6 ms·

I'm no fan of Cloudflare, but they're completely in the right on that. Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. Because if it's allowed to

I'm no fan of Cloudflare, but they're completely in the right on that. Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. Because if it's allowed to exist, it ends up subsumed by political and corporate interests, and becomes a tool of overreach and abuse. We've seen that happen over and over again. If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it.

em-bee 1y ago
it's not so much the US Trade Office, but this needs to be considered in any international trade agreements. blocking that interferes with access to legitimate sites that i might use to buy or sell products and communicate with potential customers should be a violation of these agreements.
pyrale 1y ago
> If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it. ...But, of course, US corporations enforcing the same kind of censoring is a-OK, because corporations are people and their censorship is free speech. I'll be open to your posititon the day Boticelli's Venus doesn't get censored on FB because there's a pair of tits somewhere on the painting.
- RobKohr 1y ago
  Facebook is a single website. Other websites can host it just fine. This is the same as blocking content on your own forum or comment section on your blog. Yes fb is huge, but still just a website, and one with fading popularity. Blocking ips on a network level is different.
  - ozgrakkurt 1y ago
    Facebook isn’t just a website. Like whatsapp isn’t just a messaging app and visa/mastercard aren’t just some of the credit card companies.
    - grayhatter 1y ago
      I see the comparison you're trying to draw, and I don't agree. People use FB because other people use it. There's a lot more complexity, and algorithm fuled habits. But in the end, FB provides the service of communication and content recommendations. Using that attention, it can sell ads. Without that willingness to give attention, they can't sell ads. There are no significant hurdles to starting a social media site. Credit card processors facilitate payments from one group to a different group. They aren't an endpoint, they are middle men. They don't need to court the attention of users, they are in a position of power it where they can interfere with the lives of others, and have formed a coalition with a total monopoly over the digital trade of money. Good luck starting a competitor while attempting to shun PCI compliance. If I never use FB, I can still interact with friends, family, buy and sell ads. If I never use a credit card... I've been cut off from the vast majority of the things that I would buy. It's reasonable for different rules to apply to groups with vastly different powers. I wouldn't expect Google to be held to the same standard that I hold PG&E. Nor would I hold PG&E to the same restrictions I'd place on Google.
  - robocat 1y ago
    > fading popularity You made that up, or you checked stats? A quick Google says that Facebook is still growing at about 5% and that Meta revenue is up a lot.
    - iwontberude 1y ago
      Facebook MAU is down from 3.65 B to 3.06 B in the last year
      - robocat 1y ago
        Yet I just found an article that said that MAU was 3.065 in 2023 and 2024 and 3.07 in 2025 (i.e. MAU is flat not decreasing). Did you drop a zero? AFAIK there is no consensus that Facebook usage is declining - however that narritive gets told by people. Of course, it might depend on which country you look at.
        iwontberude 1y ago
        My bad, I was conflating Meta total MAU from a single time period in 2023. Damned AI slop websites.
- iamnothere 1y ago
  Whataboutism. I am no fan of CF or current US trade policy, but I’ll take whatever wins we can get when it comes to internet freedom.
  - pyrale 1y ago
    There is no win in using this administration to strong-arm other countries into giving tech corps some sort of extraterritoriality. Yes, Spain is screwing up. But it is the responsibility of Spanish electors to fix the mess. Any alternative involving the US department of State should be fought.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Not to mention that several US states have various sorts of adult content bans.
cowboy_henk 1y ago
That's a bit rich coming from Cloudflare, a company that routinely blocks access to important and legitimate websites to huge parts of the world. A huge part of Cloudflare's customers use them specifically to block users' access to websites.
- arcanemachiner 1y ago
  Gotta take your wins when you can get them.
- rsingel 1y ago
  There's a big difference between a company making that decision (an edge provider) vs a country doing that at the network level. The rub comes in that nations, including the U.S., have laws about what they seem illegal content or services and reserve the right to force those to be blocked. In Thailand that might be criticism of the king; in the U.S., pirated TV streams; in another country, that could be gambling sites. Cloudflare seems to be trying to stop blocking that is trade protectionism, but is blocking overseas gambling sites trade protection or a legit state interest in protecting its citizens?
  - MichaelZuo 1y ago
    Why is there a “big difference”? Cloudflare has a significant enough marketshare it doesn’t seem to make a meaningful difference whether it’s blocked at this or that level, for the vast majority of end users.
- Moto7451 1y ago
  As someone who has had to implement these blocks, it’s not generally done because anyone wants to, it’s because someone passed a law that requires us to do it. I don’t get to override the ITAR or Entities list just because I don’t feel it’s fair someone is on it.
  - stevenicr 1y ago
    Didn't CF CEO post in March 2019 that they were going to start working with govts on suggestions for how to implement laws that would get them to block things people didn't like?
CGMthrowaway 1y ago
> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. Isn't that exactly what Cloudflare is, in part? They happily block "malicious" traffic
- nozzlegear 1y ago
  They block traffic reaching your website, not the other way around. For a poor, nitpickable analogy: they keep the bad guys out of your home, but they don't want to take away homes from the bad guys.
