6 ms·

The appeal to JD Vance is properly craven and validates the view that their business model is effectively a protection racket. Recall the unsavoury episode wit

The appeal to JD Vance is properly craven and validates the view that their business model is effectively a protection racket. Recall the unsavoury episode with taviso, when they lobbied the FTC to investigate him after he helped clean up their mess during Cloudbleed. They always pivot to aggression when challenged.

shwaj 9mo ago
I’m not sure whose business model you’re referring to, Cloudflare or Trump/Vance? Or sounds like the former, but I’m not sure how that appeal “validates the view…”.
- goodrubyist 9mo ago
  He's very likely being defensive.
idopmstuff 9mo ago
I mean I dislike JD Vance as much as the next guy, but I don't see how it's unreasonable to appeal to the federal government for assistance in dealing with international legal issues. That's very much in the government's remit.
- croes 9mo ago
  Lawyers are for legal issues. Do you call your government if you get a fine in a foreign country? Unless it’s life threatening I doubt that.
  - Alupis 9mo ago
    You do when the fine is more than double your annual revenue in the foreign nation, has international and geopolitical implications, impacts many other US businesses, could harm foreign relations, and will harm regular US citizens. That's exactly the type of thing the Executive Branch is supposed to deal with.
    - Pedro_Ribeiro 9mo ago
      Do people not understand that companies on this scale are geopolitically important?
      - tag2103 9mo ago
        The Italians obviously don't
      - oytis 9mo ago
        I mean, that's an argument for making them respect your country's laws or banning them from your country if they don't want to.
      - jacquesm 9mo ago
        They're not.
      - oaiey 9mo ago
        Thank they should act like it and respect the laws of the countries. If you run to the US executive to assert US understanding of law onto other countries you are geopolitical important, however, as a tool for the US national interest not as a true international company. A true international company would serve their customers in their legal systems. Fight the laws there, try to make them better, but don't strongarm them with other country forces. They are a sovereign country.
        ta9000 9mo ago
        Italy should have no right to take a website off the internet globally, which from what I’ve read this allows them to do. That’s insane.
        oaiey 9mo ago
        They have all right to sanction or restrict a company which has a legal footprint in their territory. When you are incorporating as a company in a country you are subject to their laws. Period. If that includes rules how you act worldwide, than that is a part of it. Do not get me wrong, restricting free speech or apply IP law outside your territory is IMHO not right for a country to do.
  - idopmstuff 9mo ago
    Well first off, generally if you are arrested in another country you would in fact call your government. Most people do this, and it'd be foolish not to. If you get sued for a large amount of money or defrauded or face any number of other issues, also reasonable to call your government. Anyway, not a great comparison because you're talking about legal regulations governing speech on the internet. This isn't a jaywalking ticket, it's a deeply complex regulatory issue involving politics, law and international relations. It's also an issue that the current administration has shown interest in, so if you're an affected American business it would be pretty foolish not to seek help there.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
PUSH_AX 9mo ago
How is CFs business model a protection racket?
- oaiey 9mo ago
  JD Vance business is a protection racket. That is how I read it
kentonv 9mo ago
> when they lobbied the FTC to investigate him FYI Cloudflare didn't actually do that: https://x.com/eastdakota/status/1566160152684011520 https://x.com/eastdakota/status/1566160152684011520 (Disclosure: I work at Cloudflare but have no personal involvement with this.)
- ta9000 9mo ago
  Right. I guess we’ll have to take his word for it.
  - kentonv 9mo ago
    Not sure if my word is any better but I wouldn't be working for him if I thought he was the kind of person who harasses security researchers.
Aeglaecia 9mo ago
while the spirit of your statement is clear , i dont think its 'properly craven' to recognise both an individual's faults and their strengths - in this case the author goes to lengths to state he does not necessarily agree with either musk or vance. has anybody successfully recieved protection from this US administration while acknowledging fault of said administration ? from outside this doesnt seem likely as US politics is currently operating like team sports (ie. no tolerance of toeing party lines, 'youre either with us or against us')
hodgesrm 9mo ago
> The appeal to JD Vance is properly craven and validates the view that their business model is effectively a protection racket. It's not craven, it's a mistake. It needlessly antagonizes the market at large to solve a smaller problem. I don't see how this benefits Cloudflare in the long run unless they've decided to throw in their lot with the current US regime. If so, what happens when that regime changes?

