5 ms·
> "We don’t do anything to thwart the content restrictions in China or other countries," said Matthew Prince, chief executive of CloudFlare. "We’re a tech compa
by hackuser 12y ago
> "We don’t do anything to thwart the content restrictions in China or other countries," said Matthew Prince, chief executive of CloudFlare. "We’re a tech company and we comply with the law."
There's a popular idea that businesses (and people) have no responsibilities to anyone but themselves, because what they have is theirs; they built it themselves. But if you think about it a little, it's obviously false. Here's a more accurate statement:
We're a tech company whose success is completely dependent on the freedoms in our nation and many other nations around the world, and on the political and economic systems, infrastructure, and enormous wealth that blossomed from them. Without the sacrifices of blood and treasure by our predecessors of hundreds of years, and of many people today, we would not have these resources or opportunities today. There are many talented people born in many countries who, without these benefits, have no opportunity for success.
They can't sacrifice their company for every principle, every time, but there's a middle ground between that and 'we're just a tech company so we have no responsibilities'.
- toomuchtodo 12y agoThat's an optimistic view. My take on it is "market share|revenue > human rights". EDIT: It turns out Lantern was using an exploit at Cloudflare [+], and wasn't a customer. My apologies /u/eastdakota. [+] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9234367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9234367
- LLWM 12y agoWhat counts as human rights is subjective. The UN says that it is a human right to receive and express opinions through any medium. Does that mean that we should hold "human rights" to be more important than revenue and forbid service providers from charging for access to information? Like the WSJ who wrote the article that's supposedly to blame here?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- 1ris 12y agoIf you don't hold human rights over revenue, what's your view on slavery?
- Kalium 12y agoIt's economically inefficient, as well as anti-human-rights?
- rmc 12y agoActually, there is some evidence that slavery was very economically efficient. 'The Half Has Never Been Told' by E Baptist lays out how enslaved labour picked much more cotton than the then free labour.
- Kalium 12y agoInteresting! I'll look it up. That was then, though. Now, when skilled labor is of greater importance and unskilled labor of comparatively little value, I submit that things may well be very different.
- fleitz 12y agoI'm sure whatever country you do live and pay taxes in has at some point in the recent past violated someone's human rights, or at least they have in someone's opinion. Given that the country you live in has violated human rights to some extent, and that you could reduce your contribution to that by not earning taxable income or purchasing taxable goods, is it not also your defacto position that you value revenue over human rights? (My apologies in advance if you've ceased paying taxes, or buying anything taxable, or if somehow no one in the world believes your country has violated human rights, or might do so in the future, or your position is that revenue > human rights) My point is that the world is a lot more grey than you make it out to be, and that you are also in some way likely valuing revenue over some human rights abuses.
- LLWM 12y agoWhen AI becomes sufficiently advanced, it will get its revenge.
- dmix 12y agoMore accurately "market share|revenue > political activism"
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- 1ris 12y agoAnd in this case political activism = human rights.
- grandalf 12y ago> There's a popular idea that businesses (and people) have no responsibilities to anyone but themselves. It's not just a popular idea, it's why they are created as firms instead of philanthropies. There is a difference and it does matter what the expectations of the donors/investors are. > We're a tech company whose success is completely dependent on the freedoms in our nation... This sounds great but how is it reflected in company policies? > They can't sacrifice their company for every principle, every time, but there's a middle ground between that 'we're just a tech company so we have no responsibilities'. A company could easily make a statement to its investors about its moral stance on issues that it expects might harm the bottom line. The company does have responsibility to its investors not to go rogue and burn cash just because it feels good. Most of the time the kind of corporate behavior that you praise is actually clever PR that costs the companies little.
- Frondo 12y agoEveryone has a responsibility to the world around them. It may not be coded into law, but it is still a true statement.
- grandalf 12y agoNot sure how you thought my sentiments disagree with that.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- dreamweapon 12y agoIt's why they are created as firms instead of philanthropies. A false dichotomy.
- grandalf 12y ago> A false dichotomy. I'm curious about your reasoning behind this statement.
- hackuser 12y agoReplying to my own comment (I'm too late to edit it). My comment is about that concept in general, not about Cloudflare in particular. I don't pretend to know and won't judge Cloudflare based on one sentence taken out of context. For all I know they are excellent members of the community; in fact they could do be doing good things behind the scenes without publicizing it, which might be wise if they are as exposed to China as other commenters say.
- wpietri 12y agoMoreover, I'm not sure their argument makes sense even on its face. When they say they "comply with the law", which law do they mean? There are many thousands of lawmaking bodies. What if a small-town mayor passes a law outlawing the word "webinar"? What if China passes a law saying that DDOS protection is illegal worldwide? Or websites not properly registered with the Central Propaganda Department may not be carried by any network provider? Cloudflare, I'm sure, will happily ignore any laws like that. The question is: why not ignore this too?
- sdm 12y ago> What if China passes a law saying that DDOS protection is illegal worldwide? Jurisdiction.
- dragonwriter 12y agoThe wonderful thing about sovereignty is that a country's law's jurisdiction is whatever the country decides they it should be. The degree to which they can practically enforce that jurisdiction becomes a game of relative power and how willing others are to constrain it, of course.
- e12e 12y agoYou forgot that their success is also built on the oppression of the Chinese, and low salaries etc that gives the rest of the world affordable hardware (and rare-earth minerals, metals, etc). Not commenting on what CloudFare should or should not do, just indicating that your high horse actually has longer legs than you gave it credit for.