  - CGMthrowaway 1y ago
    We all know the definition of "bad guy" shifts every four years or less I get what you're saying (they're affording access to info, not access for people) but you can't have one without the other.
  - immibis 1y ago
    With your analogy, they aim to keep the "bad guys" out of all homes, which is the same thing as saying those guys can't have homes. Also the "bad guys" group you're referring to includes, like, my cousin Jake because he accidentally crashed his pushbike into a car once when he was 6, but doesn't include Adolf Hitler for some reason.
    - nozzlegear 1y ago
      I'm glad I had the foresight to categorize my analogy as "nitpickable," otherwise I'd feel the need to defend it.
- ACCount37 1y ago
  Part of the reason I don't like Cloudflare. Their "black hole the entire country" function is a function no company should provide.
  - yachad 1y ago
pjc50 1y ago
> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply because it's hosted in a different country. Not even the US really believes that domestically .. or even when it comes to overseas enforcement, such as sending the FBI to New Zealand to get Kim Dotcom. Or the Pokerstars case. Not to mention I am really skeptical of the magic invocation of "trade" to overrule national sovereignty. That leads you to stupid places such as Philip Morris trying to use the ISDS process to force Australia to accept an inherently poisonous product (fortunately they eventually lost). https://www.linklaters.com/insights/blogs/arbitrationlinks/2017/august/the-conclusion-of-the-phillip-morris-v-australia-saga https://www.linklaters.com/insights/blogs/arbitrationlinks/2...
- immibis 1y ago
  Nobody's saying the government shouldn't be able to go after the owner of the site and force them to shut it down. It definitely shouldn't be done by third parties though.
  - mike-cardwell 1y ago
    How does the US government, force a Russian website, hosted in Russia, for Russian people, following Russian laws, to shut down?
    - malfist 1y ago
      It doesn't.
    - hereme888 1y ago
      Dove a bit into this topic superficially out of curiosity. Maybe not shut it down but greatly limit reach: - Domain Name Seizures via ICANN and registrars - Political/legal pressure on CDNs, SSL certificate providers, bandwidth providers. - Propaganda and legal labeling ("malicious actor", "foreign agent", "terrorist") - There are technical workarounds to keep the page up within Russia's sovereign internet (Runet).
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
so for example Germany should not be allowed to block neo-nazi sites? illegal gambling sites in country X must be allowed if they are legal in country Y - Y being America I guess. >it ends up subsumed by political and corporate interests I believe the term for this is legislated by the laws of particular lands and regions. Essentially Cloudflare tells U.S Government to set the rules for rest of world please.
- RobotToaster 1y ago
  > illegal gambling sites in country X must be allowed if they are legal in country Y - Y being America I guess. Other way around, actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigua#Online_gambling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigua#Online_gambling
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
exasperaited 1y ago
> If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it. So by implication you're actually completely fine with other countries pursuing their own objectives for businesses that choose to trade in their country. Because you cannot, possibly, in 2025, be making an argument that the USA's interpretation of the way of things is unimpeachable. That would be absurd and laughable. I look forward to you explaining to Germans and Israelis why Nazi symbols and Nazi websites should be legal because banning them hurts a US tech company's interests. I'm pretty sure you will receive a variety of opinions, some of them in large fonts with an invitation to print them and roll them up for storage.
- jalk 1y ago
  You are missing the point. Blocking a CDN providers IP range, means blocking all the websites using the CDN - not just the nazi-poster.com.
  - youngtaff 1y ago
    Well then perhaps the CDN shouldn’t be protecting those sites?
    - jalk 1y ago
      Different countries have different laws regarding what falls under freedom of speech. The CDN providers say they take a net-neutrality stance. If a court order from a specific country tells them to block certain sites, I'm pretty sure they will comply, but only for clients coming from within that country.
      - youngtaff 1y ago
        I’m pretty sure running pirate streams of soccer games doesn’t fall under freedom of speech
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    This is quite close to the whole Nazi bar analogy isn't it? You run a bar. You let anyone in, and some of your customers are a bit edgy. But one day, Nazis start using your bar for their regular gathering and you don't kick them out. Congratulations: now you have a Nazi bar.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
warkdarrior 1y ago
And on the plus side, all those efforts to block AI-scraping bots will be deemed illegal trade barriers.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nkrisc 1y ago
If content can be delivered over the internet, then content can also not be delivered over the internet. The only question is how surgical the ban hammer is. Some countries simply disconnect themselves from the global internet on occasion to prevent content from being delivered.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

em-bee 1y ago

it's not so much the US Trade Office, but this needs to be considered in any international trade agreements. blocking that interferes with access to legitimate sites that i might use to buy or sell products and communicate with potential customers should be a violation of these agreements.

pyrale 1y ago

> If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it. ...But, of course, US corporations enforcing the same kind of censoring is a-OK, because corporations are people and their censorship is free speech. I'll be open to your posititon the day Boticelli's Venus doesn't get censored on FB because there's a pair of tits somewhere on the painting.