shwaj 9mo ago

I’m not sure whose business model you’re referring to, Cloudflare or Trump/Vance? Or sounds like the former, but I’m not sure how that appeal “validates the view…”.

goodrubyist 9mo ago
He's very likely being defensive.

idopmstuff 9mo ago

I mean I dislike JD Vance as much as the next guy, but I don't see how it's unreasonable to appeal to the federal government for assistance in dealing with international legal issues. That's very much in the government's remit.

croes 9mo ago
Lawyers are for legal issues. Do you call your government if you get a fine in a foreign country? Unless it’s life threatening I doubt that.
- Alupis 9mo ago
  You do when the fine is more than double your annual revenue in the foreign nation, has international and geopolitical implications, impacts many other US businesses, could harm foreign relations, and will harm regular US citizens. That's exactly the type of thing the Executive Branch is supposed to deal with.
  - Pedro_Ribeiro 9mo ago
    Do people not understand that companies on this scale are geopolitically important?
    - tag2103 9mo ago
      The Italians obviously don't
    - oytis 9mo ago
      I mean, that's an argument for making them respect your country's laws or banning them from your country if they don't want to.
    - jacquesm 9mo ago
      They're not.
    - oaiey 9mo ago
      Thank they should act like it and respect the laws of the countries. If you run to the US executive to assert US understanding of law onto other countries you are geopolitical important, however, as a tool for the US national interest not as a true international company. A true international company would serve their customers in their legal systems. Fight the laws there, try to make them better, but don't strongarm them with other country forces. They are a sovereign country.
      - ta9000 9mo ago
        Italy should have no right to take a website off the internet globally, which from what I’ve read this allows them to do. That’s insane.
        oaiey 9mo ago
        They have all right to sanction or restrict a company which has a legal footprint in their territory. When you are incorporating as a company in a country you are subject to their laws. Period. If that includes rules how you act worldwide, than that is a part of it. Do not get me wrong, restricting free speech or apply IP law outside your territory is IMHO not right for a country to do.
- idopmstuff 9mo ago
  Well first off, generally if you are arrested in another country you would in fact call your government. Most people do this, and it'd be foolish not to. If you get sued for a large amount of money or defrauded or face any number of other issues, also reasonable to call your government. Anyway, not a great comparison because you're talking about legal regulations governing speech on the internet. This isn't a jaywalking ticket, it's a deeply complex regulatory issue involving politics, law and international relations. It's also an issue that the current administration has shown interest in, so if you're an affected American business it would be pretty foolish not to seek help there.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

PUSH_AX 9mo ago

How is CFs business model a protection racket?

oaiey 9mo ago
JD Vance business is a protection racket. That is how I read it

kentonv 9mo ago

> when they lobbied the FTC to investigate him FYI Cloudflare didn't actually do that: https://x.com/eastdakota/status/1566160152684011520 https://x.com/eastdakota/status/1566160152684011520 (Disclosure: I work at Cloudflare but have no personal involvement with this.)

ta9000 9mo ago
Right. I guess we’ll have to take his word for it.
- kentonv 9mo ago
  Not sure if my word is any better but I wouldn't be working for him if I thought he was the kind of person who harasses security researchers.

Aeglaecia 9mo ago

while the spirit of your statement is clear , i dont think its 'properly craven' to recognise both an individual's faults and their strengths - in this case the author goes to lengths to state he does not necessarily agree with either musk or vance. has anybody successfully recieved protection from this US administration while acknowledging fault of said administration ? from outside this doesnt seem likely as US politics is currently operating like team sports (ie. no tolerance of toeing party lines, 'youre either with us or against us')

hodgesrm 9mo ago

> The appeal to JD Vance is properly craven and validates the view that their business model is effectively a protection racket. It's not craven, it's a mistake. It needlessly antagonizes the market at large to solve a smaller problem. I don't see how this benefits Cloudflare in the long run unless they've decided to throw in their lot with the current US regime. If so, what happens when that regime changes?