Off topic, but any regrets on getting involved in content policing? It always sat with me as wrong and a disturbing precedent that an internet backbone service such as yourselves would make it their business to shut down unsavory yet legal speech.
“We had to have the conversation now because at some point we’ll be a public company. We had to prompt that discussion,” said Prince, who added “we want to be ready internally by July 2018,” for a possible stock offering.
CNBC Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/24/cloudflare-ceo-matthew-princ...
Editorials discussing the event: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/where-to-draw-the-li...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-...
In that case, they still would have been taken down because of the illegal content, even if at an (extremely simplistic) surface level the timing seems to indicate otherwise.
Dosninja.com for example (there are dozens, though not all Cloudflare protected).
Unlike "free speech" sites, the entire point of a DDoS-for-hire site is to suppress speech.
Nice to be able to get it both ways!
Nor was/is there any debate about the legality of doing so,
So the only reason for continuing to work for/with violent anti-semites was that they wanted to. Until, at some point, they changed their mind.
HN has a strange infatuation with this idea of avoiding responsibility by pretending to be powerless. But it's neither morally sound nor logically or legally coherent to pretend to be bound by some principles that are entirely of one's own making.
Precedents aren't limited to the legal system. Their actions changed the expectation (ie established a new precedent) for their behavior going forward.
> So the only reason for continuing to work for/with violent anti-semites was that they wanted to.
Or entertaining broader ideals surrounding freedom of expression? Or perhaps seeing the inherent dangers of living in a society dominated by public outrage? Or something else entirely?
> Until, at some point, they changed their mind.
Due, by their own admission, to financial concerns. Concerns which wouldn't exist if they and all their competitors were legally required not to discriminate based on otherwise legal content.
> HN has a strange infatuation with this idea of avoiding responsibility by pretending to be powerless.
I don't see that anywhere in this comment section? Rather, I see people objecting to actions which are legal but which they feel should not be.