RobKohr 1y ago
Facebook is a single website. Other websites can host it just fine. This is the same as blocking content on your own forum or comment section on your blog. Yes fb is huge, but still just a website, and one with fading popularity. Blocking ips on a network level is different.
- ozgrakkurt 1y ago
  Facebook isn’t just a website. Like whatsapp isn’t just a messaging app and visa/mastercard aren’t just some of the credit card companies.
  - grayhatter 1y ago
    I see the comparison you're trying to draw, and I don't agree. People use FB because other people use it. There's a lot more complexity, and algorithm fuled habits. But in the end, FB provides the service of communication and content recommendations. Using that attention, it can sell ads. Without that willingness to give attention, they can't sell ads. There are no significant hurdles to starting a social media site. Credit card processors facilitate payments from one group to a different group. They aren't an endpoint, they are middle men. They don't need to court the attention of users, they are in a position of power it where they can interfere with the lives of others, and have formed a coalition with a total monopoly over the digital trade of money. Good luck starting a competitor while attempting to shun PCI compliance. If I never use FB, I can still interact with friends, family, buy and sell ads. If I never use a credit card... I've been cut off from the vast majority of the things that I would buy. It's reasonable for different rules to apply to groups with vastly different powers. I wouldn't expect Google to be held to the same standard that I hold PG&E. Nor would I hold PG&E to the same restrictions I'd place on Google.
- robocat 1y ago
  > fading popularity You made that up, or you checked stats? A quick Google says that Facebook is still growing at about 5% and that Meta revenue is up a lot.
  - iwontberude 1y ago
    Facebook MAU is down from 3.65 B to 3.06 B in the last year
    - robocat 1y ago
      Yet I just found an article that said that MAU was 3.065 in 2023 and 2024 and 3.07 in 2025 (i.e. MAU is flat not decreasing). Did you drop a zero? AFAIK there is no consensus that Facebook usage is declining - however that narritive gets told by people. Of course, it might depend on which country you look at.
      - iwontberude 1y ago
        My bad, I was conflating Meta total MAU from a single time period in 2023. Damned AI slop websites.
iamnothere 1y ago
Whataboutism. I am no fan of CF or current US trade policy, but I’ll take whatever wins we can get when it comes to internet freedom.
- pyrale 1y ago
  There is no win in using this administration to strong-arm other countries into giving tech corps some sort of extraterritoriality. Yes, Spain is screwing up. But it is the responsibility of Spanish electors to fix the mess. Any alternative involving the US department of State should be fought.
pjc50 1y ago
Not to mention that several US states have various sorts of adult content bans.

cowboy_henk 1y ago

That's a bit rich coming from Cloudflare, a company that routinely blocks access to important and legitimate websites to huge parts of the world. A huge part of Cloudflare's customers use them specifically to block users' access to websites.

arcanemachiner 1y ago
Gotta take your wins when you can get them.
rsingel 1y ago
There's a big difference between a company making that decision (an edge provider) vs a country doing that at the network level. The rub comes in that nations, including the U.S., have laws about what they seem illegal content or services and reserve the right to force those to be blocked. In Thailand that might be criticism of the king; in the U.S., pirated TV streams; in another country, that could be gambling sites. Cloudflare seems to be trying to stop blocking that is trade protectionism, but is blocking overseas gambling sites trade protection or a legit state interest in protecting its citizens?
- MichaelZuo 1y ago
  Why is there a “big difference”? Cloudflare has a significant enough marketshare it doesn’t seem to make a meaningful difference whether it’s blocked at this or that level, for the vast majority of end users.
Moto7451 1y ago
As someone who has had to implement these blocks, it’s not generally done because anyone wants to, it’s because someone passed a law that requires us to do it. I don’t get to override the ITAR or Entities list just because I don’t feel it’s fair someone is on it.
- stevenicr 1y ago
  Didn't CF CEO post in March 2019 that they were going to start working with govts on suggestions for how to implement laws that would get them to block things people didn't like?

