, it does not however compel others to broadcast or host your speech. So there is no free speech argument for a service provider to be required to host your website or protect it with a reverse proxy. You can speak, but nobody is required to give you a megaphone and nobody is required to listen.

wandaluzt 2y ago
No, but you wouldn't expect them to just hand over a users data just because some individual doesn't like the opinion someone has of them. There are consequences for free speech I totally understand that. Unfortunately the consequences for me are not going to be good.
- threatofrain 2y ago
  That's a violation of privacy problem, quite different from free speech. With all the vacuuming of user data, our data is leaking around all the time for all sorts of reasons, including just being sold. No subpoena required.
magnoliakobus 2y ago
Cloudflare is very happy to lend their megaphone and DDoS protection to people hosting nonconsensual pornography boards on the other hand. Along with a multitude of other sites that exist solely to traffic in human misery and exploitation. Even when you follow their processes to the letter to report them nothing comes of it.
janalsncm 2y ago
Free speech is an interface, the first amendment is an implementation. We can’t use them interchangeably. So when you say > there is no free speech argument You really mean there is no first amendment argument. There is still an abstract free speech argument. Another example: SLAPP laws that effectively intimidate people into silence are a free speech issue but not a first amendment issue.