This is the second time in recent memory that this guy has been worked up by his political feelings and saw his company as a tool to punish his opponents.
As a CloudFlare user, this worries me. This is childish. Adults don't pull this crap.
Seriously, this is just part of the "innovation" Ajit is promoting. There will be nothing to stop Comcast from throttling sites for political reasons. CloudFlare will not be the only one to shape internet traffic for personal gain.
In what whacky moral universe is this okay?
Most parents smack this out of their kids by the time they're 4.
Frankly, if my son suggested a means of demonstration as outlined here, I'd reward him for it. If he suggested violence against kids was ok, on the other hand? He'd never hear the end of it.
I think it's perfectly fair, if legal under all current laws.
"This is the future you want" doesn't sink in until your kids are bitching every day that YouTube is buffering.
"How much of the problem is real and how much of it is inflicted by activists who are willing to burn down the world in order to 'win'?"
Considering the wider circumstances of net neutrality and the consequences it will have, especially on the poor and less educated, I don't have any problem morally with Ajit Pai having a brief encounter with the negative consequences his actions will have upon millions.
In general, I don't think there's much to be gained by discussion morals here though, and we shouldn't expect our morals to align exactly.
Just to make it crystal clear for the morally-challenged: if you "smack something out of" your 1, 2, 3, or 4 year old, the police will be called, CPS will be called, you will go to jail, and you will appear before a judge to explain why you shouldn't lose custody of your own kids.
I think, though, a more effective strategy would be to throttle the entire congressional netblock.
1) Nazis, generally 2) Forces trying to literally dismantle the Internet as it has been known for decades
These seem like extraordinary enemies against which extraordinary means are justified.
1) He hosted nazi websites, without action even though it was reprehensible speech.
2) He dumped those clients, when they insinuated that Cloudflare was on their side.
That makes it slander, and insinuation that Cloudflare is a Nazi Sympathiser.
I would expect the CEO of such a firm to do something immediately to take care of his firms share holders and its reputation.
He did just that, and improved its image as a result.
How is that a problem? I would expect all firms to act like that, or be known as Nazi sympathisers.
Here's CEO Matthew Price in his own words:
"Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet."
The reaction at the time was the same as the reaction here: I'm glad this guy's against Nazis, but he picked a very infantile way to show it.
People who run their businesses on CloudFlare get a little uneasy when they see a CEO randomly turning off websites because he "woke up in a bad mood".
And instead said something along the lines of “picked a way to showcase his virtue” without the comment on business owners.
The Nazis don't agree.
The polite term for this is "concept creep".
If the only way you can defend your position is by invoking apocalyptic rhetoric, you might want to pick another hill to die on.
Regardless of your opinions on net neutrality, a roll back to 2015-era regulatory policy is not an extinction-level event. Obviously.
And now he’s suggesting violence. Ooph.
You got all this information from a one sentence Tweet?
> As a CloudFlare user, this worries me. This is childish. Adults don't pull this crap.
It's a form of peaceful protest. Was it childish when sites blacked themselves out to protest the web piracy bill? Were they abusing their powers too?
Don’t debate it on its face.
I don't agree with the tactic, but I think you've misunderstood whats being talked about.