CGMthrowaway 1y ago

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. Isn't that exactly what Cloudflare is, in part? They happily block "malicious" traffic

nozzlegear 1y ago
They block traffic reaching your website, not the other way around. For a poor, nitpickable analogy: they keep the bad guys out of your home, but they don't want to take away homes from the bad guys.
- CGMthrowaway 1y ago
  We all know the definition of "bad guy" shifts every four years or less I get what you're saying (they're affording access to info, not access for people) but you can't have one without the other.
- immibis 1y ago
  With your analogy, they aim to keep the "bad guys" out of all homes, which is the same thing as saying those guys can't have homes. Also the "bad guys" group you're referring to includes, like, my cousin Jake because he accidentally crashed his pushbike into a car once when he was 6, but doesn't include Adolf Hitler for some reason.
  - nozzlegear 1y ago
    I'm glad I had the foresight to categorize my analogy as "nitpickable," otherwise I'd feel the need to defend it.
ACCount37 1y ago
Part of the reason I don't like Cloudflare. Their "black hole the entire country" function is a function no company should provide.
- yachad 1y ago

pjc50 1y ago

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply because it's hosted in a different country. Not even the US really believes that domestically .. or even when it comes to overseas enforcement, such as sending the FBI to New Zealand to get Kim Dotcom. Or the Pokerstars case. Not to mention I am really skeptical of the magic invocation of "trade" to overrule national sovereignty. That leads you to stupid places such as Philip Morris trying to use the ISDS process to force Australia to accept an inherently poisonous product (fortunately they eventually lost). https://www.linklaters.com/insights/blogs/arbitrationlinks/2017/august/the-conclusion-of-the-phillip-morris-v-australia-saga https://www.linklaters.com/insights/blogs/arbitrationlinks/2...

immibis 1y ago
Nobody's saying the government shouldn't be able to go after the owner of the site and force them to shut it down. It definitely shouldn't be done by third parties though.
- mike-cardwell 1y ago
  How does the US government, force a Russian website, hosted in Russia, for Russian people, following Russian laws, to shut down?
  - malfist 1y ago
    It doesn't.
  - hereme888 1y ago
    Dove a bit into this topic superficially out of curiosity. Maybe not shut it down but greatly limit reach: - Domain Name Seizures via ICANN and registrars - Political/legal pressure on CDNs, SSL certificate providers, bandwidth providers. - Propaganda and legal labeling ("malicious actor", "foreign agent", "terrorist") - There are technical workarounds to keep the page up within Russia's sovereign internet (Runet).

bryanrasmussen 1y ago

so for example Germany should not be allowed to block neo-nazi sites? illegal gambling sites in country X must be allowed if they are legal in country Y - Y being America I guess. >it ends up subsumed by political and corporate interests I believe the term for this is legislated by the laws of particular lands and regions. Essentially Cloudflare tells U.S Government to set the rules for rest of world please.

RobotToaster 1y ago
> illegal gambling sites in country X must be allowed if they are legal in country Y - Y being America I guess. Other way around, actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigua#Online_gambling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigua#Online_gambling
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

exasperaited 1y ago

> If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it. So by implication you're actually completely fine with other countries pursuing their own objectives for businesses that choose to trade in their country. Because you cannot, possibly, in 2025, be making an argument that the USA's interpretation of the way of things is unimpeachable. That would be absurd and laughable. I look forward to you explaining to Germans and Israelis why Nazi symbols and Nazi websites should be legal because banning them hurts a US tech company's interests. I'm pretty sure you will receive a variety of opinions, some of them in large fonts with an invitation to print them and roll them up for storage.

jalk 1y ago
You are missing the point. Blocking a CDN providers IP range, means blocking all the websites using the CDN - not just the nazi-poster.com.
- youngtaff 1y ago
  Well then perhaps the CDN shouldn’t be protecting those sites?
  - jalk 1y ago
    Different countries have different laws regarding what falls under freedom of speech. The CDN providers say they take a net-neutrality stance. If a court order from a specific country tells them to block certain sites, I'm pretty sure they will comply, but only for clients coming from within that country.
    - youngtaff 1y ago
      I’m pretty sure running pirate streams of soccer games doesn’t fall under freedom of speech
- exasperaited 1y ago
  This is quite close to the whole Nazi bar analogy isn't it? You run a bar. You let anyone in, and some of your customers are a bit edgy. But one day, Nazis start using your bar for their regular gathering and you don't kick them out. Congratulations: now you have a Nazi bar.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

warkdarrior 1y ago

And on the plus side, all those efforts to block AI-scraping bots will be deemed illegal trade barriers.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

nkrisc 1y ago

If content can be delivered over the internet, then content can also not be delivered over the internet. The only question is how surgical the ban hammer is. Some countries simply disconnect themselves from the global internet on occasion to prevent content from being delivered.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]